Accepting Expert Engagement (Action 1) → Unlicensed Practice Determination Made (Event 5)
Attorney X Present Case Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification Deficiency
Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification Capability
Attorney X failed to exercise the capability to verify whether Engineer A held the licensure required by State M's licensing statute before retaining Engineer A to provide expert services in State M, contributing to the licensure compliance failure.
Attorney X contacted Engineer A seeking non-engineering expert services in State M, where Engineer A was not licensed, without verifying the licensure implications of the credential designation Engineer A would use.
Attorney X retained Engineer A for expert services in State M without verifying Engineer A's licensure status in State M or the implications of the credential designation used.
Attorney X, as the retaining attorney, bore a responsibility to verify whether Engineer A held the licensure required by State M's licensing statute.
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services.
Attorney X Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification
Attorney X possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to verify whether Engineer A held the licensure required by State M's licensing statute before retaining Engineer A to provide expert services in State M
Attorney X retained Engineer A as a forensic expert for State M proceedings without verifying Engineer A's licensure status in State M, where licensure was statutorily required for expert witnesses
Contacting Engineer A and retaining Engineer A to provide expert testimony in State M without verifying that Engineer A was licensed in State M, despite State M's statutory requirement that expert witnesses be licensed in State M
Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M.
The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
Attorney X Retaining Attorney Licensure Verification Present Case
Attorney X contacted Engineer A seeking a 'non-engineering expert' for testimony in State M, suggesting awareness that engineering licensure might be relevant, but the record does not indicate that Attorney X verified Engineer A's State M licensure status or informed Engineer A of the statutory requirement.
Attorney X, as the retaining attorney, bore a responsibility to verify whether Engineer A held the licensure required by State M's licensing statute before retaining Engineer A to provide expert testimony in State M, and to inform Engineer A of the State M licensure requirement at the outset of the engagement.
Prior to retaining Engineer A and at the outset of the engagement
{'jurisdiction': 'State M', 'engagement_framing': 'Sought non-engineering expert framing for a licensed engineer', 'role_type': 'Legal counsel / client'}
Attorney who contacted Engineer A seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M, thereby initiating an engagement that placed Engineer A in a position of potential unlicensed practice and credential misrepresentation.
{'type': 'provider', 'target': 'Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness'}
Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
Attorney X contacting Engineer A before Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case
BER Case 20-1 before present case analysis
Board-Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering Credential
National Academy of Forensic Engineers — Diplomate Certification Framework
Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
Engineer A is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering
Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
Engineer A in professional self-representation on the expert report
The credential used by Engineer A in signing the report in lieu of any reference to licensure status, raising the ethical question of whether specialty certification can substitute for or obscure required licensure disclosure in expert testimony contexts
Board-Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
Board-Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering Certification Requirements
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.
BER in determining that Engineer A's use of the credential title was ethically and legally problematic in State M
Referenced to establish that the credential of Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering requires the holder to be a licensed Professional Engineer, making use of the credential in an unlicensed jurisdiction an implicit claim of licensure
{'context': 'BER Case 04-11, Situation 1', 'licensed_states': ['B', 'C', 'D'], 'card_deficiency': 'No physical address listed'}
Licensed in States B, C, and D; handed out business cards at a meeting in State E with no physical address listed, creating confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure status.
{'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'Board of Ethical Review'}
Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E
the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure
Case 04-11 Engineer Situation 1 Business Card Licensure Clarity Deficiency
Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
The engineer in Situation 1 failed to exercise the capability to present licensure status with sufficient clarity on business cards distributed in State E — where the engineer was not licensed — by omitting a physical address, thereby creating confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure.
Engineer licensed in States B, C, and D handed out business cards at a business meeting in State E with no physical address listed.
BER found the business card unacceptable because the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure.
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, because, although handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not automatically become an offer to do work, the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure.
Case 04-11 Engineer Situation 1 Qualification Transparency Violation
Engineer licensed in States B, C, and D handed out business cards at a business meeting in State E. The business card stated no physical address, creating confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure. The BER found this unacceptable.
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
The engineer was obligated to ensure that business cards distributed at meetings in State E — where the engineer was not licensed — did not create confusion or the appearance of deception about licensure status, including by providing a physical address that would allow recipients to assess the engineer's licensure jurisdiction.
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.
At the time of distributing business cards at the meeting in State E
The BER found this to be unacceptable, because, although handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not automatically become an offer to do work, the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure.
{'context': 'BER Case 04-11, Situation 2', 'card_feature': 'Clearly identifies licensed states and unlicensed address state', 'ethical_outcome': 'Compliant'}
Business card clearly identified states in which license is held and that the business address is in a different state where no license is held, providing clarity and preserving ethical conformity.
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 Engineer Situation 2 Qualification Transparency Met
Engineer's business card clearly identified the states in which a license was held and that the business address was in another state where no license was held. The BER found clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved.
The engineer fulfilled the obligation to present credential and licensure information accurately by clearly identifying on the business card the states in which a license was held and that the business address was in a different state where no license was held.
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.
At the time of distributing business cards
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.
{'context': 'BER Case 04-11, Situation 3', 'card_feature': 'Address in State B, licensed only in State C', 'work_type': 'Engineering in State C, non-engineering consulting in State B', 'ethical_outcome': 'Compliant'}
Business card has address in State B but states licensure only in State C; performs engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B, providing clarity and preserving ethical conformity.
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
Case 04-11 Engineer Situation 3 Business Card Licensure Clarity Demonstrated
The engineer in Situation 3 demonstrated the capability to present licensure status with sufficient clarity by stating on the business card that licensure was only in State C, even though the address was in State B, thereby avoiding the misleading implication that licensure was held in the address state.
Engineer's business card had an address in State B but stated licensure only in State C; engineer performed engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B.
BER found that clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved because the business card explicitly stated licensure only in State C despite the State B address.
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.
Case 04-11 Engineer Situation 3 Qualification Transparency Met
Engineer's business card had an address in State B but stated licensure only in State C. Engineer performed engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B. The BER found clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved.
The engineer fulfilled the obligation to present credential and licensure information accurately by stating on the business card that licensure was held only in State C, despite having an address in State B, thereby clearly communicating the jurisdictional 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.
CausalLink_Continuing Engagement After Di
CausalLink_Omitting P.E. Designation from
CausalLink_Signing as Forensic Engineerin
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 consultant-expert without identifying PE status was not unethical (provided the expert role was genuinely non-engineering), the Board's conclusion rests on a fragile factual predicate that was never fully examined: whether the substance of Engineer A's testimony and report was actually non-engineering in character. If the analysis, methodology, or conclusions in the report required the application of engineering principles, judgment, or specialized engineering knowledge — regardless of how the signature block read — then the engagement itself constituted the practice of engineering in State M without licensure. The ethical permissibility of the credential presentation cannot be cleanly separated from the nature of the work performed. An engineer cannot launder unlicensed engineering practice by relabeling it as 'consulting.' The Board's conclusion on this point should therefore be understood as conditional not only on the credential presentation but on the substantive character of the work, and the Board's silence on this distinction leaves a significant analytical gap.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's use of the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title rendered the credential presentation unethical implicitly recognizes a principle the Board did not articulate explicitly: that certain professional credentials carry embedded jurisdictional authority claims that cannot be neutralized by omitting other designations. The Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential, by its very definition, presupposes active PE licensure as a prerequisite for certification. A reasonable reader — including a judge, opposing counsel, or jury — would understand this title as signaling not merely procedural expertise but active engineering authority. Engineer A's strategic omission of the PE designation while retaining the Diplomate title therefore created a materially misleading impression: that Engineer A possessed the full credential hierarchy implied by the Diplomate title, including current and applicable licensure. This is precisely the kind of omission that NSPE Code Section III.3.a. targets — a statement that is technically incomplete in a way that creates a false impression. The Board's violation finding on this point is well-grounded, but the Board understated the mechanism: the violation was not merely about credential accuracy in isolation, but about the compound deception created when a licensure-presupposing credential is deployed in a jurisdiction where that licensure does not exist.
The Board's analysis addressed the credential presentation question but did not address the independent and antecedent ethical obligation that arose before the report was ever signed: Engineer A's duty to investigate and comply with State M's expert witness licensure statute prior to accepting the engagement. This pre-engagement verification obligation is not derivative of the credential presentation issue — it is a separate and independent professional duty grounded in the NSPE Code's requirement that engineers hold paramount the public welfare and act with honesty in professional representations. An engineer of Engineer A's experience and Board-certified forensic expertise is presumed to possess the professional competence to identify jurisdictional licensure requirements before undertaking an engagement. The failure to perform this verification — or, if the requirement was discovered mid-engagement, the failure to immediately disclose it to Attorney X and withdraw or restructure the engagement — constitutes a continuing ethical violation that persists independently of how the signature block was ultimately formatted. The Board's silence on this temporal dimension of the ethical obligation means the Board's conclusions, while correct as far as they go, do not capture the full scope of Engineer A's ethical exposure. Furthermore, Attorney X bears shared responsibility for this failure: a retaining attorney engaging an out-of-state expert for testimony in State M courts has an independent professional obligation to verify that the expert satisfies State M's licensure requirements, and the absence of that verification enabled Engineer A's non-compliant engagement to proceed.
However, when Engineer A claimed status as a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A’s self-presentation became unethical.
In response to Q101: Engineer A bore an independent, pre-engagement obligation to investigate and comply with State M's expert witness licensure statute before accepting the engagement. This obligation arises not from Attorney X's instructions but from Engineer A's own professional duty to understand the jurisdictional boundaries within which engineering services — including forensic expert services — may lawfully be rendered. The NSPE Code's requirement to hold paramount public safety and welfare, combined with the obligation to avoid misrepresentation of qualifications, collectively impose on any licensed engineer a duty of jurisdictional due diligence before undertaking a professional engagement in an unfamiliar state. Failure to perform that verification constitutes a distinct ethical violation separate from the credential presentation issue the Board addressed. Even if Engineer A had signed the report with no credentials whatsoever, the failure to investigate State M's licensure requirements before accepting the engagement would remain an independent breach of professional duty. The credential presentation violation and the pre-engagement verification failure are analytically separable: one concerns what Engineer A disclosed, the other concerns what Engineer A failed to investigate before committing to the engagement.
In response to Q102: Attorney X bears a shared but not co-equal ethical responsibility for the jurisdictional licensure problem. As the retaining attorney, Attorney X was in the best position to know State M's procedural and evidentiary requirements for expert witnesses, including any licensure mandate. Attorney X's failure to verify Engineer A's licensure status in State M before retaining Engineer A for testimony in a State M proceeding represents a deficiency in the retaining attorney's professional gatekeeping function. However, this shared responsibility does not diminish Engineer A's independent ethical obligations. Under the NSPE Code, Engineer A's duties run to the public and to the profession — not merely to the client — and cannot be delegated to or excused by the retaining attorney's oversight. The ethical analysis of Engineer A's conduct must therefore proceed on its own terms: Attorney X's failure to verify creates a context of shared culpability but does not constitute a defense or mitigation sufficient to eliminate Engineer A's independent violation. The practical consequence is that both parties contributed to a situation in which unlicensed engineering expert testimony was presented in State M, compounding the public protection concern that licensure statutes are designed to address.
In response to Q103: If Engineer A had signed the report solely as 'Consultant A' with no reference to any engineering credential whatsoever, the act of providing substantively engineering-based expert testimony in State M would still constitute unlicensed practice under State M's statute, regardless of the signature block. The licensure statute's trigger is the nature of the testimony — engineering expert testimony — not the credential label attached to the witness. A court and opposing counsel receiving testimony grounded in engineering analysis, methodology, and professional judgment are receiving engineering services irrespective of how the witness styles their name. The credential presentation question and the unlicensed practice question are therefore analytically distinct: the former concerns honesty and misrepresentation under the NSPE Code, while the latter concerns jurisdictional compliance with State M law. The Board's analysis focused on the credential presentation dimension, but the underlying unlicensed practice problem would persist even under a bare 'Consultant A' signature. This distinction is critical because it reveals that the Board's finding of ethical compliance for the 'consultant' framing was conditioned on Engineer A genuinely providing non-engineering services — a condition that may not have been satisfied if the substance of the testimony was engineering in nature.
In response to Q104: Engineer A's ethical obligation to disclose non-licensure in State M arose at the earliest point of the engagement — upon initial contact with Attorney X — and certainly no later than the point at which Engineer A agreed to evaluate the case. The obligation did not arise only upon signing the report; it attached the moment Engineer A undertook to provide services in a jurisdiction where licensure status was legally material to the permissibility of those services. Delayed disclosure — discovering the State M licensure requirement during report preparation or afterward and failing to immediately notify Attorney X and withdraw or seek licensure — constitutes a continuing violation rather than a one-time omission. Each step taken after discovery without disclosure or remediation — completing the report, signing it, and providing testimony — represents a discrete renewal of the ethical breach. This continuing violation analysis is consistent with the NSPE Code's prohibition on misrepresentation by omission: silence about a material fact that the professional knows to be relevant is not a neutral act but an ongoing affirmative choice to withhold information that the client, the court, and the public are entitled to receive.
In response to Q201: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits and the Licensure Disclosure Obligation is real but resolves unambiguously in favor of disclosure. The faithful agent principle requires Engineer A to serve Attorney X's legitimate professional needs, but that obligation is explicitly bounded by ethical limits — it does not require or permit Engineer A to suppress material information about jurisdictional disqualification in order to preserve the engagement. When full disclosure of unlicensed status in State M would effectively disqualify Engineer A from the engagement, the ethical resolution is not to withhold disclosure but to decline the engagement or to restructure it so that Engineer A's services fall genuinely outside the scope of State M's licensure requirement. The faithful agent obligation cannot be invoked to justify a misrepresentation by omission that enables an unlicensed practice situation to persist. Attorney X's interest in retaining a particular expert does not override the public's interest in having expert testimony provided by properly credentialed professionals, and Engineer A's duty to the public under the NSPE Code takes precedence over the duty to serve the client's preferences.
In response to Q202: The tension between Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility and Implicit Engineering Title Invocation Prohibition reveals a structural impossibility in Engineer A's credential strategy. The Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential cannot be cleanly separated from an engineering identity because its very existence presupposes engineering licensure and engineering expertise as prerequisites for certification. When Engineer A invoked that credential in the State M report signature block, Engineer A was not presenting a neutral procedural or investigative qualification — Engineer A was signaling to the court, opposing counsel, and the public that the testimony was grounded in the authority of a credentialed engineering professional. The Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility principle permits Engineer A to serve as a non-engineering consultant, but that permission is conditioned on Engineer A actually operating outside the engineering domain and presenting credentials that do not implicitly assert engineering authority. The Forensic Engineering Diplomate title, by its plain language and its certification prerequisites, crosses that boundary. The two principles therefore cannot be simultaneously satisfied when the Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential is invoked: Engineer A must either operate as a non-engineering consultant with non-engineering credentials, or operate as a licensed engineering expert with proper State M licensure.
In response to Q203: The tension between the Omission Materiality Threshold established in BER Case 20-1 and the Credential Presentation Accuracy principle resolves against Engineer A in the present case because the omission at issue is categorically more material than the omission found non-violative in BER Case 20-1. In BER Case 20-1, the Engineer Intern's omission of prior PE exam failures during employment negotiations was found non-material because that information, while potentially relevant, did not affirmatively mislead the employer about the intern's current qualifications or legal authority to perform work. In the present case, Engineer A's omission of PE licensure status from the State M report signature block occurred in a context where: (1) State M law made licensure status legally determinative of Engineer A's authority to provide the testimony; (2) the retained credential — Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering — affirmatively signaled engineering authority to a reasonable reader; and (3) the audience — a court — is entitled to rely on credential representations in assessing expert witness qualifications. The omission was therefore not merely a failure to volunteer information but a structurally misleading presentation that exploited the gap between what was disclosed and what a reasonable reader would infer. The materiality threshold is clearly exceeded.
In response to Q204: The apparent conflict between Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use and Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance — where full transparency about holding the Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential simultaneously exposes Engineer A to a licensure violation — does not create a genuine ethical dilemma in which honesty and legal compliance cannot both be achieved. The conflict is an artifact of Engineer A's decision to accept an engagement for which Engineer A was not jurisdictionally qualified. The resolution available to Engineer A was not to choose between honesty and compliance but to decline the engagement, obtain State M licensure before proceeding, or restructure the engagement to genuinely non-engineering services with appropriate non-engineering credentials. The ethical system does not require Engineer A to suppress true credentials to avoid a licensure problem; it requires Engineer A to resolve the licensure problem before invoking credentials that presuppose licensure authority. The tension identified in Q204 therefore dissolves when the engagement decision is examined: the ethical violation was not in the credential disclosure but in accepting an engagement that created an irresolvable credential-licensure conflict without first resolving that conflict through proper channels.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did not fulfill the categorical duty of honest self-representation. The Kantian framework requires that representations be universalizable — that is, that the maxim underlying Engineer A's credential presentation could be adopted as a universal rule without contradiction. The maxim implicit in Engineer A's conduct — 'when jurisdictionally unqualified to provide engineering expert testimony, omit the PE designation while retaining the engineering-specific board certification title' — cannot be universalized without undermining the entire system of professional credentialing that courts and the public rely upon to assess expert witness authority. Furthermore, the deontological duty of honesty is not satisfied merely by avoiding explicit falsehoods; it requires that representations not be structured to exploit reasonable inferences in a misleading direction. A reasonable reader of 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in an expert report signature block would infer that the signatory holds the engineering credentials that the certification presupposes. Engineer A's omission of PE licensure status was therefore not a neutral silence but a structurally deceptive act that violated the categorical duty of honest self-representation regardless of intent.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist standpoint, the net outcome of Engineer A's credential presentation produced greater harm than benefit. The benefits of Engineer A's testimony — providing competent forensic analysis to a State M court — are real but do not outweigh the systemic harms generated by the credential presentation strategy. Those harms include: (1) misleading the court about the jurisdictional authority underlying the expert opinion, potentially affecting the weight assigned to the testimony; (2) undermining the integrity of State M's licensure statute, which exists precisely to ensure that engineering expert testimony is provided by professionals accountable to State M's regulatory framework; (3) creating a precedent that licensed engineers in other states can circumvent jurisdictional licensure requirements by strategic credential labeling; and (4) eroding public trust in the professional credentialing system that courts rely upon to evaluate expert witnesses. The consequentialist calculus is further complicated by the fact that any competent testimony Engineer A could provide was available through properly licensed alternatives — either by Engineer A obtaining State M licensure or by Attorney X retaining a State M-licensed forensic engineer. The marginal benefit of Engineer A's specific expertise did not justify the systemic costs of the credential misrepresentation.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer and Board-certified forensic expert. The virtue of integrity requires not merely avoiding explicit falsehoods but actively ensuring that one's professional presentations create accurate impressions in the minds of those who rely upon them. A person of genuine professional integrity, upon discovering that State M's licensure statute created a conflict with the planned credential presentation, would have disclosed the conflict to Attorney X, sought to resolve it through proper licensure or engagement restructuring, and — if neither was possible — declined the engagement. Instead, Engineer A adopted a credential presentation strategy that exploited the gap between the omitted PE designation and the retained Forensic Engineering Diplomate title to navigate around the licensure problem without resolving it. This strategic omission is inconsistent with the virtue of intellectual honesty because it was designed to create a technically defensible but substantively misleading impression. The virtue ethics analysis is particularly pointed given that the Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential itself carries an implicit representation of engineering authority — retaining that credential while omitting the PE designation reflects a calculated rather than candid approach to self-presentation that falls below the standard of professional virtue.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A bore an independent duty to verify and comply with State M's expert witness licensure statute prior to accepting the engagement, entirely separate from any duty Attorney X may have had to inform Engineer A of the requirement. This duty derives from the professional engineer's categorical obligation to understand the jurisdictional scope of their licensure before rendering professional services — an obligation that is not contingent on client disclosure or instruction. The NSPE Code's requirement to hold paramount public safety and welfare, and its prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications, together impose on Engineer A a duty of affirmative jurisdictional due diligence. A licensed professional engineer who accepts an engagement in an unfamiliar jurisdiction without investigating that jurisdiction's licensure requirements for the contemplated services has failed a basic professional duty regardless of what the retaining client knew or disclosed. This failure is analytically prior to and independent of the credential presentation violation: it represents a breach of the duty of professional competence and jurisdictional awareness that attaches at the moment of engagement acceptance, not at the moment of report signing.
In response to Q401: If the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential did not inherently presuppose engineering licensure — that is, if it were a purely procedural or investigative certification available to non-engineers — and Engineer A had signed the report identically, the credential presentation would likely have been ethical under the Board's framework. The Board's finding of violation in conclusion 2 rested specifically on the engineering-specific nature of the Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential and its implicit assertion of engineering authority. A hypothetical credential that was genuinely available to and held by non-engineers would not carry that implicit assertion, and its use in a 'Consultant A' signature block would not mislead a reasonable reader about the engineering authority underlying the testimony. This counterfactual confirms that the Board's ethical analysis was credential-specific rather than engagement-specific: the violation was triggered by the particular credential invoked, not by the act of providing expert services in State M. The counterfactual also highlights that the ethical problem is not with board certifications per se but with the use of engineering-domain certifications in contexts where the signatory lacks the jurisdictional engineering authority that the certification presupposes.
In response to Q402: Even if Engineer A had proactively disclosed to Attorney X that State M requires expert witnesses providing engineering testimony to be licensed in State M, and Attorney X had then explicitly retained Engineer A solely as a non-engineering consultant, the subsequent use of the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title in the report signature block would still have been unethical. The ethical problem with the Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential is not resolved by the parties' private agreement about the scope of the engagement; it is a function of what the credential communicates to the court, opposing counsel, and the public — audiences who are not party to that private agreement and who will reasonably infer engineering authority from the credential. The court's ability to properly assess the expert's jurisdictional authority depends on the credential presentation being accurate and non-misleading to an external reader, not merely to the retaining attorney. Attorney X's explicit restructuring of the engagement as non-engineering does not change what the Forensic Engineering Diplomate title signals to a reasonable reader of the report. The ethical violation in credential presentation is therefore audience-dependent and cannot be cured by private agreement between Engineer A and Attorney X.
In response to Q403: If Engineer A had signed the report as 'Consultant A' with no credential designations whatsoever — omitting both the PE designation and the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title — the Board's ethical analysis would likely have reached a different conclusion on the credential presentation question, consistent with conclusion 1's finding that a non-engineering consultant framing is not inherently unethical. This counterfactual powerfully confirms that the ethical violation identified in conclusion 2 was specifically triggered by the credential invocation rather than by the unlicensed practice itself. The Board's framework permits Engineer A to serve as a non-engineering consultant in State M; what it does not permit is the use of an engineering-domain credential that implicitly asserts engineering authority in a jurisdiction where Engineer A lacks the licensure to exercise that authority. However, this counterfactual also reveals a significant gap in the Board's analysis: the bare 'Consultant A' scenario would still involve Engineer A providing substantively engineering-based testimony in violation of State M's licensure statute, yet the Board's framework would find no credential presentation violation. This gap suggests that the Board's ethical analysis addressed the symptom — misleading credential presentation — without fully addressing the underlying disease — unlicensed engineering practice — as an independent ethical violation.
In response to Q404: If Engineer A had obtained emergency or temporary licensure in State M prior to signing the report and then signed as both a licensed PE in State M and a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, the ethical outcome would have been entirely different — the credential presentation would have been accurate, complete, and non-misleading, and the unlicensed practice concern would have been eliminated. This counterfactual illuminates that the Board's concern was not exclusively about credential misrepresentation as an abstract honesty violation but was fundamentally rooted in the conjunction of credential misrepresentation and unlicensed practice: the Forensic Engineering Diplomate title was ethically problematic precisely because it asserted engineering authority that Engineer A lacked the jurisdictional standing to exercise in State M. Had Engineer A obtained State M licensure, the same credential would have been entirely appropriate. This confirms that the Board's violation finding in conclusion 2 was driven by the gap between the credential's implicit claim of engineering authority and Engineer A's actual jurisdictional status — a gap that proper licensure would have closed. The counterfactual therefore reveals that unlicensed practice and credential misrepresentation were not independent violations in the Board's analysis but were two dimensions of a single underlying problem: Engineer A's assertion of engineering authority in a jurisdiction where that authority had not been properly established.
The tension between Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility and Implicit Engineering Title Invocation Prohibition was resolved not by choosing one principle over the other, but by recognizing that they operate on different planes: the first governs what Engineer A may do (provide non-engineering consultation), while the second governs how Engineer A may present themselves while doing it. The Board's analysis implicitly holds that permissibility of the underlying service does not license misleading credential presentation. Engineer A could lawfully occupy the role of non-engineering consultant in State M, but the moment Engineer A invoked the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title — a credential whose very existence presupposes engineering licensure and signals engineering authority to a reasonable reader — the credential presentation crossed from permissible omission into affirmative misrepresentation. This case therefore teaches that the ethical boundary in expert witness engagements is not drawn at the service performed but at the identity projected, and that a credential cannot be surgically separated from the professional identity it encodes.
The tension between Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits and Licensure Disclosure Obligation was not genuinely resolved by the Board — it was dissolved by the structure of the case. Because Attorney X explicitly sought a non-engineering expert, Engineer A's faithful agent obligation did not actually require Engineer A to present engineering credentials; it required Engineer A to serve the client's legitimate need for non-engineering consultation. The apparent conflict between serving the client and disclosing unlicensed status therefore collapses: full disclosure of non-licensure in State M was not in tension with client service but was in fact a precondition for properly defining the scope of that service. This case teaches that when a client's stated need (non-engineering expert) and an engineer's ethical obligation (licensure disclosure) are properly aligned, the faithful agent principle cannot be invoked to justify credential concealment. The conflict only appears irresolvable when the engineer conflates the client's need with the engineer's own interest in retaining the engagement.
The tension between Omission Materiality Threshold — which BER Case 20-1 established does not treat every omission as an ethical violation — and Credential Presentation Accuracy in Forensic Engagements was resolved by the nature of the omitted information and the context in which it was omitted. In BER Case 20-1, the Engineer Intern's omission of prior PE exam failures was found non-material because that information did not alter the substantive representation being made. In the present case, however, Engineer A's omission of PE licensure status was not a peripheral biographical detail but a jurisdictionally determinative fact: State M's expert witness licensure statute made licensure status the threshold condition for the legitimacy of the entire engagement. The omission was therefore material by definition, not merely by degree. More critically, the omission was compounded by the affirmative retention of the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title, which filled the credentialing vacuum with an engineering-implying signal. This case teaches that omission materiality is not assessed in isolation but in relation to what the omission allows the reader to infer — and when an omission enables a misleading inference that the omitter had reason to anticipate, the omission crosses the ethical threshold regardless of whether an explicit false statement was made.
The tension between Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use and Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance — the apparent dilemma that honest disclosure of the Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential simultaneously exposes Engineer A to a jurisdiction-specific licensure violation — is a false dilemma that reveals a deeper principle: ethical compliance is not achieved by selecting which obligation to honor and which to conceal. The correct resolution was available to Engineer A before the report was ever signed: disclose the licensure gap to Attorney X at the outset, allow the attorney to determine whether a non-engineering engagement was viable, and if so, either refrain from invoking the engineering-implying credential or obtain State M licensure. The case teaches that when transparency and legal compliance appear to conflict, the conflict is almost always a symptom of a prior failure — here, the failure to conduct pre-engagement jurisdiction verification — rather than a genuine irresolvable dilemma. Ethical actors resolve such tensions upstream, not by suppressing one obligation at the point of performance.
Continuing Engagement After Discovering Licensing Requirement
Continuing Engagement After Discovering Licensing Requirement (Action 2) → Unlicensed Practice Determination Made (Event 5)
Credential Presentation Accuracy Violated by Engineer A Present Case
Signature block on forensic expert report in State M
Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility in Unlicensed Jurisdiction
Engineer A's signature block used the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' credential in a manner that was misleading by omission — omitting the PE designation while retaining a credential that implicitly required PE licensure — resulting in a presentation that obscured rather than accurately represented Engineer A's licensure status in State M
Credential presentation accuracy in forensic engagements requires that the overall impression conveyed by the signature block accurately represent the engineer's licensure status; a technically compliant omission of 'PE' that is offset by inclusion of a credential implying PE status does not satisfy the accuracy obligation
Credential Presentation Accuracy in Forensic Engagements
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.'
The accuracy obligation required either full disclosure of unlicensed status or omission of all engineering-related credentials from the signature block
Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report.
Credential Presentation Accuracy in Forensic Engagements Invoked By Engineer A Report
Expert witness credential presentation in State M litigation
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
Engineer A's report signature presented board certification as the operative credential without disclosing the absence of State M licensure, creating a credential presentation that was technically accurate but misleading by omission in a context where State M licensure was the legally operative qualification for the engagement
Complete and non-misleading credential presentation in the forensic context required Engineer A to include information about licensure status — specifically, that Engineer A held no State M license — so that the court and parties could assess the report's admissibility and Engineer A's legal authority to testify
The credential presentation obligation was not satisfied by accurate recitation of held credentials alone; the omission of the legally material non-licensure fact rendered the presentation incomplete and potentially misleading
How should Engineer A present credentials in the State M expert report signature block, given that Engineer A is not licensed in State M but holds a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering designation that presupposes PE licensure?
Engineer A's credential presentation in the State M expert report signature block — signing as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' while omitting the PE designation — raises the threshold question of whether that presentation was ethical given State M's licensure requirement and the engineering-presupposing nature of the Diplomate credential.
Sign the report solely as 'Consultant A' with no engineering credential designations, affirmatively disclosing to Attorney X that the Forensic Engineering Diplomate title cannot be used in State M without State M licensure
Sign the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' while omitting the PE designation, on the theory that the deliberate exclusion of 'PE' sufficiently signals non-licensure to a sophisticated legal audience
Sign the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' and include an explicit footnote or parenthetical in the signature block affirmatively disclosing that Engineer A is not licensed in State M
Did Engineer A bear an independent pre-engagement duty to investigate State M's expert witness licensure statute before agreeing to provide forensic expert services, and what action was required upon discovering that State M mandates licensure for such services?
Before accepting the engagement from Attorney X, Engineer A had an independent obligation to proactively verify whether State M's licensing statute required licensure for engineering expert testimony — a duty analytically prior to and separate from the credential presentation question.
Proactively research State M's licensing statute and professional conduct rules before agreeing to the engagement, and upon confirming the licensure requirement, either obtain State M licensure, decline the engagement, or restructure it as genuinely non-engineering consultation with appropriate credential limitations
Accept the engagement in reliance on Attorney X's implicit representation that the engagement is permissible, treating jurisdictional licensure verification as the retaining attorney's professional responsibility rather than the expert's independent duty
Accept the engagement provisionally, conduct jurisdictional verification concurrently with initial case evaluation, and disclose any discovered licensure conflict to Attorney X before completing the report — treating verification as an early-engagement task rather than a pre-engagement prerequisite
Upon discovering that State M's statute requires licensure for engineering expert testimony, what affirmative disclosure obligation did Engineer A owe to Attorney X and to the court, and does continued silence after discovery constitute a continuing ethical violation?
Once Engineer A discovered that State M requires licensure for engineering expert testimony, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to disclose that non-licensure status to Attorney X — a disclosure obligation that arose at the earliest point of engagement and whose delayed or absent fulfillment constitutes a continuing ethical violation.
Immediately disclose to Attorney X upon discovering the State M licensure requirement, present options for resolving the conflict (obtain licensure, withdraw, or restructure as genuinely non-engineering consultation), and decline to sign the report with any engineering credential until the conflict is resolved
Continue the engagement after discovering the licensure requirement, treating the credential presentation strategy — omitting the PE designation — as a sufficient practical accommodation that avoids triggering State M's statute, without affirmatively disclosing the licensure gap to Attorney X or the court
Disclose the licensure gap to Attorney X verbally but continue preparing and signing the report as planned, deferring to Attorney X's judgment about whether State M's statute applies to the specific nature of the expert services being provided
If Engineer A is retained as a non-engineering consultant in State M, what constraints govern the scope of services and credential presentation to preserve the permissibility of that non-engineering engagement, and does invoking the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title forfeit that permissibility?
The permissibility of Engineer A serving as a non-engineering consultant in State M — which the Board recognized as potentially lawful — depends on whether the substance of the expert services was genuinely non-engineering in character and whether the credential presentation maintained that non-engineering character throughout, including in the report signature block.
Serve as a non-engineering consultant and sign the report solely as 'Consultant A' with no engineering credential designations, ensuring the credential presentation is consistent with the non-engineering character of the engagement and does not invoke engineering authority in State M
Serve as a non-engineering consultant but include the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title in the signature block to accurately represent qualifications, on the theory that the credential is a factual description of Engineer A's certifications rather than an assertion of State M engineering authority
Decline to serve as a non-engineering consultant and instead obtain State M licensure before proceeding, so that the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential can be accurately and fully invoked in the signature block without creating a credential-licensure gap
Does Attorney X bear shared ethical responsibility for the jurisdictional licensure problem, and how does that shared responsibility interact with Engineer A's independent obligation to verify and comply with State M's licensure statute?
Attorney X, as the retaining attorney, bore a shared but independent responsibility to verify Engineer A's licensure status under State M's expert witness statute before retaining Engineer A — and the allocation of that shared responsibility between attorney and engineer affects the ethical analysis of Engineer A's conduct without diminishing Engineer A's independent obligations.
Treat Engineer A's independent jurisdictional verification obligation as non-delegable and proceed on the basis that Attorney X's failure to verify does not mitigate Engineer A's own duty to investigate and comply with State M's licensure statute before accepting the engagement
Treat Attorney X's failure to disclose the State M licensure requirement as the primary cause of the jurisdictional problem, and characterize Engineer A's independent verification failure as a secondary and partially mitigated breach given reasonable reliance on retaining counsel's implicit representation that the engagement was permissible
Allocate primary responsibility for jurisdictional licensure verification to Attorney X as the party with superior knowledge of State M's procedural requirements, while recognizing Engineer A's obligation as triggered only upon actual discovery of the licensure requirement rather than as an independent pre-engagement duty
Does the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential carry an embedded engineering authority claim that cannot be separated from the PE licensure it presupposes, such that its use in State M — where Engineer A lacks licensure — constitutes a materially misleading credential presentation regardless of the PE designation's omission?
The Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential carries an embedded jurisdictional authority claim — presupposing active PE licensure as a certification prerequisite — that cannot be neutralized by omitting the PE designation, creating a compound deception when deployed in a jurisdiction where the underlying licensure does not exist.
Refrain from using the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title in any State M report or communication, recognizing that the credential's engineering-presupposing nature brings Engineer A under State M's licensing law regardless of whether the PE designation is separately omitted
Use the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title in the report signature block while omitting the PE designation, treating the deliberate exclusion of 'PE' as a sufficient signal to sophisticated legal audiences that the credential is being invoked in a non-licensure capacity
Use the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title in the report signature block accompanied by an explicit parenthetical disclosure that the credential is a national certification and does not imply State M licensure, treating affirmative disclosure as curing the misleading inference rather than requiring omission of the credential
{'context': 'BER Case 19-3', 'role': 'Defense counsel', 'case_type': 'Boiler explosion litigation'}
Defense attorney in a boiler explosion case who retained Engineer A as a forensic expert witness, subject to Engineer A's disclosure obligations about committee roles.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A BER Case 19-3'}
Engineer A is approached by Defendant's attorney to serve as an expert in the case
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
ENGCO BER Case 95-10 Engineering Title Credential Scope Self-Assessment Deficiency
Engineering Title Credential Scope Self-Assessment Capability
ENGCO lacked or failed to exercise the capability to correctly assess that using 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' titles for personnel who were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and did not have college degrees constituted an ethical violation — even when consistent with federal agency contract terminology.
ENGCO referred to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' in sale materials consistent with federal agency contracts, but those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and did not have college degrees.
ENGCO made inquiry of the BER because of concerns that these references violated the Code of Ethics, indicating awareness of the issue but prior failure to correctly assess the ethical implications.
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.
ENGCO made inquiry of the BER because of concerns that these references violated the Code of Ethics.
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.
ENGCO BER Case 95-10 Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Violation
ENGCO used 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' titles for non-licensed, non-degreed personnel in sale materials, consistent with federal agency contract terminology. ENGCO made inquiry of the BER because of concerns that these references violated the Code of Ethics.
Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Obligation
ENGCO was obligated to refrain from referring to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' in sale materials when those personnel were not licensed, did not hold engineering degrees, and did not hold college degrees of any sort, recognizing that such references violated the Code's requirements that public statements be truthful and that engineers not falsify or permit misrepresentation of qualifications.
At the time of preparing and distributing sale materials referencing personnel titles
using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical.
ENGCO BER Case 95-10 Engineering Title Misrepresentation Prohibition
ENGCO used engineering-implying titles for non-degreed, non-licensed inspection personnel in sale materials consistent with federal agency contract terminology, and sought BER guidance on whether this violated the Code of Ethics.
Engineering Title Non-Entitlement Use Prohibition Constraint
ENGCO was prohibited from referring to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' in sale materials when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and did not have college degrees of any sort, even though such references were consistent with federal agency contracts.
NSPE Code of Ethics — truthful public statements, avoidance of deceptive acts, prohibition on falsifying qualifications; BER Case 95-10
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
Throughout the period of sale material distribution and federal contract performance
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
using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical
{'context': 'BER Case 95-10', 'personnel_status': 'Unlicensed, non-degreed inspection personnel', 'title_used': 'Engineer, Design Engineer'}
Used 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' titles for unlicensed, non-degreed personnel in sale materials consistent with federal agency contract terminology, and proactively sought BER guidance on whether this violated the Code of Ethics.
ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees
ENGCO made inquiry of the BER because of concerns that these references violated the Code of Ethics
ENGCO Personnel Engineering Title Misrepresentation
During the period ENGCO used these titles in sale materials and under federal agency contracts
Credential Misrepresentation by Firm State
ENGCO's use of 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' titles for personnel without engineering degrees or licenses
ENGCO's inquiry to BER and subsequent guidance (implied correction)
ENGCO's references were consistent with federal agency contracts that referred to inspection personnel as 'Engineers'
ENGCO referred to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' in sale materials when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees, and did not have college degrees
{'context': 'BER Case 19-3', 'specialty': 'Forensic mechanical engineering', 'committee_role': 'Chair, boiler code standards and safety committee', 'litigation_role': 'Defense expert witness'}
Forensic mechanical engineer chairing a boiler code standards and safety committee, retained by Defendant's attorney as expert witness in a boiler explosion case where the opposing expert (Engineer B) is a subcommittee member, bearing obligations of full disclosure and communication restrictions.
{'type': 'committee_superior', 'target': 'Engineer B BER Case 19-3'}
{'type': 'opposing_expert', 'target': 'Engineer B BER Case 19-3'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Defendant Attorney BER Case 19-3'}
Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
Engineer A BER Case 19-3 Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Fulfilled
Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
Engineer A was required to exercise the capability to recognize and disclose the dual role conflict arising from chairing the boiler code standards and safety committee while serving as expert witness for the defense in a boiler explosion case where a peer committee member served as the opposing expert.
Engineer A chaired a boiler code standards and safety committee while being retained as defense expert in a boiler explosion case where Engineer B, a subcommittee member, served as plaintiff's expert.
BER identified Engineer A's obligation to fully disclose the committee chairmanship role and Engineer B's subcommittee membership to the retaining defense attorney.
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 BER Case 19-3 Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Met
Engineer A chaired a boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B was a member of a subcommittee under that committee. Both were retained as opposing expert witnesses in a boiler explosion case. The BER held that Engineer A had an obligation to disclose both relationships to the retaining attorney.
Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to fully disclose to Defendant's attorney: (1) Engineer A's role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within the engineering society, and (2) that Engineer B — retained by Plaintiff's attorney — serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that same committee.
Before or at the commencement of the expert witness engagement
Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
Engineer A BER Case 19-3 Standards Committee Dual Role Disclosure Obligation Constraint
Engineer A and Engineer B shared a standards committee relationship while serving as opposing experts, requiring affirmative disclosure of that relationship to the retaining attorney.
Engineer A (committee chair serving as opposing expert)
Standards Committee Opposing Expert Dual Role Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A was required to fully disclose to Defendant's attorney: (1) Engineer A's role as chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee, and (2) that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within that same committee, before or upon accepting the expert witness engagement.
NSPE Code of Ethics — conflict of interest disclosure, faithful agent obligation; BER Case 19-3
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
At the time of accepting the expert witness engagement and throughout the litigation
Engineer A should be mindful of certain critical obligations clearly required under the facts
Engineer A BER Case 19-3 Standards Committee Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition
Engineer A chaired a boiler code standards committee while Engineer B was a subcommittee member; both were retained as opposing experts in a boiler explosion case, creating a structural communication risk requiring affirmative prohibition.
Standards Committee Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending boiler explosion litigation without direction from legal counsel, arising from their simultaneous roles as opposing expert witnesses and shared membership on the boiler code standards and safety committee.
NSPE Code of Ethics — conflict of interest avoidance, professional integrity; BER Case 19-3
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 boiler explosion 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 BER Case 19-3 Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Required
Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Capability
Engineer A was required to exercise the capability to recognize that serving as opposing expert to a peer committee member in pending litigation created an obligation to refrain from any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
Engineer A chaired a boiler code standards and safety committee while Engineer B, a subcommittee member, served as the opposing expert in the same boiler explosion litigation.
BER identified Engineer A's obligation to not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from 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.'
Engineer A BER Case 19-3 Standards Committee Peer Litigation Non-Communication Required
Engineer A chaired the boiler code standards and safety committee; Engineer B was a subcommittee member. Both were retained as opposing expert witnesses. The BER held that Engineer A must not communicate with Engineer B about the litigation without legal counsel direction.
Standards Committee Peer Litigation Non-Communication Obligation
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 legal counsel, given their overlapping roles as opposing expert witnesses and their shared committee relationship.
Throughout the duration of the expert witness engagement and pending litigation
Engineer A Credential Designation Non-Misleading Presentation Present Case
Engineer A's signature block used 'Consultant' rather than 'PE' or 'Engineer' and referenced board certification, but made no reference to licensure status in any jurisdiction, potentially creating the impression of full qualification while obscuring the absence of required State M licensure.
Credential Designation Non-Misleading Presentation in Expert Reports Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to present credential designations in the expert report signature block in a manner that did not create a misleading impression about jurisdictional licensure status — specifically, the use of 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without any reference to licensure status created a false impression that Engineer A was fully qualified to provide engineering expert services in State M, when in fact Engineer A held no State M licensure as required by statute.
At the time of signing and delivering the expert opinion report
Engineer A Credential Omission in Expert Report
From the signing of the expert report onward, while the report remains in use in State M proceedings
Public relying on accurate credential representation in judicial proceedings
Credential Omission in Professional Submission State
Engineer A's signing of the expert report using only a board certification title with no reference to licensure status
Not terminated within the described facts
Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' omitting any reference to licensure status in a jurisdiction where licensure is statutorily required for expert testimony
Engineer A Credential Omission — PE Designation Excluded But Engineering Title Retained
At the time of signing and submitting the expert report in State M
Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report
Engineer A's signature block on the State M expert report
BER review identifying that the partial omission was insufficient to avoid the licensure compliance issue
Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
Engineer A deliberately excluded the P.E. designation from the signature block but retained the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential
Engineer A Engineering Title Regulatory Knowledge State M
Engineering Title Regulatory Knowledge Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to apply — the capability to understand and apply State M's statutory and regulatory provisions governing the conditions under which a professional engineer may provide expert testimony in State M courts, including the licensure requirement imposed by State M's licensing statute
As a licensed PE in three states and a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A had the professional background to research and apply jurisdictional licensing requirements but failed to do so with respect to State M
Failing to research or apply State M's licensing statute requirement that expert witnesses providing engineering testimony in State M courts must be licensed in State M before agreeing to the engagement
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 Expert Report Credential Designation Accuracy
Expert Report Credential Designation Accuracy Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to present credential designations in the expert report signature block in a manner that did not create a misleading impression about licensure status in State M
Engineer A's signature block presented a board certification credential without any reference to licensure status, in a jurisdiction where licensure was statutorily required for expert witnesses
Signing the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' — a designation that accurately reflected board certification but omitted any reference to licensure status, thereby creating the potential for a misleading impression that Engineer A held the qualifications required to provide expert testimony in State M
Engineer A Expert Report Credential Omission Non-Deception Constraint
Engineer A signed the expert report using only a board certification title with no reference to licensure status, omitting any disclosure that Engineer A was not licensed in State M, despite State M's statutory requirement that expert witness engineers be licensed in State M.
Expert Report Credential Omission Non-Deception Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from signing the State M expert report using only the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' credential designation without any reference to licensure status, as this omission created a misleading impression that Engineer A was in compliance with State M's licensure requirements for expert witnesses.
NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; NSPE BER Case 20-1 on materiality of omissions in professional disclosure contexts
At the time of preparing and signing the expert opinion report submitted in State M
Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E)
Engineer A Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Compliance Present Case
Engineer A, licensed in states C, D, and E but not in State M, agreed to provide forensic expert services in State M where the licensing statute requires expert witnesses to be licensed in State M.
Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Compliance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to verify that State M's licensing statute required licensure in State M before agreeing to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M, and upon discovering that requirement, to either obtain State M licensure or decline the engagement rather than proceeding without the required licensure.
Prior to accepting the engagement from Attorney X and before preparing the expert opinion report
Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony.
Engineer A Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Verification
Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Verification Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to verify State M's licensing statute requirements for expert witnesses before agreeing to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M
Engineer A, licensed in states C, D, and E and board-certified as a Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, agreed to provide expert services in State M without verifying that State M's licensing statute required licensure in State M for expert witnesses
Failure to verify that State M required licensure for expert witnesses prior to accepting the engagement from Attorney X, resulting in an agreement to provide expert services in a jurisdiction where Engineer A was not licensed and where licensure was statutorily required
Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Non-Compliance Disclosure
Expert Witness Licensure Non-Compliance Disclosure Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to affirmatively disclose to Attorney X and in the expert opinion report that Engineer A was not licensed in State M, particularly given that State M's licensing statute required licensure for expert witnesses
Engineer A signed the expert report without disclosing the absence of State M licensure, despite the statutory requirement that expert witnesses in State M courts be licensed in State M
Signing the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' with no reference whatsoever to licensure status, thereby omitting the affirmative disclosure of non-licensure in State M that professional ethics obligations required
Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Constraint State M
Engineer A signed the expert report using only a board certification title with no reference to licensure status, failing to disclose that Engineer A was not licensed in State M as required by State M's expert witness licensure statute.
Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A was required to affirmatively disclose to Attorney X and in the expert opinion report that Engineer A was not licensed in State M, and was prohibited from signing the report in a manner that omitted any reference to licensure status when that omission created a misleading impression of compliance with State M's expert witness licensure requirement.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.2, II.3; NSPE BER Case 20-1; State M licensing statute
At the time of agreeing to the engagement and at the time of signing and submitting the expert report
Engineer A Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Present Case
Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' with no reference to licensure status, neither disclosing licensure in States C, D, and E nor disclosing the absence of State M licensure.
Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to Attorney X and in the expert opinion report that Engineer A was not licensed in State M, particularly given that State M's licensing statute required such licensure for expert testimony, so that Attorney X could make an informed decision about the engagement and the court would not be misled about Engineer A's jurisdictional qualification.
Upon accepting the engagement and upon signing and delivering the expert opinion report
Engineer A Faithful Agent Obligation Ethical Limits Constraint State M
Engineer A's agreement to provide expert services to Attorney X in State M was constrained by the overriding obligation to comply with State M's licensing statute, which required licensure for engineers providing expert testimony in State M courts.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
Engineer A's obligation to serve Attorney X as a faithful agent and provide the requested expert services was bounded by the ethical and legal requirement to comply with State M's licensing statute, prohibiting Engineer A from fulfilling Attorney X's request in a manner that violated the licensure requirement, regardless of the client relationship.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent provisions; State M licensing statute
Throughout the duration of the expert witness engagement
Engineer A Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Present Case
Engineer A agreed to serve Attorney X's needs for expert forensic services, but the faithful agent duty was bounded by the legal requirement of State M licensure for expert witnesses.
Engineer A's obligation to serve Attorney X as a faithful agent and provide the requested expert services was bounded by the ethical and legal requirement to hold a State M license before providing expert testimony in State M, such that faithful agent duties did not authorize Engineer A to proceed with the engagement in violation of State M's licensing statute.
Throughout the engagement from acceptance through report preparation and testimony
Engineer A Forensic Engagement Scope Compliance
Forensic Engineering Engagement Scope Compliance Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to identify the full scope of legal and ethical compliance requirements applicable to the forensic expert engagement in State M, including the jurisdictional licensure requirement, and to structure or decline the engagement accordingly
Engineer A, as a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering with licensure in three states, had the professional background to identify jurisdictional compliance requirements but failed to apply this capability before accepting the State M engagement
Agreeing to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M without identifying that State M's licensing statute required licensure in State M for expert witnesses, and without declining or restructuring the engagement to achieve compliance
Engineer A Forensic Engineering Diplomate Title Invocation in State M
From the moment Engineer A signed the report with the Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential through the ethical review
by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
Engineering Title Invocation Triggering Licensure Obligation State
Engineer A's use of 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' credential in State M report signature block
Not resolved within the case — the ethical violation was identified by the BER
That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful
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
the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer
Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' invoking the word 'Engineering' in a jurisdiction where not licensed
Engineer A Forensic Engineering Diplomate Title State M Triggering Constraint
Engineer A signed the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without any reference to licensure status, despite not being licensed in State M, and despite State M's statute requiring licensure for engineers providing expert testimony.
Engineering Credential Title Jurisdictional Scope Triggering Constraint
Engineer A's use of the credential title 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in the State M expert report signature block brought Engineer A within the purview of State M's engineering practice act, thereby triggering the licensure requirement and prohibiting Engineer A from using that engineering-implying credential title in State M without holding State M licensure.
State M engineering licensure law and NSPE Code of Ethics non-deception provisions; NSPE BER Case 95-10
Engineer A Jurisdictional Authority Boundary Constraint State M Expert Testimony
Engineer A's licensure in States C, D, and E did not confer authority to provide engineering expert testimony in State M, which had its own statutory requirement for expert witness licensure.
Engineer A's professional authority to provide engineering expert testimony was geographically bounded by the jurisdictions in which Engineer A held valid licensure — States C, D, and E — and did not extend to State M, where Engineer A lacked the required licensure, constraining Engineer A from exercising professional engineering authority in State M expert proceedings.
State M licensing statute; state engineering practice acts of States C, D, and E
At the time of the expert witness engagement in State M
Engineer A Licensure Misrepresentation via Omission
From the signing and submission of the expert report onward
Engineer A's presentation of credentials in the signed expert report
Engineer A signs the report using only a board certification title, making no reference to licensure status, in a jurisdiction where licensure is required for expert testimony — creating a misleading impression about compliance with State M's statutory requirement
Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification
Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to identify and apply the specific licensing requirements of State M as a jurisdiction in which Engineer A was providing professional services, including recognizing that State M's licensing statute imposed a licensure requirement on expert witnesses that differed from the requirements of states C, D, and E where Engineer A was licensed
Engineer A held licensure in states C, D, and E but not State M, and failed to identify that State M's licensing statute imposed a licensure requirement specifically applicable to expert witnesses providing testimony in State M courts
Agreeing to provide expert services in State M without identifying that State M imposed a jurisdiction-specific licensure requirement on expert witnesses, and without comparing State M's requirements against Engineer A's existing licensure portfolio
Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Engagement Credential Boundary Constraint State M
Attorney X sought Engineer A's services as a non-engineering expert, but Engineer A's use of an engineering-implying credential title in the signed report triggered State M's engineering practice act, which required licensure for any engineer providing expert testimony in State M courts.
Non-Engineering Expert Engagement Credential Boundary Constraint
Engineer A, having been retained by Attorney X to provide non-engineering expert services in State M, was constrained from using the engineering-implying credential title 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in the expert report signature block, as that credential title brought the engagement within the purview of State M's engineering practice act, converting the permissible non-engineering engagement into an impermissible unlicensed engineering practice.
State M engineering licensure law; NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER Case 04-11
Throughout the duration of the expert witness engagement in State M
Engineer A Non-Engineering Expert Engagement in State M
From retention by Defendant's attorney through submission of the expert report in State M
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services
Non-Engineering Expert Services in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State
Engineer A's expert witness engagement in State M
Conclusion of the expert engagement (engagement itself concluded, though ethical violation was not corrected during the engagement)
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
So long as Engineer A was qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications, Engineer A is not precluded or restricted by the NSPE Code of Ethics from providing those non-engineering expert services
Engineer A retained to provide expert services in State M, a jurisdiction in which Engineer A is not licensed
Engineer A Out-of-State Expert Testimony Licensure Non-Compliance
From Engineer A's agreement to evaluate the case and provide testimony through the preparation and signing of the expert report
Public relying on expert testimony integrity
Expert Testimony Licensure Non-Compliance State
Engineer A's agreement to provide expert testimony in State M without holding a State M license
Not terminated within the described facts; state persists through the signing of the report
Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M, a jurisdiction whose licensing statute requires licensure in State M for expert testimony, while Engineer A holds licensure only in States C, D, and E
Throughout the engagement, from initial contact by Attorney X through signing of the report
Engineer A's licensure status relative to State M
Attorney X contacts Engineer A to provide expert testimony in State M; Engineer A holds licensure only in States C, D, and E
Engineer A Pre-Engagement Jurisdiction Statute Verification Constraint
Engineer A agreed to the State M expert witness engagement without verifying State M's licensure requirements for expert witnesses, resulting in a violation of State M's licensing statute.
Expert Witness Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from agreeing to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M without first verifying whether State M's licensing statute required licensure in State M for engineers providing expert testimony, and without either obtaining that licensure or structuring the engagement to avoid triggering the licensure requirement.
State M licensing statute; NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER Case 04-11
Prior to and at the time of agreeing to the expert witness engagement with Attorney X
Engineer A Pre-Engagement Jurisdiction Statute Verification Present Case
Attorney X contacted Engineer A seeking expert services in State M; Engineer A agreed to the engagement without apparent verification of State M's licensing statute requirement that expert witnesses be licensed in State M.
Pre-Engagement Jurisdiction Statute Verification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to proactively verify State M's licensing statute requirements for expert witnesses before agreeing to the engagement with Attorney X, so that Engineer A could identify the licensure requirement and either obtain State M licensure, decline the engagement, or at minimum disclose the statutory constraint to Attorney X before proceeding.
Prior to accepting the engagement from Attorney X
{'jurisdiction': 'State M', 'licensed_in_state_M': False, 'credential_claimed': 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering', 'PE_designation_excluded': True, 'ethical_outcome': "Unethical and unlawful—credential claim incorporated 'Engineer' and triggered licensing law"}
Licensed professional engineer retained to provide expert services in State M where not licensed; excluded PE designation from signature block but signed as 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' thereby claiming an engineering credential that triggered State M licensing law applicability and constituted unlicensed practice.
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Retaining Attorney Present Case'}
Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness Engineer
Engineer A Present Case Board Certification Engineering Title Licensure Prerequisite Disclosure Violation
Engineer A held board certification as a Diplomate in Forensic Engineering — a credential requiring PE licensure — but was not licensed in State M. Engineer A used this credential in the report signature block without disclosing non-licensure in State M.
Board Certification Engineering Title Licensure Prerequisite Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' credential presupposes PE licensure and therefore to either refrain from using that credential title in State M or to affirmatively disclose the absence of State M licensure when using it, so that the retaining attorney and court were not misled about Engineer A's legal authority to provide engineering services in State M.
At the time of agreeing to the engagement and at the time of signing the expert report
Engineer A Present Case Board Certified Diplomate Forensic Engineering Title State M Unlicensed Practice Constraint
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where not licensed, carefully omitted the PE designation, but used a board certification title incorporating 'Forensic Engineering' that independently triggered State M's licensing law.
Non-Engineering Expert Credential Engineering Title Exclusion Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from signing the expert report in State M using the credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' because that title incorporates the word 'Engineer,' presupposes PE licensure, and thereby brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law — constituting unlicensed practice — even though Engineer A had carefully excluded the PE designation from the signature block.
State M Engineering Licensure Law; NSPE Code of Ethics — non-deception, truthful representation of qualifications; BER Case 95-10; BER Case 04-11
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. That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful
Engineer A Present Case Credential Designation Non-Misleading Presentation Violation
Engineer A signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' deliberately omitting the PE designation but using a board certification title that implicitly invoked engineering qualification and licensure.
Engineer A was obligated to present credential designations in the expert report signature block in a manner that did not create a false or misleading impression about jurisdictional licensure status in State M — including refraining from using the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' title in a manner that obscured the absence of State M licensure.
Engineer A Present Case Engineering Title Credential Scope Self-Assessment Deficiency
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' credential incorporates the word 'Engineer' and presupposes PE licensure, such that its use in the expert report signature block constituted a claim of engineering qualification bringing Engineer A under State M's licensing law.
Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not State M, signed an expert report with 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in the signature block while providing non-engineering expert services in State M.
Engineer A excluded the P.E. designation from the signature block but failed to recognize that the board certification title itself implied PE licensure, resulting in an ethical and legal violation.
Engineer A Present Case Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Compliance Violation
Engineer A was licensed in States C, D, and E but not in State M. State M's licensing statute required licensure for engineering expert services. Engineer A agreed to provide expert services and submitted a report using an engineering credential title.
Engineer A was obligated to verify whether State M's licensing statute required licensure before providing forensic expert services in State M, and having determined that State M required licensure for engineering expert services, to either obtain State M licensure or decline the engagement — or to strictly limit services to non-engineering expert opinion without invoking engineering credentials.
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.
Before agreeing to the engagement in State M
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.
That constitutes unlicensed practice, which is both unethical and unlawful.
Engineer A Present Case Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Verification Deficiency
Engineer A failed to adequately exercise the capability to verify State M's licensing statute requirements for expert witnesses before agreeing to the engagement, resulting in a failure to recognize that the credential designation used would bring the engagement within State M's licensing law.
Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not State M, agreed to provide expert services in State M without fully verifying how State M's licensing statute applied to the credential designation used.
Engineer A was sensitive enough to exclude the P.E. designation but failed to recognize that the board certification title itself triggered licensure requirements, indicating incomplete jurisdiction statute verification.
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.
Engineer A Present Case Expert Witness Jurisdictional Licensure Non-Compliance State M
Engineer A held licensure in States C, D, and E but not in State M, and the use of an engineering-implying board certification title in the State M expert report signature block triggered State M's licensure requirements.
Engineer A was constrained by State M's licensing statute from providing expert services in State M using engineering-implying credentials without holding State M licensure, and the use of the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' title brought Engineer A within the purview of State M's engineering practice act, constituting unlicensed practice.
State M Engineering Licensure Law; NSPE Code of Ethics
At the time of providing expert services and signing the report in State M
was it ethical for Engineer A to provide expert services in State M, a state in which Engineer A is not licensed?
Engineer A Present Case Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Violation
Engineer A was not licensed in State M but agreed to provide expert services and submitted a report without disclosing the absence of State M licensure, instead using a credential designation that implied engineering qualification.
Engineer A was obligated to affirmatively disclose to the retaining attorney and in the expert report that Engineer A was not licensed in State M, so that the retaining attorney could make an informed decision about the engagement and the court was not misled about Engineer A's jurisdictional qualification.
At the time of agreeing to the engagement and at the time of submitting the expert report
Engineer A Present Case Forensic Engineering Credential Title Accuracy Violation
Engineer A, licensed as a PE in States C, D, and E but not in State M, was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M. Engineer A excluded the PE designation from the signature block but signed as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.'
Forensic Engineering Credential Title Accuracy Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from using the credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' in the signature block of the expert report submitted in State M, because that credential incorporates the word 'Engineering,' thereby invoking engineering qualification and bringing Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance.
At the time of signing and submitting the forensic expert opinion report in State M
incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical.
Engineer A Present Case Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Maintenance Deficiency
Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Maintenance Capability
Engineer A failed to maintain the non-engineering character of the expert services by using a credential designation that incorporated 'Engineering' in the signature block, thereby crossing the boundary from permissible non-engineering expert services into impermissible engineering practice in an unlicensed jurisdiction.
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where not licensed, but the credential designation used in the signature block incorporated 'Engineering' and presupposed PE licensure.
Despite being retained for non-engineering expert services and deliberately excluding the P.E. designation, Engineer A used the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' title, which brought the engagement within State M's licensing law.
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.
Engineer A Present Case Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility Boundary Constraint
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M, which was permissible under BER Case 04-11 situation (3), but the constraint required that the non-engineering character be maintained in all credential representations.
Engineer A was permitted to provide non-engineering expert services in State M without State M licensure only so long as Engineer A qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications and did not use engineering-implying credential titles — the constraint being that the non-engineering framing must be maintained consistently throughout all professional representations including the report signature block.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11 Situation 3; State M Engineering Licensure Law
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
Throughout the expert witness engagement in State M
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
Engineer A Present Case Non-Engineering Expert Services Scope Maintenance Violation
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where not licensed. While the engagement was permissible as non-engineering expert services, Engineer A's use of the 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' credential converted the services into engineering practice subject to State M's licensing law.
Non-Engineering Expert Services Scope Maintenance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to maintain the non-engineering character of the expert services throughout the engagement in State M — including in the report signature block — by refraining from invoking any engineering credential or title that would bring the services within the scope of State M's engineering licensing statute, so that the permissibility of non-engineering expert services in an unlicensed jurisdiction was not forfeited.
Throughout the engagement and at the time of signing the expert report
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.
Engineer A Present Case Pre-Engagement Jurisdiction Statute Verification Violation
Engineer A agreed to provide expert services in State M without apparently verifying whether the use of engineering credentials in the report would bring the services within State M's licensing law. Engineer A's sensitivity to the issue was evidenced by excluding the PE designation, but the board certification title was not similarly scrutinized.
Engineer A was obligated to proactively verify State M's licensing statutes and professional conduct rules before agreeing to provide forensic expert services in State M, including verifying whether the use of engineering credentials in expert reports would constitute engineering practice subject to State M's licensing requirements.
Before agreeing to the expert witness engagement in State M
Engineer A Scope of Practice Constraint State M Unlicensed Jurisdiction
Engineer A, licensed only in States C, D, and E, agreed to provide expert testimony in State M without holding State M licensure, thereby exceeding the permissible scope of practice in that jurisdiction.
Engineer A's scope of permissible professional practice in State M was limited by the absence of State M licensure, prohibiting Engineer A from performing acts constituting the practice of engineering — including providing expert testimony as an engineer — in State M without first obtaining the required licensure.
State M Engineering Practice Act; NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Expert Report
Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that signing the expert report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without any reference to licensure status constituted a presentation of credentials that could mislead the court, the retaining attorney, and opposing parties about Engineer A's qualification to provide expert testimony in State M
Engineer A's signature block on the expert report presented board certification credentials without disclosing the absence of State M licensure, which was required by statute for expert witnesses in State M courts
Signing the expert report with a credential designation that omitted any reference to licensure status, in a jurisdiction where licensure was statutorily required for expert witnesses, thereby creating a misleading impression about professional qualifications
Engineer A State M Expert Witness Licensure Compliance Constraint
Engineer A, licensed in States C, D, and E but not in 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.
Engineer A was prohibited from providing expert testimony in State M courts without holding a valid professional engineering license in State M, as required by State M's licensing statute, regardless of Engineer A's licensure in States C, D, and E.
State M licensing statute specifying that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M
At the time of agreeing to evaluate the case, prepare the expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M
Engineer A Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness
{'license': 'Professional Engineer in States C, D, and E', 'specialty': 'Forensic Engineering', 'board_certification': 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering', 'state_M_license': 'None', 'report_signature': 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering'}
Licensed PE in states C, D, and E and Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering who agreed to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M—a jurisdiction requiring licensure for engineer expert testimony—while signing the report using only a board certification title and making no reference to licensure status, thereby obscuring the absence of State M licensure.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Attorney X'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'State M Court and Public'}
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 agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony
Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status
Engineer A agreeing to evaluate the case before Engineer A preparing the expert opinion report
Engineer A and Engineer B Opposing Experts Shared Committee Membership
From Engineer A's retention by Defendant's attorney through the conclusion of the litigation
Opposing Expert Shared Committee Membership State
Engineer A (chair) and Engineer B (subcommittee member) serving as opposing experts in boiler explosion litigation while sharing committee membership
Conclusion of litigation or withdrawal of one party from the expert or committee role
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 A has an obligation to fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee and advise that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees
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 A approached to serve as opposing expert to Engineer B in boiler explosion case, while both serve on the same boiler code standards committee
Engineer A chairing boiler code standards committee overlaps Engineer A serving as expert witness in boiler explosion case
Engineer A preparing the expert opinion report before Engineer A providing testimony
Engineer A signing report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' during Engineer A preparing the expert opinion report
Engineer A's Unlicensed Status Confirmed
Engineer A's awareness of State M licensing requirement before Engineer A omitting P.E. designation from report signature
Engineer BER Case 04-11 Situation 1 Business Card No Address Licensure Clarity Constraint
Engineer licensed in States B, C, and D distributed business cards at a business meeting in State E without a physical address, creating ambiguity about whether the engineer was licensed in State E.
Engineer licensed in States B, C, D distributing cards in State E
Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
The engineer was prohibited from distributing business cards at a meeting in State E that stated no physical address, because the absence of a physical address created confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure status.
NSPE Code of Ethics — non-deception, truthful representation of qualifications; BER Case 04-11 Situation 1
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, because, although handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not automatically become an offer to do work, the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure
At the time of business card distribution at the State E meeting
Engineer BER Case 04-11 Situation 3 Business Card Address State B Licensed Only State C Clarity Satisfied
Engineer performed engineering work in State C and non-engineering consulting in State B, and the business card clearly stated licensure was only in State C.
Engineer with address in State B, licensed only in State C
The engineer satisfied the business card licensure geographic clarity constraint by stating on the business card that licensure was held only in State C, despite the address being in State B, thereby providing clarity about the geographic scope of licensure.
NSPE Code of Ethics — non-deception, truthful representation of qualifications; BER Case 04-11 Situation 3
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
At the time of business card distribution
{'context': 'BER Case 19-3', 'specialty': 'Forensic mechanical engineering', 'committee_role': "Member, technical subcommittee under Engineer A's committee", 'litigation_role': 'Plaintiff expert witness'}
Forensic mechanical engineer serving as a member of a technical subcommittee under Engineer A's committee, retained by Plaintiff's attorney as expert witness in the same boiler explosion case, subject to communication restrictions with Engineer A.
{'type': 'committee_subordinate', 'target': 'Engineer A BER Case 19-3'}
{'type': 'opposing_expert', 'target': 'Engineer A BER Case 19-3'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'Plaintiff Attorney BER Case 19-3'}
Standards Subcommittee Member 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 Plaintiff's attorney in a boiler explosion case
not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel
Engineer B BER Case 19-3 Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Required
Engineer B, as a subcommittee member under Engineer A's committee and as plaintiff's expert in the same litigation, was required to exercise the capability to recognize and maintain appropriate communication restraint with Engineer A regarding the pending litigation.
Engineer B served as a member of a technical subcommittee under Engineer A's committee while serving as plaintiff's expert in the same boiler explosion litigation where Engineer A served as defense expert.
BER's identification of the mutual obligation arising from the dual committee-litigation relationship between Engineer A and Engineer B.
Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees. Engineer B is retained as an expert by Plaintiff's attorney in a boiler explosion case.
Engineer B retained as expert by Plaintiff's attorney before Engineer A approached by Defendant's attorney
Engineer B serving on technical subcommittee overlaps Engineer B retained as expert by Plaintiff's attorney
Engineer Business Card No Address Licensure Ambiguity
During the business meeting in State E and any period the ambiguous cards were in circulation
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
Engineer licensed in States B, C, D distributing business cards without physical address at meeting in State E
Correction of business cards to include physical address and clear licensure state identification
Engineer distributed business cards at a business meeting in State E without a physical address, creating ambiguity about licensure jurisdiction
{'context': 'BER Case 20-1', 'exam_status': 'Not yet passed PE exam; two prior failures', 'disclosure_made': 'Intention to take exam; did not disclose prior failures', 'ethical_outcome': 'Non-material omission; not unethical'}
Engineer intern who disclosed intention to take the PE exam but did not volunteer two prior failures; BER found the omission non-material because the employer offered employment with full knowledge the intern had not yet passed.
{'type': 'prospective_employer', 'target': 'Prospective Employer 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 to pass the PE exam
the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical
Engineer Intern BER Case 20-1 PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Applied
PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Capability
Engineer Intern correctly assessed — or the BER found consistent with ethical conduct — that prior PE exam failures were not material facts requiring voluntary disclosure given that the employer offered employment with full knowledge that the PE exam had not yet been passed.
Engineer Intern disclosed PE exam intention to prospective employer but did not volunteer two prior failures; employer offered employment with full knowledge of unlicensed status.
Engineer Intern disclosed intention to take the PE exam but did not volunteer two prior failures; BER found the omission non-material because the employer offered employment knowing 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 BER Case 20-1 PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Non-Violation
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 PE exam. The BER concluded the omission was not material and therefore not unethical.
PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Obligation
Engineer Intern was not obligated to volunteer two prior PE exam failures to the prospective employer, because the employer offered employment with full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not yet passed the PE exam, rendering the prior failures non-material to the employer's hiring decision.
At the time of employment negotiations and offer
Engineer Intern BER Case 20-1 PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Non-Material
Engineer Intern disclosed intention to take the PE exam but did not volunteer two prior failures; employer offered employment with full knowledge of unlicensed status, making the omission non-material.
PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Threshold Constraint
Engineer Intern was not constrained to volunteer two prior PE exam failures to the prospective employer because the employer offered employment with full knowledge that the Engineer Intern had not passed the PE exam, rendering the omission non-material and therefore not unethical.
NSPE Code of Ethics — non-deception, materiality of omissions; BER Case 20-1
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 PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure
During the hiring negotiation period, from initial discussions through the employer's offer of employment
Engineer Intern's omission of prior PE exam failures during employment negotiations
Employer made employment offer with full knowledge that the exam had not yet been passed
Engineer Intern disclosed intention to take PE exam but did not disclose two prior failures when not asked
Engineer Intern disclosing intent to take PE exam before PE exam attempt
Engineering Licensure Law — States C, D, and E
State legislatures of States C, D, and E
Professional Engineering Licensure Statutes — States C, D, and E
Engineer A as basis for professional identity and authority to practice
Establishes Engineer A's licensed status in three states, providing the baseline professional standing from which the cross-jurisdictional licensure gap in State M is assessed
Expert Testimony Licensure Non-Compliance — Engineer A State M
From retention through submission of the report in State M
was it ethical for Engineer A to provide expert services in State M, a state in which Engineer A is not licensed
Engineer A's provision of expert services in State M without State M licensure
BER ethical review identifying the violation
Engineer A agreed to provide expert services in State M, a state whose licensing statute applies to those holding engineering credentials
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked By Engineer A Attorney X Engagement
Expert testimony engagement accepted from Attorney X
Forensic evaluation and report preparation
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
Engineer A's obligation to serve Attorney X as a faithful agent and provide the requested expert services was bounded by the ethical and legal requirement to comply with State M's licensure statute; faithful agency did not authorize Engineer A to provide testimony in violation of applicable law
The faithful agent obligation required Engineer A to serve Attorney X's legitimate needs, but not to do so in a manner that violated applicable licensure statutes; the ethical limits of faithful agency required Engineer A to advise Attorney X of the licensure constraint and either obtain licensure or decline the engagement
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Faithful agent obligations are subordinate to legal and ethical compliance requirements; Engineer A should have disclosed the licensure constraint to Attorney X rather than proceeding in non-compliance
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked Across Title Cases
Business card presentations in unlicensed jurisdictions
Across BER Case 95-10, Case 04-11, and the present case, the consistent ethical requirement is that engineers and firms make only truthful and accurate representations of their qualifications and licensure status, whether through titles in marketing materials, business card presentations, or credential designations in expert report signature blocks
The honesty obligation in professional representations encompasses not only affirmative misstatements but also presentations that create misleading impressions through omission, ambiguity, or the use of credentials that imply qualifications the engineer does not hold in the relevant jurisdiction
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.
The honesty obligation consistently prevails over convenience, consistency with client terminology, or the desire to present credentials favorably; clarity and accuracy are required even when they disadvantage the engineer commercially
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.
the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure.
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A Signature Block
Expert credential representation to retaining attorney and court
Forensic expert opinion report signature block
Engineer A's signature block — 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' — accurately stated credentials held but omitted the legally material fact that Engineer A was not licensed in State M, where licensure was statutorily required for the expert testimony being provided
Honesty in professional representations requires not only technical accuracy but also completeness with respect to legally material credential information; a representation that is accurate as far as it goes but omits a material disqualifying fact may constitute misleading representation by omission
The obligation to honest representation required Engineer A to either include a disclosure of non-licensure in State M or to advise the retaining attorney before the report was prepared
Implicit Engineering Title Invocation Prohibition Violated by Engineer A Present Case
Signature block on expert report submitted in State M where Engineer A was not licensed
Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony
Engineer A deliberately omitted the PE designation from the signature block but used the credential 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' which implicitly invoked the title 'Engineer' and required PE licensure as a prerequisite, thereby bringing Engineer A under State M's licensure law despite the attempted omission of the explicit PE designation
The ethical prohibition on using engineering titles in unlicensed jurisdictions extends to credentials that embed 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' in their designation, even when the explicit PE designation is omitted; the most cursory inquiry into the credential's requirements reveals its engineering character
Implicit Engineering Title Invocation Prohibition
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.
The attempt to comply by omitting 'PE' was insufficient because the alternative credential used independently invoked engineering status; full compliance required either omitting all engineering-related credentials or disclosing unlicensed status
Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.'
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Invoked By Engineer A Present Case
Preparation of forensic expert opinion report
Engineer A was obligated to identify and comply with State M's licensing statute requiring expert witnesses to be licensed in State M before agreeing to provide expert testimony and preparing a report in that jurisdiction
In this context, jurisdiction-specific compliance required Engineer A to verify State M's licensure requirements before accepting the engagement and to either obtain State M licensure, decline the engagement, or at minimum disclose non-compliance to the retaining attorney
The jurisdiction-specific compliance obligation takes precedence over the desire to serve the retaining attorney's needs; Engineer A should have declined or disclosed rather than proceeding without State M licensure
Legal Deposition Conduct Standard — Expert Witness Application
Professional engineering societies and legal professional norms
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Conduct in Legal Proceedings as Expert Witnesses
Engineer A in preparing for and providing expert testimony
Governs Engineer A's obligations of factual transparency and accurate professional representation when providing expert testimony in legal proceedings, including the obligation to disclose licensure status relevant to qualification as an expert
Licensing Requirement Discovered by Engineer A
Licensure Disclosure Obligation Violated by Engineer A Present Case
Expert report and services provided in State M
Engineer A, not licensed in State M, provided expert services and submitted a report in State M without affirmatively disclosing the unlicensed status, instead attempting to obscure it by omitting the PE designation while using a credential that independently invoked engineering status
The obligation to disclose unlicensed status in expert testimony contexts requires affirmative disclosure, not merely the omission of the PE designation; partial compliance that leaves the engineering character of the credential intact does not satisfy the disclosure obligation
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.'
The disclosure obligation was not satisfied by omitting 'PE' when the alternative credential used independently established engineering status and brought Engineer A under State M's licensure law
Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony Invoked By Engineer A Present Case
Credential representation in signature block
Expert opinion report for State M litigation
Engineer A failed to affirmatively disclose non-licensure in State M when preparing and signing a forensic expert opinion report for use in State M court proceedings, instead presenting only board certification credentials that, while accurate, did not convey the legally material fact of non-licensure under State M's expert witness statute
The licensure disclosure obligation required Engineer A to inform Attorney X and to reflect in the report that State M licensure was absent, enabling the retaining attorney to assess admissibility risk and seek alternative arrangements if needed
The disclosure obligation was not discharged by the omission of PE designation from the signature block; affirmative disclosure of non-licensure — not merely omission of a credential — was required
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Invoked By Engineer A Present Case
Expert testimony in State M court proceedings
Forensic engineering report preparation for State M litigation
Engineer A's agreement to provide expert testimony in State M without holding State M licensure — as required by State M's licensing statute — constitutes a form of unlicensed practice that undermines the public protection rationale of the licensure system
The licensure requirement for expert witnesses in State M exists to protect courts and litigants from reliance on engineering opinions from practitioners who have not demonstrated qualification under State M's standards; Engineer A's participation without licensure erodes this protection
Licensure integrity obligations are not overridden by the engineer's actual technical competence or board certification; the statutory requirement reflects a public policy determination that licensure is the operative threshold
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 without licensure
Cited as precedent governing business card licensure representation across multiple jurisdictions and establishing that engineers providing non-engineering expert services in unlicensed jurisdictions is ethically permissible when engineering qualifications are not invoked
In BER Case 19-3, 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 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
BER in analyzing disclosure and conflict obligations of engineers serving as expert witnesses
Cited as precedent establishing disclosure obligations for engineers serving as expert witnesses who hold committee roles in standards-setting bodies, and the obligation to avoid communications with opposing experts during pending litigation
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 to pass the PE exam.
the BER concluded that the omission was not material and, therefore, not unethical.
BER in contextualizing the disclosure analysis applicable to Engineer A's credential representation
Cited as precedent on the materiality standard for omissions in professional disclosure contexts, establishing that failure to disclose information is only unethical when the omitted fact is material to the decision at hand
in BER Case 95-10, ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees
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 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' title
Cited as precedent establishing that incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually holding the credential is unethical, applied to ENGCO's use of 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' titles for unlicensed personnel
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A in determining professional obligations when accepting the engagement and signing the report
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations regarding honest representation of qualifications, licensure status disclosure, and the prohibition on practicing engineering in jurisdictions where not licensed, as well as obligations to hold paramount public safety
Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility Invoked by Engineer A Present Case
Provision of forensic expert services in State M where Engineer A held no PE license
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services in State M where not licensed, and this was ethically permissible under the NSPE Code so long as Engineer A qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications and did not offer opinions directly related to engineering science or mathematics
The permissibility of providing non-engineering expert services in an unlicensed jurisdiction is conditioned on the expert's qualifications being genuinely non-engineering in character; the ethical analysis turns on what qualifications are invoked, not merely on the subject matter of the opinion
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.
The principle permits non-engineering expert services in unlicensed jurisdictions but is vitiated when the engineer invokes engineering credentials — whether explicitly or implicitly — in connection with those services
Omission Materiality Threshold Invoked in BER Case 20-1
Disclosure of prior PE exam failures to prospective employer
Engineer Intern's failure to volunteer two prior PE exam failures was held non-material and therefore not unethical because the employer offered employment with full knowledge that the intern had not yet passed the PE exam, meaning the omitted information would not have changed the employer's decision
The materiality of an omission is assessed from the perspective of whether the omitted information would have affected the decision-maker's actual decision; where the employer already knew the intern had not passed and offered employment anyway, prior failures were not material to that decision
Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
The honesty obligation does not require volunteering every potentially relevant fact; it requires disclosure of material facts, and materiality is determined by the decision-maker's informational needs, not by the engineer's subjective assessment of relevance
Omitting P.E. Designation from Signature
Omitting P.E. Designation from Signature (Action 3) → Unlicensed Practice Determination Made (Event 5)
{'context': 'BER Case 19-3', 'role': "Plaintiff's counsel", 'case_type': 'Boiler explosion litigation'}
Plaintiff's attorney in a boiler explosion case who retained Engineer B as a forensic expert witness.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer B BER Case 19-3'}
Profession-Wide Engineering Title Integrity — ENGCO and BER Cases Pattern
Ongoing across the period covered by BER Cases 95-10, 04-11, 19-3, 20-1, and the present case
Issues of identification as an engineer, achievement of a professional engineer's license, and duties of disclosure have come to the Board of Ethical Review with some regularity
Profession-Wide Title Integrity Erosion State
Pattern of engineering-implying title use by unqualified individuals across multiple cases reviewed by BER
Not terminated — identified as a persistent systemic concern
incorporating 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into one's title without actually having the credential, is unethical
Recurring pattern of engineering title misuse identified across multiple BER cases, including federal agency contracts using 'Engineer' for inspection personnel
Professional Title Integrity Invoked in ENGCO Case 95-10
Use of engineering titles in sale materials for unlicensed, non-degreed inspection personnel
ENGCO used 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer' titles for personnel who were not licensed, did not hold engineering degrees, and did not hold college degrees of any kind, violating the prohibition on title misrepresentation even when the usage was consistent with federal contract terminology
The ethical prohibition on title misrepresentation applies regardless of whether the usage is consistent with federal agency contract terminology; the title must accurately reflect the holder's actual qualifications including licensure and educational credentials
Professional Title Integrity and Anti-Misrepresentation Obligation
Consistency with federal contract terminology does not cure the ethical violation of using a title to which personnel are not entitled under professional standards
ENGCO's references were consistent with federal agency contracts that referred to inspection personnel as 'Engineers.'
Qualification Representation Standard — Forensic Expert Context
Professional engineering societies and licensing boards
Professional Norms Governing Honest Representation of Qualifications in Expert Engagement Contexts
Engineer A in accepting the engagement and preparing the report
Governs Engineer A's obligation to accurately and completely represent professional qualifications — including licensure status — when accepting and performing an expert witness engagement, prohibiting representations that omit material qualification information
Qualification Transparency Invoked in Case 04-11 Situation 1
Business card presentation at professional meeting in unlicensed jurisdiction
An engineer licensed in States B, C, and D handed out business cards at a meeting in State E with no physical address listed, creating confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure status because the absence of an address prevented recipients from assessing whether the engineer was licensed in the state where they were operating
A business card that omits a physical address creates ambiguity about the engineer's licensure jurisdiction that amounts to deceptive appearance, even if no explicit misrepresentation is made
The obligation to provide clear licensure information overrides the convenience of a simplified business card format; the absence of clarifying information constitutes an ethical deficiency
Qualification Transparency Satisfied in Case 04-11 Situation 2
Business card presentation with address in unlicensed state
An engineer's business card clearly identified the states in which a license was held and that the business address was in a different state where no license was held, thereby overcoming the conventional assumption that a PE is licensed in the state of their address and preserving ethical conformity
Explicit enumeration of licensed states on a business card, even when the address state is not among them, satisfies the transparency obligation by providing sufficient information for recipients to accurately assess licensure status
Clarity was provided and ethical conformity was preserved.
Clarity in credential presentation resolves the potential for misleading inference from address-based licensure assumptions
Qualification Transparency Satisfied in Case 04-11 Situation 3
Business card presentation with address in state where only non-engineering consulting is performed
An engineer with an address in State B but licensure only in State C clearly stated on the business card that licensure was held only in State C, thereby preserving ethical conformity despite performing non-engineering consulting in State B
An engineer may have a business address in a state where they are not licensed provided the business card clearly discloses the jurisdictional scope of licensure, and non-engineering consulting in the address state does not require licensure disclosure beyond what the card already provides
Clarity about licensure jurisdiction satisfies the transparency obligation; the permissibility of non-engineering consulting in the address state is a separate question resolved by the nature of the services provided
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use Invoked By Engineer A Signature
Expert witness title and credential representation
Report signature block credential presentation
Engineer A's use of 'Consultant' rather than 'Engineer' or 'PE' in the signature block, while potentially intended to signal non-licensure, did not constitute adequate transparent disclosure of the legally material fact that State M's statute required licensure for expert testimony
Qualification transparency required more than substituting a non-engineering title; it required affirmative disclosure that the engineer was not licensed in State M, particularly given the statutory requirement that made licensure a threshold qualification for the engagement
The use of 'Consultant' rather than 'Engineer' or 'PE' was insufficient to satisfy the transparency obligation; the legally operative qualification (State M licensure) was absent and that absence required affirmative disclosure
Was Engineer A’s self-description in the expert report ethical?
Did Engineer A have an independent obligation to investigate and comply with State M's expert witness licensure statute before accepting the engagement, and does failure to do so constitute a separate ethical violation distinct from the credential presentation issue?
Does Attorney X bear any shared ethical responsibility for retaining Engineer A in State M without verifying Engineer A's licensure status under State M's expert witness statute, and how does that shared responsibility affect the ethical analysis of Engineer A's conduct?
If Engineer A had signed the report solely as 'Consultant A' with no reference to any engineering credential whatsoever, would the act of providing substantively engineering-based expert testimony still constitute unlicensed practice in State M, regardless of how the signature block read?
At what point during the engagement — initial contact, case evaluation, report preparation, or testimony — did Engineer A's ethical obligation to disclose non-licensure in State M arise, and does delayed disclosure after discovering the requirement constitute a continuing violation?
Does the principle of Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits — which requires Engineer A to serve Attorney X's legitimate needs — conflict with the principle of Licensure Disclosure Obligation, when full disclosure of unlicensed status in State M would effectively disqualify Engineer A from the engagement the attorney sought?
Does the principle of Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility — which allows Engineer A to serve as a non-engineering consultant — conflict with the principle of Implicit Engineering Title Invocation Prohibition, when the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential inherently signals engineering expertise and cannot be cleanly separated from an engineering identity?
Does the principle of Omission Materiality Threshold — which in BER Case 20-1 found that not all omissions rise to ethical violations — conflict with the principle of Credential Presentation Accuracy in Forensic Engagements, when Engineer A omitted PE licensure status from the report signature block in a jurisdiction that mandates such licensure for expert testimony?
Does the principle of Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use — which demands that credentials accurately reflect actual qualifications — conflict with the principle of Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance, in the sense that full transparency about holding a Forensic Engineering Diplomate credential simultaneously exposes Engineer A to a jurisdiction-specific licensure violation, creating a situation where honesty and legal compliance cannot both be achieved?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of honest self-representation by omitting any reference to licensure status in the expert report, given that the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential implicitly signals engineering authority to a reasonable reader?
From a consequentialist standpoint, did the net outcome of Engineer A's credential presentation — potentially misleading courts, opposing counsel, and the public about the scope of engineering authority being exercised — produce greater harm than the benefit of providing otherwise competent expert testimony in State M?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and intellectual honesty expected of a licensed engineer and Board-certified forensic expert by strategically omitting the PE designation while retaining the Forensic Engineering Diplomate title — a credential whose very existence presupposes engineering licensure?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A bear an independent duty to verify and comply with State M's expert witness licensure statute prior to accepting the engagement — separate from any duty Attorney X may have had to inform Engineer A — and did the failure to perform that verification constitute a breach of professional duty regardless of the credential presentation question?
Would Engineer A's credential presentation have been ethical if the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering credential did not inherently presuppose engineering licensure — that is, if it were a purely procedural or investigative certification available to non-engineers — and Engineer A had signed the report identically?
Had Engineer A proactively disclosed to Attorney X — before preparing the report — that State M requires expert witnesses providing engineering testimony to be licensed in State M, and had Attorney X then explicitly retained Engineer A solely as a non-engineering consultant, would the subsequent use of the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title in the report still have been unethical?
What if Engineer A had signed the report as 'Consultant A' with no credential designations whatsoever — omitting both the PE designation and the Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering title — would the Board's ethical analysis have reached the same conclusion, and does this scenario reveal that the ethical violation was specifically triggered by the credential invocation rather than the unlicensed practice itself?
Would the ethical outcome have differed if Engineer A had obtained emergency or temporary licensure in State M prior to signing the report, and then signed as both a licensed PE in State M and a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering — and does this counterfactual illuminate whether the Board's concern was primarily about credential misrepresentation or about unlicensed practice as a distinct and independent violation?
Report Produced Without P.E. Designation
{'jurisdiction': 'State M', 'engagement_type': 'Non-engineering expert services'}
Attorney who retained Engineer A to provide expert services in State M, where Engineer A was not licensed, creating the context for the licensure and credential disclosure ethics question.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case'}
Signing as Forensic Engineering Diplomate
Signing as Forensic Engineering Diplomate (Action 4) → Unlicensed Practice Determination Made (Event 5)
Standards Committee Role Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A BER Case 19-3
Retention as defense expert witness in boiler explosion case where opposing expert serves on Engineer A's committee
Engineer A, as chair of the boiler code standards and safety committee, was required to disclose both that role and Engineer B's membership on a subcommittee of that committee to the retaining defense attorney, and to refrain from communicating with Engineer B about the pending litigation without counsel direction
The hierarchical committee relationship between Engineer A (chair) and Engineer B (subcommittee member) creates a disclosure obligation that runs to retaining counsel, enabling counsel to assess whether the relationship creates a conflict of interest or requires management
Standards Committee Role Disclosure in Expert Witness Engagements
Disclosure of the committee relationship satisfies the transparency obligation without requiring recusal, provided Engineer A exercises independent professional judgment in rendering expert opinions
BER in determining that Engineer A's credential representation constituted unlicensed practice
Referenced as the legal authority establishing that Engineer A's use of 'Engineer' in the credential title brought Engineer A under the purview of State M's licensing law, with which Engineer A was not in compliance, constituting unlicensed practice
State M Expert Witness Licensure Statute
State M Engineering Licensure Statute — Expert Testimony Provision
Attorney X (in seeking qualified expert), Engineer A (in accepting engagement and signing report)
Establishes the legal requirement that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M, directly bearing on Engineer A's eligibility to testify and obligation to disclose licensure status
State M Licensing Requirement Exists (Event 1) + Engineer A's Unlicensed Status Confirmed (Event 2) → Unlicensed Practice Determination Made (Event 5)
previous PE exam failures before Engineer Intern disclosing intent to take PE exam to prospective employer