XYZ Corporation transitions from unregulated discharge status to active regulatory scrutiny; countdown clock begins; compliance pathway must be initiated
The State Pollution Control Authority grants XYZ Corporation a 60-day window to apply for a discharge permit, establishing a formal regulatory deadline and compliance obligation. This exogenous trigger initiates the entire compliance sequence.
60-Day Permit Window Opens → Hiring Doe for Compliance Study
The State Pollution Control Authority's granting of a 60-day window to apply for a discharge permit created the regulatory context and pressure that led XYZ Corporation to commission Engineer Doe's compliance study
Without the 60-day permit window creating regulatory urgency, XYZ Corporation may not have commissioned the compliance study at this time, potentially delaying discovery of the violation
Availability of a qualified engineer to conduct the study
Regulatory authority's establishment of the 60-day permit window
XYZ Corporation's decision to respond to regulatory pressure through internal study rather than direct application
XYZ Corporation's need to assess compliance status within that window
Regulatory deadline + XYZ's compliance uncertainty + available qualified engineer = decision to commission study
60-day permit application window overlaps Doe's consulting engagement
XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit... the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report.
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
The factual reality of environmental non-compliance is established; Doe now holds material information affecting public health; the information asymmetry between Doe, XYZ, the authority, and the public becomes ethically significant
During the 60-day window, after Doe completes his studies
Engineer Doe's technical study yields the definitive conclusion that XYZ's discharge violates environmental standards and that corrective action will be costly. This is the outcome of Doe's professional investigation and constitutes the factual predicate for all subsequent ethical dilemmas.
Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework (Section 1 Application)
National Society of Professional Engineers (codified in Section 1)
Faithful Agent or Trustee Obligation under NSPE Code Section 1
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.' In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in structuring the obligation analysis
Invoked to frame Engineer Doe's dual role: as a faithful agent/trustee he first advised XYZ Corporation of the standards violation, satisfying client-facing obligations before the paramount public duty under §2 took precedence
National Society of Professional Engineers Board of Ethical Review
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 67-10
As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, 'It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.'
Cited as analogical precedent for the proposition that it is basic to the concept of a profession that its members devote their interests to public welfare, reinforcing the Board's interpretation of §§2 and 2(a) in the present case
CausalLink_Deciding Whether to Report Fin
CausalLink_Hiring Doe for Compliance Stud
CausalLink_Presenting False Compliance Da
CausalLink_Terminating Contract and Suppr
CausalLink_Verbally Advising Client of Ad
Client Report Suppression Prohibition Triggered by XYZ Instruction
XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report of his findings
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
XYZ Corporation's explicit instruction to Engineer Doe not to render a written report — after receiving adverse verbal findings — constitutes a client directive to suppress safety-relevant professional findings, raising serious ethical concerns about Doe's obligation to resist or report such suppression
The client's authority to terminate a contract does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant findings; Doe has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
XYZ Corporation Client Suppressing Engineering Report
Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
The suppression instruction, combined with XYZ's subsequent false testimony at the hearing, transforms what might have been a permissible scope limitation into an ethically problematic suppression of material safety findings
The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c).
Doe has an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing.
Beyond the Board's finding that Doe has an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the obligation to report did not originate at the moment Doe learned of the hearing. Rather, the hearing was merely a confirmatory triggering event that made an already-existing duty impossible to defer. Once Doe completed his studies and concluded that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, a proactive risk disclosure obligation to the State Pollution Control Authority arose independently of any client instruction, any contract termination, and any subsequent hearing. XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report did not extinguish that pre-existing duty; it merely created a conflict between Doe's faithful agent role and his paramount public safety obligation — a conflict that the NSPE Code resolves unambiguously in favor of public welfare. The hearing therefore accelerated and concretized a duty that had been latent since the moment Doe's adverse findings were concluded, meaning Doe was arguably already in a state of ethical non-compliance during the interval between contract termination and his learning of the hearing, had he taken no steps to report.
The Board's conclusion that Doe must report his findings to the authority is further deepened by recognizing that XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report was itself an independently wrongful act — a violation of the professional norm against client suppression of engineering findings — that created a separate and prior obligation for Doe to resist or report, distinct from the obligation triggered by the public hearing. The NSPE Code's prohibition on unprofessional conduct extends to client instructions that direct an engineer to conceal findings bearing on public safety. Doe's acceptance of contract termination without producing a written record, and without reporting the suppression instruction to a professional body or the authority, represents a gap in his ethical compliance that the Board's narrow framing around the hearing does not fully address. The hearing-based obligation is reactive; the suppression-resistance obligation is proactive and arose earlier. Treating the hearing as the sole or primary trigger risks implying that had no hearing been called, Doe's silence would have been ethically permissible — a conclusion inconsistent with the Code's structure, which places public welfare paramount regardless of whether a regulatory proceeding happens to surface the issue.
The Board's conclusion, while correct, leaves unresolved a critical question about the scope and mechanism of Doe's disclosure obligation: whether Doe is obligated to act because XYZ Corporation presented false and misleading data at the public hearing — a reactive correction duty grounded in the obligation not to allow a public record to stand uncorrected — or because his own completed technical findings independently demand disclosure to the regulatory authority as a proactive reporting duty. These are analytically distinct obligations with different scopes. The reactive correction duty, triggered by XYZ's misleading hearing presentation, requires Doe to come forward specifically to contradict and correct the false data presented. The proactive reporting duty, grounded in his completed studies and the public safety risk they document, requires Doe to submit his findings to the authority as a matter of professional obligation regardless of what XYZ presented. The distinction matters because the proactive duty is broader: it encompasses not merely correcting XYZ's false data but affirmatively placing Doe's complete technical findings before the authority so that the permit decision can be made on accurate information. The Board's framing, anchored to the hearing, risks collapsing the broader proactive duty into the narrower reactive one, potentially understating what Doe must disclose and to whom. Full compliance with the Code requires Doe to satisfy both obligations simultaneously.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(c) (Plans/Specifications Safety and Reporting Unprofessional Conduct)
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report was itself an act of unprofessional conduct directed at a licensed engineer, and Doe had an independent obligation to resist and, if necessary, report that instruction to a professional body or the authority — separate from any obligation triggered by the public hearing. The instruction was not a legitimate exercise of client authority over scope of work; it was a directive to suppress completed technical findings bearing on public health and water quality. Under the Client Report Suppression Prohibition, a client cannot lawfully instruct an engineer to destroy or withhold findings that have already been reached, because those findings exist as professional conclusions independent of any written instrument. The hearing was not the origin of Doe's duty to resist suppression — it was merely the event that made the consequences of his silence visible and concrete.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
Doe's verbal-only advisory to XYZ Corporation was insufficient to discharge his professional duty to document and communicate findings. The obligation to produce a written record of completed technical studies is not merely a contractual deliverable that a client may waive — it is a professional norm grounded in the integrity of engineering practice and the public's interest in having a reliable, reviewable record of findings that bear on health and safety. When Doe concluded that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, that conclusion became a professional fact requiring documentation. XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report did not extinguish the underlying finding or Doe's obligation to preserve and, where necessary, disclose it. The verbal advisory satisfied Doe's faithful agent duty to inform his client, but it did not satisfy his independent professional duty to maintain a documented record of findings with public safety implications.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 7 (Confidential Information)
XYZ Corporation's full payment to Doe upon termination does not resolve and may in fact deepen the ethical concern about the ownership and disposition of his findings. Payment for services rendered transfers compensation for professional labor, not ownership of the engineer's professional conclusions or the right to suppress them. To the extent the payment was structured or timed to coincide with the instruction to suppress the written report, it could reasonably be construed as an attempt to purchase Doe's silence — a transaction that is ethically impermissible regardless of its commercial form. Doe's professional findings belong to the public record in the sense that they cannot be made to disappear by private financial arrangement when they bear on public health and regulatory compliance. The payment therefore creates no ambiguity about Doe's continuing obligation; if anything, the conjunction of full payment and suppression instruction heightens the ethical concern by suggesting a deliberate strategy to neutralize Doe's adverse findings.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare)
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard (§2/§2(a)/§2(c) Application)
Doe's ethical obligation to proactively disclose his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority arose before the public hearing was scheduled — specifically, at the moment XYZ Corporation instructed him to suppress the written report and terminated his contract. The public hearing was a triggering event only in the sense that it made the consequences of Doe's silence acute and publicly visible; it was not the origin of the duty. Once Doe concluded that the discharge would violate established environmental standards and once his client demonstrated an intent to suppress those findings rather than remediate the problem, the conditions for proactive regulatory disclosure were already satisfied. The Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation to the State Pollution Control Authority does not require a public hearing as a precondition — it requires a confirmed finding of public safety risk and a client posture that forecloses voluntary compliance. Both conditions were present at the moment of contract termination.
The tension between Doe's faithful agent obligation and his public safety disclosure obligation is resolved by the sequential structure of those duties, not by a simple override. Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation when he verbally advised XYZ Corporation of his adverse findings — that communication discharged his duty to inform his client honestly and completely. At that point, the faithful agent relationship had run its legitimate course. When XYZ Corporation responded by terminating the contract and instructing Doe to suppress the written report, it effectively released Doe from any further client loyalty obligation while simultaneously activating his paramount public safety duty. The two obligations do not conflict in a way that requires Doe to choose between them; rather, the client's own conduct sequentially exhausted the faithful agent duty and triggered the public safety escalation duty. Doe's obligation to report to the authority is therefore not a betrayal of his client role — it is the natural successor obligation that arises when the client relationship ends in a manner that leaves a confirmed public safety risk unaddressed.
Doe's disclosure obligation is both reactive and proactive, and the distinction matters for the scope of what he must disclose. The reactive dimension — triggered by XYZ Corporation's presentation of misleading data at the public hearing — obligates Doe to correct the false record before the authority, because allowing a regulatory proceeding to proceed on the basis of data he knows to be contradicted by his own completed studies would make him complicit in the deception. The proactive dimension — grounded in his completed technical findings and the confirmed standards violation — obligates him to report those findings to the authority regardless of what XYZ Corporation presented at the hearing, because the public safety risk exists independently of the hearing record. The scope of disclosure under the reactive duty is at minimum coextensive with the misleading data XYZ presented; the scope under the proactive duty encompasses all of Doe's findings relevant to the discharge standards question. In practice, the proactive duty is broader, and Doe should not limit his disclosure to merely rebutting XYZ's hearing presentation — he must affirmatively report his complete findings.
The NSPE Board's expansive interpretation of 'instruments of service' under Section 2(c) to encompass Doe's verbal findings and mental conclusions cuts exclusively in favor of disclosure and does not expand the scope of what XYZ Corporation could legitimately instruct Doe to withhold. The expansive interpretation is purposively directed at preventing engineers from evading their public safety reporting obligations by characterizing their work product narrowly. It would be internally contradictory to apply that same expansive interpretation to enlarge the client's power to suppress — doing so would use a disclosure-protective canon to achieve a disclosure-suppressive result. The correct reading is that the expansive interpretation of instruments of service defines the floor of what Doe must be prepared to disclose, not the ceiling of what XYZ may legitimately claim as proprietary. XYZ's instruction to suppress the written report was already impermissible under a narrow reading of the Code; the Board's expansive interpretation only reinforces that conclusion by making clear that even Doe's unwritten conclusions are subject to the public safety reporting obligation.
From a deontological perspective, Doe's categorical duty to public safety was not discharged by his verbal advisory to XYZ Corporation. The Kantian framework requires that the maxim underlying Doe's conduct be universalizable: if every engineer in Doe's position were to confine adverse public safety findings to a private verbal communication with a client who then suppressed them, the entire regulatory system for environmental protection would be systematically undermined. That outcome is not universalizable as a professional norm. Doe's duty to produce and submit findings to the authority is therefore categorical — it does not depend on the consequences of disclosure, on the client's preferences, or on whether a public hearing happens to be scheduled. The verbal advisory was a necessary but not sufficient act; the categorical duty independently required Doe to ensure that his findings reached the regulatory authority charged with protecting the public interest.
From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate harm calculus strongly favors disclosure. The harms from non-disclosure are concrete, ongoing, and borne by the public: degraded water quality below established environmental standards, a regulatory proceeding proceeding on false data, and the long-term public health consequences of a discharge that Doe's own studies confirmed to be non-compliant. The harms from disclosure are primarily commercial and reputational, borne by XYZ Corporation and to a lesser extent by Doe's professional relationship with that client. That relationship was already terminated, which substantially reduces even the relational harm of disclosure. Moreover, XYZ Corporation's presentation of misleading data at the public hearing compounds the harm of non-disclosure by actively deceiving the regulatory authority, making Doe's silence not merely passive omission but effective facilitation of that deception. No plausible consequentialist calculus supports Doe's continued silence once he learns of the misleading hearing presentation.
From a virtue ethics perspective, professional integrity and courage are not demonstrated by accepting contract termination and remaining silent when a client proceeds to present misleading data to a regulatory authority. The virtuous engineer in Doe's position is characterized not merely by technical competence and client loyalty, but by the moral courage to come forward when the public interest is at stake and when silence would make him complicit in a deception before a regulatory body. Doe's acceptance of the verbal advisory as his final act was understandable as an initial response to client pressure, but virtue ethics demands more than the minimum required to avoid explicit wrongdoing — it demands the positive exercise of professional integrity. A virtuous engineer does not wait to be compelled by a public hearing to act; he recognizes that his completed findings carry a professional and moral weight that survives the termination of the client relationship, and he acts accordingly.
If Doe had insisted on producing and delivering a written report to XYZ Corporation before accepting contract termination, the corporation would have faced a documented adverse finding in its possession — a record that would have complicated, though not necessarily prevented, its subsequent presentation of misleading data at the public hearing. More significantly, a written report in XYZ's hands would have created a discoverable document in any regulatory proceeding, reducing the corporation's ability to control the information environment. Doe's subsequent obligation to report to the authority would not have been eliminated by the existence of a written report delivered to XYZ, because the public safety obligation runs to the authority, not merely to the client. However, the existence of a written report would have strengthened Doe's position in any subsequent disclosure by providing a contemporaneous, documented record of his findings rather than a retrospective verbal account, and it would have made XYZ's suppression of that report a more explicit and documentable act of misconduct.
If Doe had proactively reported his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority immediately after contract termination and before the public hearing was scheduled, that earlier disclosure would have been ethically required and would have been the most complete discharge of his public safety obligation. The public hearing was not a necessary precondition for Doe's reporting duty — it was merely the event that made his silence most visibly consequential. An earlier disclosure would have been sufficient to discharge his ongoing public safety obligation because it would have placed the authority in possession of Doe's findings before any misleading data was presented, enabling the authority to conduct its own investigation and make an informed permitting decision. The fact that Doe did not act at that earlier point does not eliminate his obligation upon learning of the hearing — it simply means that the obligation, which arose at termination, remained unfulfilled and became more urgent as the hearing proceeded on false data.
If XYZ Corporation had presented accurate data at the public hearing — data consistent with Doe's adverse findings — Doe would still have retained an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority, though the urgency and character of that obligation would have differed. The obligation arising from XYZ's misleading hearing presentation is reactive and corrective: Doe must prevent a regulatory proceeding from being decided on false data. But the underlying proactive obligation — grounded in Doe's completed findings of a confirmed standards violation — exists independently of what XYZ presented at the hearing. Even if XYZ had been fully candid, the authority would benefit from receiving Doe's independent technical assessment, and Doe's professional obligation to ensure that his findings on a public safety matter reach the appropriate regulatory body does not depend on the client's honesty or dishonesty. The misleading presentation intensifies and makes more urgent an obligation that already existed; it does not create an obligation that would otherwise be absent.
In response to Q404: If Doe had disclosed his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority immediately after XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and instructed him to suppress the written report — rather than waiting until he learned of the public hearing — that earlier disclosure would have been not only ethically permissible but ethically required. The suppression instruction itself was the clearest possible signal that XYZ intended to conceal the adverse findings from the regulatory authority, and Doe's knowledge of that intent, combined with his confirmed findings of a standards violation, created an immediate and compelling obligation to escalate. Earlier disclosure would also have been more effective in protecting public health: it would have given the authority the opportunity to act before the public hearing, potentially preventing the misleading testimony from being entered into the public record at all. The delay between contract termination and the public hearing represents a period during which Doe's silence, however understandable as a matter of professional caution, was ethically unjustified given the confirmed nature of his findings and the evident suppression intent of his former client.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved not by treating them as equal competing duties but by establishing a clear lexical hierarchy: Doe's faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation was fully discharged — and exhausted — by his verbal advisory of adverse findings, at which point the public welfare paramount principle became the sole operative duty. The case teaches that faithful agency is a bounded, satisfiable obligation: once Doe honestly communicated his findings to the client, he had nothing further to withhold on the client's behalf. The public safety obligation, by contrast, is not satisfiable by client-directed action alone and persists independently of the client relationship's termination. The resolution is therefore sequential rather than balancing: faithful agency runs first and is completed; public welfare paramountcy then governs all subsequent conduct without competition.
The Client Report Suppression Prohibition and the Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure principle interact in this case to produce a compounding rather than merely additive ethical obligation. XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to render a written report was not a legitimate exercise of client authority over work product but rather an attempt to weaponize the confidentiality relationship against the very public the engineering profession exists to protect. Because the confidentiality norm does not apply where public danger is at stake, XYZ's suppression instruction carried no ethical weight from the moment it was issued. The case therefore teaches that a client cannot launder an ethically impermissible suppression instruction through the confidentiality framework: the instruction was void as against public policy from the outset, and Doe's compliance with it — even temporarily — did not create a legitimate expectation of continued silence that could survive the public hearing. The two principles together establish that both the mechanism of suppression (the client instruction) and the shield invoked to justify it (confidentiality) were simultaneously inapplicable.
The Misleading Data Correction Obligation Triggered by XYZ's Hearing Presentation and the Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded in Completed Studies are distinct in origin but convergent in outcome, and their interaction reveals an important principle about the scope of what Doe must disclose. The reactive correction duty — arising from XYZ's presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing — is bounded by the specific falsehood being corrected: Doe must contradict XYZ's claim that the discharge meets minimum standards. The proactive disclosure duty — grounded in Doe's independently completed technical studies — is broader: it requires Doe to present the full substance of his findings, not merely to negate XYZ's data point. The case teaches that when both duties are simultaneously triggered, the proactive duty sets the floor for disclosure and the reactive duty sets the minimum threshold that makes inaction unconscionable. Doe cannot satisfy his obligations by merely saying XYZ's data is wrong; he must affirmatively report what his studies found. Furthermore, the Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Applied to Plans and Specifications — extending the concept of engineering instruments of service to include Doe's verbal findings and mental conclusions — cuts exclusively in favor of disclosure: it expands the subject matter Doe is obligated to report but does not correspondingly expand XYZ's authority to suppress, because suppression authority derives from the client relationship, which is itself subordinate to the public welfare paramount principle.
Doe's formal professional relationship with XYZ ends; Doe transitions from active consultant to former consultant with knowledge of public safety risk; XYZ gains temporary control over information flow; the written record is suppressed
After Doe verbally advises XYZ of findings; before the public hearing
Following Doe's verbal disclosure of adverse findings, XYZ Corporation terminates his contract while paying him in full and instructing him to produce no written report. This outcome removes Doe from the formal client relationship but does not extinguish his professional knowledge or ethical obligations.
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing asserting the discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting his completed findings — what action must Engineer Doe take with respect to the State Pollution Control Authority?
Engineer Doe's obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing — and whether that obligation arose earlier, at the moment of contract termination and suppression instruction.
Come forward at or after the public hearing to present completed adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, affirmatively correcting XYZ's misleading data and submitting the full substance of the technical studies to the regulatory record
Limit post-hearing action to submitting a targeted written rebuttal correcting only the specific data points XYZ misrepresented, without volunteering the full scope of completed study findings beyond what is necessary to contradict the false compliance claim
Refrain from contacting the authority directly and instead report XYZ's misleading hearing presentation to the relevant professional engineering licensing board, allowing that body to determine whether referral to the State Pollution Control Authority is warranted
Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer
When XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment and instructed him not to render a written report of his adverse findings, what was Doe's professional obligation with respect to documenting and preserving those findings?
Engineer Doe's obligation to resist XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report of his adverse findings — and whether his verbal advisory to the client was sufficient to discharge his professional documentation duty or whether a separate, non-waivable obligation to produce and preserve a written record persisted independently of the client's instruction.
Resist XYZ's suppression instruction by producing and preserving a written report of adverse findings, delivering it to XYZ Corporation and retaining a copy, and notifying the State Pollution Control Authority of the findings and the suppression instruction
Produce and retain an internal written memorandum documenting the adverse findings for professional records purposes without delivering it to XYZ or the authority, treating the verbal advisory as having discharged the client-facing obligation while preserving a contemporaneous record for potential future use
Accept contract termination and the instruction not to render a written report, treating the verbal advisory as sufficient discharge of the professional obligation to inform the client, on the basis that no written report was contractually required and the client's scope-of-work authority extended to the form of deliverables
When XYZ Corporation instructed Doe to suppress his written report and subsequently presented contradictory data at the public hearing, did Doe's professional confidentiality obligations under §7 bar him from disclosing his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, and did those obligations survive contract termination?
The interaction between the Confidentiality Non-Applicability principle and the Client Report Suppression Prohibition in determining whether XYZ Corporation's suppression instruction carried any ethical weight — and whether the confidentiality framework could legitimately shield that instruction from the public welfare paramount obligation.
Disclose completed adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority without client authorization, treating the public danger exception to §7 as applicable to a confirmed regulatory standards violation and the suppression instruction as void as against public policy
Seek written authorization from XYZ Corporation to disclose findings to the authority before making any disclosure, treating §7 confidentiality as surviving contract termination and requiring client consent unless and until a formal regulatory subpoena or legal compulsion is issued
Disclose findings to the authority only in response to a direct request or subpoena from the State Pollution Control Authority, treating the public danger exception as requiring a formal regulatory inquiry to activate rather than arising from the engineer's unilateral judgment that a standards violation constitutes sufficient public danger
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented false compliance data at the public hearing, should Engineer Doe report his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, and if so, in what form and scope?
Doe's obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented false compliance data at the public hearing — and whether that obligation was already latent from the moment his studies concluded and the suppression instruction was issued.
Submit a complete written report of all adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority and offer to testify at the public hearing, affirmatively correcting XYZ's misleading data and placing the full technical record before the authority
Appear at the public hearing solely to contradict the specific false data points presented by XYZ Corporation, limiting disclosure to the minimum necessary to correct the misleading record without submitting the full study findings
Notify XYZ Corporation in writing that its hearing presentation contradicts Doe's findings and demand that XYZ itself correct the record before the authority, treating the client notification as the primary mechanism of compliance before taking any direct action toward the authority
When XYZ Corporation instructed Doe not to produce a written report and terminated his contract, was Doe obligated to resist that suppression instruction by insisting on producing and delivering a written report of his adverse findings, independently of any subsequent obligation triggered by the public hearing?
Whether XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report constituted an independently wrongful act that Doe was obligated to resist at the time of contract termination — and whether Doe's verbal-only advisory was sufficient to discharge his professional duty to document and communicate findings bearing on public safety.
Refuse to accept contract termination without first producing and delivering a complete written report of adverse findings to XYZ Corporation, and report XYZ's suppression instruction to the appropriate professional body or regulatory authority
Accept contract termination and the instruction not to produce a written report, treating the verbal advisory as a complete discharge of professional obligations, while retaining personal notes of findings for potential future use if a regulatory proceeding arises
Accept contract termination but prepare and retain a complete internal written record of findings without delivering it to XYZ or the authority, treating the written documentation as a professional preservation measure while deferring any disclosure decision until a concrete regulatory trigger — such as a public hearing — arises
At what point in the timeline did Doe's ethical obligation to disclose his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority arise, and does the answer affect the scope and sufficiency of the disclosure he must now make?
Whether Doe's proactive disclosure obligation to the State Pollution Control Authority arose at the moment his adverse findings were concluded and the suppression instruction was issued — before any public hearing was scheduled — and whether the hearing was merely a confirmatory trigger of a pre-existing duty or the origin of a new one, with implications for the timing, scope, and ethical sufficiency of any disclosure Doe ultimately makes.
Immediately upon learning of the hearing, submit a complete written report of adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority and acknowledge that this disclosure should have been made at the time of contract termination, offering the authority a full account of the timeline including the suppression instruction
Treat the public hearing as the operative triggering event and limit disclosure to correcting the specific false data XYZ presented at the hearing, without volunteering information about the earlier suppression instruction or characterizing the disclosure as satisfaction of a pre-existing duty
Seek guidance from the NSPE or a professional ethics board before disclosing to the authority, treating the ambiguity about the timing and scope of the disclosure obligation as a genuine professional uncertainty that warrants formal ethical consultation before action
Deciding Whether to Report Findings to Authority
licensed professional engineer / former environmental consultant to XYZ
Reporting may create professional or reputational risk for Doe in the short term
Reporting will damage the former client relationship and may expose Doe to legal action from XYZ
Silence will allow a regulatory proceeding to be decided on false data
Silence will allow continued non-compliant discharge harmful to public health and environment
Obligation to correct material misrepresentations in regulatory proceedings affecting public health
Principle that confidentiality does not shield concealment of public safety hazards (§7 limitation)
Public safety and welfare as paramount obligation superseding client loyalty (§2)
deliberate and ethically conflicted. Doe must weigh competing professional obligations with full awareness of the consequences of each path
If he reports: protect public health and safety by ensuring the Authority has accurate information about discharge compliance; correct a material misrepresentation in a regulatory proceeding. If he remains silent: honor perceived confidentiality obligations and avoid conflict with former client
Ability to formally communicate findings to the State Pollution Control Authority
Capacity to document and present technical findings in a regulatory context
Knowledge of applicable professional code provisions (§1, §2, §2(a), §2(c), §7)
Professional judgment to assess the severity of the public health risk
Upon learning of the public hearing and XYZ's contradicting data presentation, after contract termination
Upon learning that XYZ had presented data at the public hearing contradicting his professional findings, Engineer Doe faced the critical decision of whether to remain silent, honoring the implicit confidentiality of the terminated contract, or to come forward and report his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority to protect public health and safety. The Discussion concludes Doe must report.
Discharge Below Environmental Standards — Confirmed Finding
From Doe's conclusion through resolution of regulatory proceeding and any corrective action
Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
Receiving body of water subject to XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge
Implementation of adequate corrective measures by XYZ Corporation or regulatory enforcement action
He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly
Doe concludes that discharge will lower water quality below established environmental standards and that corrective action will be very costly
Doe Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance XYZ Adverse Findings
Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance Capability
Engineer Doe maintained professional independence throughout his client-funded engagement with XYZ Corporation, reaching and communicating adverse findings that contradicted the client's desired regulatory outcome despite the client having funded the study.
XYZ Corporation retained Doe to produce a report supporting its permit application; Doe instead reached and reported adverse findings, resulting in contract termination.
Doe's honest verbal disclosure to XYZ Corporation that his studies indicated established standards would be violated — an adverse finding that led to his contract termination.
Engineer Doe Environmental Engineering Consultant
In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client.
Doe Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance XYZ Engagement
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to maintain professional independence throughout his client-funded study for XYZ Corporation, reaching and communicating adverse findings that directly contradicted the client's desired regulatory outcome
XYZ Corporation retained Doe specifically to produce findings supporting its permit application; Doe maintained independence and reported adverse findings
Despite being retained specifically to support XYZ Corporation's permit application, Doe independently concluded and verbally reported that the discharge would violate established standards
In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe
Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings
Doe Client Report Suppression Instruction Recognition
Client Report Suppression Instruction Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the awareness capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report — coupled with full payment and contract termination — was a suspicious directive warranting professional scrutiny rather than passive compliance.
After completing environmental studies showing XYZ's discharge would violate established standards and verbally advising the client, Doe was instructed not to render a written report and had his contract terminated with full payment.
Doe's recognition that the corporation's specific stipulation against a written report raised professional questions about his obligations, as reflected in the Board's analysis of why the instruction was ethically significant.
Doe Client Unprofessional Conduct Instruction Identification XYZ Suppression
Client Unprofessional Conduct Instruction Identification and Reporting Capability
Engineer Doe was required to possess the capability to identify XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report as a request for unprofessional conduct under §2(c), and to report that instruction to proper authorities.
XYZ Corporation instructed Doe not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings, then presented contradictory data at a public hearing.
The Board's analysis that §2(c)'s reporting obligation for unprofessional conduct instructions was triggered by XYZ's suppression instruction, and that it would be unprofessional conduct for Doe not to take further action.
That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us.
We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
Doe Competing Duties — Faithful Agent vs. Public Safety Paramount
From Doe's learning of the public hearing through his decision to notify proper authorities
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee'
Engineer Doe's simultaneous obligations as faithful agent/trustee to XYZ Corporation and as professional with paramount duty to public safety
Doe's resolution to prioritize public safety obligation per §2(a) and notify proper authorities
Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount
We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest
XYZ Corporation's public hearing testimony contradicting Doe's suppressed findings, forcing Doe to choose between client loyalty and public safety duty
Doe Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report
From contract termination with suppression instruction through Doe's decision to notify proper authorities
The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c)
Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
XYZ Corporation's instruction to Engineer Doe not to produce a written report of his findings
Doe's notification of proper authorities per §2(c) obligation
XYZ Corporation's stipulation that Doe not render a written report, coupled with XYZ's testimony at the public hearing presenting contradictory data
Doe Confidentiality Non-Applicability Assessment XYZ Discharge Disclosure
Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to assess that §7 confidentiality did not bar his disclosure of findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, because the disclosure concerned apparent danger to the public interest rather than the client's technical processes or business affairs.
Before reporting to the State Pollution Control Authority, Doe needed to assess whether §7 confidentiality barred disclosure of his findings about XYZ's discharge.
The Board's determination that §7 posed no obstacle to Doe's regulatory disclosure, as the disclosure would not reveal confidential business information but rather public danger findings.
Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
Doe Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition XYZ Discharge
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress his written report — functioning as a de facto confidentiality instruction — was pre-empted by his professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and environmental welfare
XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report functioned as a confidentiality directive that Doe was required to recognize as pre-empted by public safety obligations
Doe's obligation to report environmental standards violations to the State Pollution Control Authority despite the client's instruction not to render a written report, recognizing that the severity of the public health risk pre-empted any confidentiality obligation
instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
Doe Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition
Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's termination of his contract with full payment did not extinguish his professional obligations to report environmental standards violations to the State Pollution Control Authority
XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment and instructed him not to produce a written report, requiring Doe to recognize that these client actions did not extinguish his post-termination professional duties
Doe's continued obligation to report his findings to the regulatory authority after contract termination, recognizing that public welfare duties are owed to the public rather than to the client and cannot be extinguished by client action
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
Engineer Doe, having been discharged from the XYZ Corporation project following his disclosure of adverse environmental findings, was obligated to continue reporting
Doe Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition XYZ Discharge
Engineer Doe was required to recognize that the termination of his contract with XYZ Corporation — including full payment for services rendered — did not extinguish his professional obligations to public health, safety, and welfare that arose during the engagement.
XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment after receiving adverse verbal findings, but Doe's professional obligations to report to regulatory authorities persisted.
The Board's ruling that post-termination professional duties persisted independently of the contractual relationship, particularly given the public welfare implications of Doe's completed findings.
Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
Doe Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction
Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing triggered an affirmative obligation to bring his completed findings to the regulatory authority and correct the public record
Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority, creating an obligation to correct the public record with his completed technical findings
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data asserting the discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting his own completed findings — Doe was obligated to appear at or submit findings to the public hearing
Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
Doe Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction XYZ Public Hearing
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's presentation of data at the public hearing directly contradicted his completed findings, and to take affirmative corrective action — including appearing at or submitting findings to the hearing — to ensure the regulatory record contained accurate technical information.
After contract termination, Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing asserting the discharge met minimum standards — directly contradicting his own completed findings.
The Board's determination that Doe was obligated to bring his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ presented contradictory data at the public hearing.
Professional Inaction Avoidance Upon Contradictory Public Hearing Data Obligation
Doe Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence XYZ Discharge
Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his discharge from the XYZ Corporation project and the client's instruction not to write a report did not extinguish his obligation to report identified environmental standards violations to the State Pollution Control Authority
After being discharged with full payment and instructed not to produce a written report, Doe was required to persist in reporting his adverse environmental findings to the regulatory authority
Doe's obligation to report his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority despite contract termination, full payment, and explicit client instruction to the contrary
Engineer Doe, having been discharged from the XYZ Corporation project following his disclosure of adverse environmental findings, was obligated to report
Doe Environmental Standards Violation Technical Assessment XYZ Discharge
Environmental Standards Violation Technical Assessment Capability
Engineer Doe possessed expert-level technical capability to conduct engineering studies evaluating whether XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge would meet or violate established environmental quality standards
Retained by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report on whether manufacturing waste discharge would meet established environmental standards
Doe completed engineering studies concluding that the discharge would lower receiving water quality below established standards and that corrective action would be very costly
XYZ Corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
Doe Facts-Versus-Adversarial-Interests Distinction XYZ Hearing
Facts-Versus-Adversarial-Interests Distinction Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his completed technical findings were objective facts — not adversarial positions — and that XYZ Corporation's contrary public hearing data did not transform his findings into a partisan position, enabling him to present his findings to the regulatory authority as objective technical information
XYZ Corporation's presentation of contrary data at the public hearing created an apparent adversarial dynamic that Doe was required to navigate by presenting his findings as objective technical facts rather than as advocacy
Doe's obligation to bring his completed technical findings to the public hearing as objective fact-grounded testimony, distinguishing his professional findings from the adversarial posture of XYZ Corporation's contrary data presentation
XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
Doe was obligated to ensure that any public technical opinion regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge was grounded in his completed studies
Doe Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition XYZ Verbal Advice
Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe demonstrated the capability to recognize that his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation was fulfilled by honestly advising the client verbally of adverse findings, and that the faithful agent role did not require him to suppress those findings or refrain from subsequent regulatory reporting.
Doe completed his studies, verbally advised XYZ Corporation that established standards would be violated, and then faced the question of whether further action was consistent with his faithful agent role.
The Board's analysis that Doe's verbal advice met the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c), establishing that the faithful agent obligation was satisfied before the public safety obligations arose.
His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
Doe transitions from passive former consultant to active moral agent with knowledge of ongoing regulatory fraud; the ethical decision is no longer abstract but concrete and time-sensitive; Doe's knowledge gap is closed and his obligation to act is fully activated
After the public hearing at which XYZ presented false data; described as 'later' in the narrative
Engineer Doe becomes aware that XYZ Corporation has presented data at the public hearing that directly contradicts his professional findings. This informational event is the trigger that activates Doe's most acute ethical obligations, as he now has knowledge of active regulatory fraud affecting public safety.
Doe Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment XYZ Discharge
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to assess whether XYZ Corporation's rejection of his adverse findings and instruction to suppress his report — constituting a client override of his professional recommendations — required escalation to the State Pollution Control Authority, and to determine that the gravity of the environmental standards violation met the threshold for mandatory regulatory escalation
XYZ Corporation's termination and suppression instruction constituted a client override of Doe's professional findings, triggering the need to assess whether regulatory escalation was required
After XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and instructed him not to produce a written report, Doe was required to assess whether the environmental risk warranted escalation to the State Pollution Control Authority independent of the client relationship
Engineer Doe was obligated to escalate his findings regarding the discharge's violation of established environmental standards to the State Pollution Control Authority
Doe Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation
From termination of Doe's contract through resolution of the public safety risk via notification of proper authorities
The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision
Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation State
Engineer Doe's ongoing public safety obligation after contract termination by XYZ Corporation
Doe's notification of proper authorities regarding the standards violation findings
Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
Termination of Doe's engineering services contract with full payment, leaving public safety risk unresolved
Doe Precedent-Based Public Safety Reporting Obligation Recognition XYZ Case 67-10
Precedent-Based Public Safety Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review applied precedent from BER Case No. 67-10 to reinforce the principle that engineers must devote their interests to public welfare, using that precedent to support the conclusion that Doe's reporting obligation persisted despite contract termination.
The Board used prior BER precedent to support its interpretation of the paramount public welfare duty in the context of Doe's post-termination reporting obligations.
The Board's citation of Case No. 67-10 for the proposition that 'it is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare.'
Doe Precedent-Informed Environmental Reporting Obligation Recognition XYZ Discharge
Precedent-Informed Environmental Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize — drawing on established BER precedent — that his professional reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority persisted after contract termination and despite client instructions to the contrary, and that XYZ Corporation's contradictory public hearing testimony created an independent obligation to report
The combination of contract termination, client suppression instruction, and subsequent contradictory public testimony by XYZ Corporation triggered Doe's precedent-grounded reporting obligation
Doe's obligation to report his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority after learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing, consistent with BER Case 76-4 precedent
Engineer Doe was obligated, after contract termination, to report his completed findings that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards
Doe Public Safety Escalation State Pollution Control Authority XYZ Discharge
Engineer Doe was required to escalate his completed findings about XYZ Corporation's discharge to the State Pollution Control Authority, recognizing that the identified environmental standards violation exceeded the client relationship and required regulatory notification.
Having completed studies showing XYZ's discharge would violate established minimum standards, and having been discharged and instructed to silence, Doe needed to escalate to the regulatory authority.
The Board's determination that Doe was obligated to bring his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority and to appear at or submit findings to the public hearing.
Section 2 — 'He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
Doe Public Welfare Safety Escalation XYZ Discharge Regulatory Authority
Doe Public Safety Escalation XYZ Discharge State Authority
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his findings regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge exceeding established environmental standards required escalation to the State Pollution Control Authority, beyond the terminated client relationship
Having identified that XYZ Corporation's discharge would violate established environmental standards, Doe was required to escalate to the State Pollution Control Authority that had issued the permit notice
Doe's obligation to escalate his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, the regulatory body with jurisdiction over the discharge permit, despite the termination of his client contract
Doe Public Safety at Risk — Standards Violation
From Doe's determination that established standards will be violated through regulatory authority action
It is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
Public health and safety risk arising from XYZ Corporation's apparent failure to meet minimum legally established standards
Regulatory authority taking corrective action following notification
Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated
He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health
Doe's study results indicating established standards will in his opinion be violated by XYZ Corporation
Doe Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition XYZ Client Conflict
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his professional obligation to public health, safety, and environmental welfare was paramount over his faithful agent obligations to XYZ Corporation when the client's interests directly conflicted with public welfare
The conflict between XYZ Corporation's commercial interest in suppressing adverse findings and the public's interest in accurate environmental standards compliance information required Doe to prioritize public welfare
Doe's recognition that XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress adverse findings and the termination of his contract could not override his paramount duty to report environmental standards violations to the regulatory authority
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
Doe Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition XYZ Discharge Hearing
Engineer Doe was required to recognize that upon learning of the public hearing, his paramount duty to public safety, health, and welfare under §2(a) overrode his client loyalty obligations and required affirmative action.
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing, Doe faced a direct conflict between client loyalty and public welfare obligations.
The Board's analysis that §2(a) required Doe's duty to the public to be paramount, and that a failure to meet minimum standards was detrimental to public health and safety.
In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
Doe Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution XYZ Corporation
Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to execute his trustee advisory role faithfully for XYZ Corporation by completing his studies and honestly advising the corporation of adverse findings, subordinating any commercial interest in retaining the client to the obligation to provide complete and objective professional advice
Doe was retained as a consulting engineer with a trustee advisory role; he fulfilled this role by honestly reporting adverse findings to XYZ Corporation before the contract was terminated
Doe completed his engineering studies and verbally advised XYZ Corporation that the discharge would violate established standards, fulfilling his faithful agent obligation even though the findings were adverse to the client's interests
Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by completing his studies and honestly advising the corporation verbally of his findings
Doe Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record
From XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report through Doe's learning of the public hearing
Doe has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record State
Engineer Doe's advisory relationship with XYZ Corporation regarding standards violation findings
Doe's decision to take further action to notify proper authorities upon learning of the hearing
His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c)
XYZ Corporation's explicit stipulation that Doe not render a written report upon terminating his contract
Doe Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition
Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that his completed verbal findings carried the same professional weight as written findings and that XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report was professionally impermissible
After completing his studies and verbally advising XYZ Corporation of adverse findings, Doe was instructed not to produce a written report — requiring him to recognize that this instruction was impermissible
Doe's obligation to resist XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report, recognizing that the client's payment of fees and termination of contract did not extinguish his duty to document and report adverse environmental findings
After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
Doe Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition XYZ Suppression
Engineer Doe was required to recognize that his completed technical findings — communicated verbally to XYZ Corporation — carried the same professional weight as written findings, and that XYZ's instruction not to render a written report did not extinguish his obligation to document and report those findings.
After verbally advising XYZ Corporation of adverse findings, Doe was instructed not to render a written report and had his contract terminated.
The Board's analysis that the client's instruction not to render a written report was professionally significant and did not discharge Doe's obligations, particularly given the public safety implications of the findings.
Doe XYZ 60-Day Permit Deadline Non-Exculpation for Suppression
XYZ Corporation was under a 60-day regulatory deadline to apply for a discharge permit when it employed Doe; the deadline created pressure that may have motivated the instruction to suppress Doe's adverse findings
Regulatory Permit Deadline Non-Exculpation for Safety Suppression Constraint
XYZ Corporation's 60-day regulatory deadline to apply for a discharge permit did not constitute a justification for Engineer Doe to suppress, withhold, or delay disclosure of his completed findings that the discharge would violate established environmental standards — the temporal pressure of the permit application window did not diminish Doe's obligation to disclose adverse findings promptly.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Regulation; Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint
XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
During the 60-day permit application window
Doe XYZ Client Loyalty Public Safety Priority
Engineer Doe faced competing duties as faithful agent to XYZ Corporation and as a professional with paramount duty to public safety when XYZ instructed suppression of adverse findings and presented contradictory data at the public hearing
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
Engineer Doe's obligation as faithful agent and trustee to XYZ Corporation was constrained by and subordinate to his paramount duty to public safety, health, and welfare — such that when XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress findings and its misrepresentation at the public hearing conflicted with public safety, Doe was required to prioritize public safety over client loyalty.
NSPE Code of Ethics §1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee); §2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare); Agent-Trustee Distinction Framework
Throughout the engagement and following contract termination
Doe XYZ Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety Disclosure
XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report implicitly invoked confidentiality; the NSPE Board found that §7 confidentiality did not bar Doe's disclosure to the regulatory authority given the public safety stakes
Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety-Critical Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
Engineer Doe's obligation to maintain confidentiality of XYZ Corporation's business affairs and technical processes under NSPE Code §7 was constrained by and defeasible in the face of his paramount duty to public safety under §2(a), such that confidentiality did not bar disclosure of his completed findings of environmental standards violation to the State Pollution Control Authority.
NSPE Code of Ethics §7 (Confidential Information); §2(a) (Paramount Duty to Public Welfare); BER Case 76-4
From contract termination through the public hearing
Doe XYZ Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure
Doe's completed studies established that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below the minimum standards established by the State Pollution Control Authority, and corrective action would be very costly
Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained to disclose his completed findings that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established environmental standards to the State Pollution Control Authority, even without client authorization and following contract termination, as the confirmed environmental standards violation posed a risk to public health and welfare that superseded confidentiality and contractual obligations.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Regulation; Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
From completion of studies through the public hearing and permit decision
XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
Doe XYZ Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Public Hearing
Doe had completed his studies and reached definitive conclusions before contract termination, providing the factual grounding required for any public technical opinion at the regulatory hearing
Engineer Doe was constrained to ground any public technical opinion regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge in his completed studies and established findings, prohibiting him from expressing unverified concerns or speculative assessments at the public hearing — but his completed studies provided the factual foundation required to support disclosure of his findings to the regulatory authority.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2; Professional Report Integrity Standard; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing
Doe XYZ Non-Acquiescence Client Economic Override Report Suppression
Doe concluded that corrective action would be very costly; XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report was plausibly motivated by the economic burden of required corrective action
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained from acquiescing to XYZ Corporation's economically motivated instruction to suppress his written report — the corporation's conclusion that corrective action would be very costly and its consequent instruction to suppress adverse findings constituted an economic override that Doe was prohibited from accepting as a basis for abandoning his public safety obligations.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint; BER Case 76-4
From the moment XYZ Corporation issued the suppression instruction
Doe XYZ Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation
XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract and instructed suppression of his written report after he disclosed adverse findings verbally; XYZ then presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained, after XYZ Corporation overrode his professional findings by instructing suppression of the written report and terminating his contract, to escalate his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority — the gravity of the environmental standards violation and the client's subsequent misrepresentation at the public hearing warranted escalation beyond passive acceptance of the client's override.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2; §2(a); §2(c); Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard; BER Case 76-4
Doe XYZ Public Hearing Contradictory Data Correction Obligation Constraint
After contract termination, Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented data at a public hearing asserting the discharge meets minimum standards, directly contradicting Doe's completed findings that it would lower water quality below established standards
Client-Suppressed Findings Public Hearing Correction Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained to appear at or submit findings to the State Pollution Control Authority's public hearing to correct XYZ Corporation's presentation of data asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — data directly contradicted by Doe's completed technical findings — and was prohibited from remaining silent when the client's misrepresentation could result in regulatory approval of a below-standard discharge.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); §2(c); BER Case 76-4; Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Upon learning of XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation at the public hearing
Doe XYZ Regulatory Authority Inaction Escalation Boundary
The State Pollution Control Authority was the designated regulatory body with jurisdiction over the discharge permit; notification to this authority represented the appropriate escalation endpoint for Doe's professional ethical obligation
Regulatory Authority Inaction Escalation Boundary Constraint
Engineer Doe's professional ethical obligation was satisfied upon clear and complete notification to the State Pollution Control Authority of his completed findings — once the regulatory authority had been fully informed, further escalation through political, media, or other channels was a personal rather than professional ethical obligation, establishing the boundary of Doe's formal reporting duty.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2(c); Regulatory Authority Inaction Escalation Boundary Constraint; BER Case 76-4
Following disclosure of findings to the State Pollution Control Authority
Doe XYZ Temporal Disclosure Urgency Post-Hearing Discovery
The public hearing created a time-sensitive window during which Doe's disclosure of contradictory findings could correct the regulatory record before a permit decision was made
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing, Engineer Doe was constrained to disclose his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority promptly — the active regulatory proceeding created a time-sensitive disclosure obligation that prohibited deferral of safety-relevant communications.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2(a); §2(c); Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint
Immediately upon learning of XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation at the public hearing
Doe XYZ Terminated Contract Post-Disclosure Regulatory Reporting
XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract after his verbal disclosure of adverse findings, instructed him not to produce a written report, and then presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing
Terminated Contract Post-Disclosure Reporting Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained, following contract termination by XYZ Corporation and the client's subsequent presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing, to report his completed findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, as contract termination and the instruction not to file a written report did not discharge his professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2; §2(a); §2(c); BER Case 76-4
From contract termination through the public hearing and permit decision
Doe XYZ Verbal Advisory Written Report Non-Suppression
Doe verbally advised XYZ Corporation of his findings but was instructed not to render a written report; the NSPE Board interpreted §2(c) broadly to cover all engineering instruments of service, not merely plans and specifications
Engineer Doe was constrained from treating his verbal advisory to XYZ Corporation as a complete discharge of his professional reporting obligation — the verbal communication of adverse findings did not substitute for the written documentation required to create a complete and accurate professional record, and the client's instruction not to produce a written report did not eliminate this constraint.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2(c); Professional Report Integrity Standard; BER Case 76-4
From completion of studies through the public hearing
After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report
Doe XYZ Written Report Suppression Instruction Prohibition
XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment and instructed him not to render a written report after he verbally disclosed that the discharge would violate environmental standards
Client Instruction Report Suppression Prohibition Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained from complying with XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report of his completed findings that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, as the instruction to suppress a completed safety-adverse report cannot override the engineer's professional obligation to document and disclose findings bearing on public health.
NSPE Code of Ethics §2 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare); §2(a) (Paramount Duty); §2(c) (Reporting Unprofessional Conduct); BER Case 76-4
From the moment XYZ Corporation issued the suppression instruction through the public hearing and permit process
From XYZ's termination of contract onward
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
Engineer Doe's consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation
Not terminated — persists as post-contractual state
XYZ Corporation terminates consulting contract with Doe following his verbal disclosure of unfavorable findings
Doe's Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation
From contract termination through resolution of the public hearing and regulatory determination
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe
Engineer Doe's professional obligations following contract termination
Doe discloses findings to the authority, or regulatory proceeding concludes with accurate information
Doe is discharged after verbally reporting findings; public risk remains unresolved and XYZ presents contrary data at public hearing
Doe's completion of studies before Doe's verbal advisement to XYZ
After completion of his studies... Doe concludes that the discharge... will lower the quality... He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly. Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings.
Doe's completion of studies before Doe's written report (never completed)
After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards.
Doe's verbal advisement to XYZ meets XYZ termination of Doe's contract
Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed.
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins
Professional engineering ethics community / NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Duty to Escalate Public Safety Concerns Beyond the Client
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Governs whether Doe, after being terminated and instructed not to submit a written report, retains an obligation to disclose his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority or the public, given that XYZ Corporation is presenting data contradicting his conclusions at a public hearing
National Society of Professional Engineers (distilled from §§2, 2(a), 2(c))
Professional Norms for Engineer Escalation of Public Safety Concerns Beyond the Client
That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Doe's affirmative duty
Operative standard governing Doe's obligation to appear at the public hearing and disclose the standards violation after being terminated and instructed not to produce a written report; the Board interprets §2(c) broadly to require action whenever client conduct would endanger the public
Environmental Hazard — Below-Standard Discharge
From Doe's findings through implementation of corrective action or regulatory intervention
the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
Receiving body of water and downstream public health
Corrective action implemented by XYZ Corporation or regulatory enforcement preventing discharge
Doe's engineering analysis confirms discharge will degrade water quality below established environmental standards
The regulatory proceeding is now actively corrupted by false data; public health is at imminent risk from potential permit grant based on fraudulent information; Doe's ethical obligation to report crosses from discretionary to mandatory; confidentiality no longer shields XYZ's conduct
At the public hearing, after Doe's contract has been terminated
At the public hearing, XYZ Corporation presents data claiming their discharge meets minimum environmental standards, directly contradicting Engineer Doe's professional findings. This event constitutes a false representation to a regulatory authority in a public proceeding, creating an immediate and concrete threat to public health and regulatory integrity.
Creation of a professional record that could be used against XYZ if findings were unfavorable
Risk that independent study might produce adverse findings
Procedural compliance with regulatory process by engaging a qualified engineer
Corporate self-interest and cost avoidance
deliberate and potentially strategic, framing the study as support for a permit application rather than neutral inquiry
Obtain a favorable written report demonstrating discharge compliance to submit with permit application
Ability to identify and retain a qualified environmental engineer
Understanding of permit application requirements
Early in engagement, within the 60-day permit application window
Candor toward regulatory authority, initiating a study with intent to use only favorable results suggests bad faith toward the permitting process
Good faith engagement with professional consultant, framing the study as advocacy rather than objective assessment undermines the integrity of the engineering process
XYZ Corporation deliberately hired Engineer Doe to study whether their discharge meets environmental standards, framing the engagement as a compliance demonstration rather than an objective inquiry. This decision initiated the professional relationship and set the terms under which Doe would operate.
Hiring Doe for Compliance Study → Adverse Findings Concluded
XYZ Corporation deliberately hired Engineer Doe to study whether their discharge meets environmental standards, which directly produced the definitive conclusion that XYZ's discharge violates environmental requirements
Without hiring Doe, the adverse findings would not have been formally concluded in this form; however, the underlying violation would still exist and might have been discovered through regulatory inspection
60-Day Permit Window creating regulatory pressure to investigate
Doe's professional competence to conduct environmental analysis
Existence of actual environmental violation to be discovered
XYZ Corporation's decision to commission the study
Combination of qualified engineer + commissioned study + actual violation = adverse findings inevitable
National Society of Professional Engineers
Primary normative authority governing Engineer Doe's obligations when his client (XYZ Corporation) suppresses his findings and presents contrary data to a public authority, implicating canons on public safety, honesty, and professional integrity
NSPE BER Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation XYZ Doe
Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation Capability
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrated expert-level capability to interpret 'plans and specifications' in §2(c) expansively and purposively to include all engineering instruments of service, reading the specific term in light of the overall paramount duty expressed in §§2 and 2(a).
The Board was required to interpret whether §2(c)'s reference to 'plans and specifications' limited the reporting obligation to those specific instruments, or whether it extended to all engineering outputs including study findings.
The Board's ruling that §2(c) applies to engineering studies and verbal findings — not only to plans and specifications — based on the overall thrust of the code's public safety mandate.
It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c).
We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service.
NSPE Board Broad Instrument of Service Interpretation Activation
From issuance of this Board opinion forward as precedent
It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c)
Broad Instrument of Service Interpretation Activation State
NSPE Board of Ethical Review's interpretive ruling expanding §2(c) 'plans and specifications' to all engineering instruments of service
That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context
We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service
Board's need to apply §2(c) to a case where findings were communicated verbally rather than through formal plans and specifications
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 1
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer Doe's obligations
Establishes the engineer's duty to act as a faithful agent or trustee for each client or employer; cited to affirm that Doe's verbal advice to XYZ Corporation met the letter and spirit of the obligation
Historical version (section no longer exists in current code)
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1(c) (Advise Client of Unsuccessful Project)
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 1(c)
Section 1(c)—'He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful.'
Requires the engineer to advise the client when a project will not be successful; cited to confirm Doe's verbal warning to XYZ Corporation satisfied this obligation
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2
Section 2—'The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in determining Doe's paramount duty
Requires the engineer to have proper regard for public safety, health, and welfare; to point out consequences when overruled; and to notify proper authority of conditions endangering public safety — central normative anchor for Doe's obligation to act at the hearing
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2(a)
Section 2(a)—'He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount.'
Establishes that the engineer's duty to the public welfare is paramount over client interests; directly invoked to override XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2(c)
We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code.
Section 2(c)—'He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review — first-ever interpretation of this section
Prohibits completing or sealing unsafe plans/specifications and requires reporting unprofessional conduct to proper authorities; interpreted broadly by the Board to cover all engineering instruments of service, triggering Doe's obligation to act at the public hearing
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 7
Section 7—'The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in ruling out confidentiality as a barrier
Prohibits disclosure of confidential business affairs or technical processes without client consent; considered by the Board but found not to bar Doe's disclosure because advising proper authority of public danger does not reveal confidential technical or business information
Presenting False Compliance Data at Hearing
Continued discharge of non-compliant effluent harming public health and environment
Potential legal liability if misrepresentation was later proven
Risk of discovery if Doe or another engineer came forward with contradicting findings
Regulatory evasion through misrepresentation
deliberate and knowing. XYZ had received Doe's adverse findings and chose to present contradicting data, indicating awareness of the falsity of the compliance claim
Obtain a discharge permit from the Authority by misrepresenting compliance status, thereby avoiding the cost of corrective action
Legal and regulatory expertise in permit proceedings
Preparation and presentation of technical data to regulatory bodies
At the public hearing scheduled by the State Pollution Control Authority, after Doe's contract was terminated
Duty not to present data that contradicts known professional findings without disclosure of the contradiction
Duty of candor and truthfulness in regulatory proceedings
Legal obligation not to make material misrepresentations to regulatory authorities
Obligation to protect public health and environmental welfare
At the public hearing convened by the State Pollution Control Authority, XYZ Corporation presented data claiming their discharge met minimum environmental standards, directly contradicting Engineer Doe's professional findings of standards violations. This decision constituted a material misrepresentation to a regulatory body on a matter of public health.
Presenting False Compliance Data at Hearing → Deciding Whether to Report Findings to Authority
Upon learning that XYZ had presented data at the public hearing contradicting his professional findings, Engineer Doe faced the critical ethical decision of whether to report his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, a decision directly triggered by XYZ's false data presentation
Had XYZ not presented false data, or had Doe not learned of the false presentation, the specific ethical decision point would not have arisen in this form, though Doe's general duty to protect public welfare would still exist
Doe's awareness of the false presentation triggering professional ethical obligations
Doe's possession of contradicting professional findings
Existence of a regulatory authority with jurisdiction to receive the report
XYZ Corporation's presentation of false compliance data creating a public misrepresentation
Engineer Doe (decision responsibility); XYZ Corporation (causal responsibility for creating the ethical dilemma)
False public data + Doe's knowledge of truth + professional engineering ethical obligations = Doe's duty to decide whether to report is activated
Professional Norms Governing Accuracy and Completeness of Engineering Reports and Communications
Addresses Doe's obligation regarding the suppressed written report — whether the instruction not to render a written report, combined with the client's submission of contrary data to a public authority, constitutes a violation of professional integrity norms
The permit dispute moves from private negotiation to public regulatory arena; the stakes of information suppression escalate; Doe's silence now has direct consequences for a formal public proceeding
After Doe's contract is terminated; before the hearing itself
The State Pollution Control Authority schedules a public hearing regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge permit application, creating a formal public proceeding where compliance data will be presented and evaluated. This exogenous event transforms the private suppression of Doe's findings into a matter with direct public consequence.
Does Doe have an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing?
Did XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to produce a written report itself constitute unprofessional conduct that Doe had an independent obligation to report to the authority or a professional body, separate from any obligation arising from the public hearing?
Was Doe's verbal-only advisory to XYZ Corporation sufficient to discharge his professional duty to document and communicate findings, or did his obligation to produce a written record persist independently of the client's instruction to suppress it?
Does the fact that XYZ Corporation paid Doe in full upon termination create any ambiguity about the ownership of his findings, and could that payment be construed as an attempt to purchase Doe's silence in a manner that itself raises ethical concerns?
At what earlier point in the timeline — before the public hearing was scheduled — did Doe's ethical obligation to proactively disclose his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority arise, and was the hearing a triggering event or merely a confirmation of a pre-existing duty?
Does the Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled by Verbal Advice to XYZ conflict with the Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded in Completed Studies — that is, can Doe's duty as a faithful agent be satisfied by verbal communication alone when his completed technical studies independently ground a disclosure obligation that extends beyond the client relationship?
How should the tension between Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure and the Faithful Agent Obligation be resolved when the danger arises not from an imminent physical hazard but from a regulatory standards violation that is serious but not immediately catastrophic — does the magnitude of harm affect where the confidentiality boundary falls?
Does the Misleading Data Correction Obligation Triggered by XYZ Hearing Presentation conflict with the Client Report Suppression Prohibition in terms of the mechanism of Doe's duty — is Doe obligated to act because XYZ presented false data (a reactive correction duty) or because his own completed findings independently demand disclosure (a proactive reporting duty), and does the distinction matter for the scope of what he must disclose?
Does the Scope-of-Work Limitation Defense Rejected for Contract Termination Mechanism conflict with the Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Applied to Plans and Specifications — specifically, if the Board expansively interprets 'instruments of service' to include Doe's verbal findings and mental conclusions, does that expansion also expand the scope of what XYZ could legitimately instruct Doe to withhold, or does the expansive interpretation cut only in favor of disclosure?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer Doe fulfill his categorical duty to public safety by limiting his disclosure to a verbal advisory to XYZ Corporation, or did that duty independently require him to produce and submit a written report to the State Pollution Control Authority regardless of client instruction?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate harm to the public from degraded water quality — compounded by XYZ Corporation's presentation of misleading data at the public hearing — outweigh any harm to Doe's professional relationship with XYZ Corporation that would result from his reporting findings to the authority, thereby justifying and requiring disclosure?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer Doe demonstrate the professional integrity and courage characteristic of a virtuous engineer by confining his findings to a verbal advisory and accepting contract termination without further action, or does professional virtue demand that he come forward at the public hearing to correct the record established by XYZ Corporation's misleading data?
From a deontological perspective, does XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to render a written report constitute an independently wrongful act — a violation of the professional norm against client suppression of engineering findings — such that Doe's duty to resist that instruction is separable from and prior to his duty to report to the authority?
If Engineer Doe had insisted on producing and delivering a written report to XYZ Corporation before accepting contract termination, would the corporation have been able to present misleading data at the public hearing, and would Doe's subsequent obligation to report to the authority have been diminished or eliminated?
What if Engineer Doe had proactively reported his adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority immediately after XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and instructed him to suppress the written report — before the public hearing was even scheduled — would that earlier disclosure have been ethically required, and would it have been sufficient to discharge his ongoing public safety obligation?
What if Engineer Doe had declined the engagement from the outset upon learning that XYZ Corporation sought a study specifically to support its position before the authority rather than to obtain an independent technical assessment — would that refusal have been ethically preferable to accepting the contract, completing the study, and then facing the dilemma of suppression?
If XYZ Corporation had presented accurate data at the public hearing — data consistent with Doe's adverse findings — rather than misleading data, would Doe still have had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority, or does the obligation arise specifically and only from the corporation's act of presenting contradictory and misleading information?
State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Requirements and Minimum Standards
advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
advised of the minimum standard that must be met
the authority has called a public hearing
XYZ Corporation (permit applicant), Engineer Doe (technical assessor), State Pollution Control Authority (regulator)
Defines the legal framework within which XYZ Corporation must operate, establishes the minimum water quality standards Doe's study was commissioned to assess, and triggers the public hearing process that creates Doe's escalating ethical obligations
State Pollution Control Authority Pollution Control Authority
{'type': 'State regulatory body', 'authority': 'Permit issuance, standard-setting, public hearings', 'action': 'Called public hearing on XYZ Corporation discharge permit'}
Issued the 60-day permit application notice to XYZ Corporation, established minimum discharge standards, and convened a public hearing at which XYZ Corporation presented data. The authority is the regulatory body whose decisions directly affect public environmental welfare.
{'type': 'regulated_entity', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
{'type': 'technical_consultant', 'target': 'Engineer Doe'}
advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met
State Pollution Control Authority advisement to XYZ before XYZ hiring of Engineer Doe
XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit... the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services
State Pollution Control Authority advisement to XYZ
Terminating Contract and Suppressing Written Report
Doe might retain knowledge of findings and feel obligated to disclose them
Regulatory authority might independently discover non-compliance
The suppression itself could later be characterized as evidence of bad faith or fraud
Contractual payment obligation to Doe, full payment was made
Cost avoidance (high cost of corrective action)
Strategic management of regulatory exposure
deliberate and calculated, the timing of termination directly after adverse findings and the explicit instruction against a written report indicate intentional suppression rather than routine contract management
Prevent the creation of a formal written record of non-compliance findings that could be used by regulators, the public, or in legal proceedings; preserve ability to present alternative data at the public hearing without a contradicting professional report on record
Corporate legal and contractual authority to terminate the engagement
Strategic understanding of regulatory processes and evidentiary records
Immediately after receiving Doe's verbal findings, before written report was produced
Duty not to obstruct or circumvent the regulatory process through strategic suppression of professional findings
Duty of candor and good faith toward the regulatory authority overseeing the permit process
Implicit obligation not to use the termination of a professional contract as a mechanism to conceal adverse findings from public authorities
Obligation not to suppress material information relevant to public health and environmental safety
After receiving Doe's adverse verbal findings, XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment and explicitly instructed him not to produce a written report. This decision effectively suppressed the professional record of non-compliance findings before they could be formally documented.
Terminating Contract and Suppressing Written Report → False Data Presented Publicly
After receiving Doe's adverse verbal findings, XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment, removing the written evidentiary record, which enabled XYZ Corporation to subsequently present data at the public hearing claiming their discharge meets minimum environmental standards, directly contradicting Doe's professional findings
Had Doe's written report been on record with the regulatory authority, XYZ's false data presentation would have been immediately contradicted by existing documentation, making the misrepresentation far more difficult and legally risky
Absence of Doe's written findings in the official record
Public hearing providing a formal venue for false data presentation
Successful suppression of Doe's written report removing contradicting documentation
XYZ Corporation's decision to present false compliance data
Suppressed written report + XYZ's intent to misrepresent + available public hearing = false data presented without immediate documentary contradiction
{'risk_type': 'Public health and safety violation of established regulatory standards', 'protection_basis': '§2 and §2(a) of the NSPE Code of Ethics'}
The general public whose safety, health, and welfare are at risk due to XYZ Corporation's potential violation of established regulatory standards, and whose interests are paramount under §§2 and 2(a) of the code.
{'type': 'protected_by', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer'}
his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
members will devote their interests to the public welfare
the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context
Verbally Advising Client of Adverse Findings
licensed professional engineer / environmental consultant
Client dissatisfaction upon receiving adverse findings
Leaving no written professional record of findings at that moment
Possible termination of the engagement before a written report was produced
Duty not to suppress professional findings that affect client decision-making
Duty of professional honesty, accurately conveying conclusions regardless of client preference
Duty to act as a faithful agent and advisor to the client (§1, §1(c)), informing XYZ of findings before finalizing the report
Faithful agency to client within ethical bounds
deliberate and professionally conscientious. Doe chose verbal communication, possibly anticipating client resistance or as a preliminary step before formal reporting
Fulfill his duty as a faithful agent by informing XYZ of findings so they could take corrective action or make informed decisions about the permit application
Arguably, the choice of verbal-only communication at this stage left no formal record, which may have been an incomplete discharge of the duty to document professional findings, though not yet a violation given the report had not been formally suppressed
Environmental engineering analysis and interpretation of discharge standards
Knowledge of applicable environmental regulations and standards
Professional judgment in communicating adverse findings to clients
After completion of the environmental study, before production of a written report
After completing his environmental study, Engineer Doe chose to verbally advise XYZ Corporation that their discharge would violate applicable standards and that corrective action would be costly, fulfilling his duty to inform his client of professional findings. Doe did not yet produce a written report at this stage.
Verbally Advising Client of Adverse Findings → Terminating Contract and Suppressing Written Report
After completing his environmental study, Engineer Doe chose to verbally advise XYZ Corporation of adverse findings, after which XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment, preventing a formal written report from entering the record
Had Doe delivered a written report simultaneously or prior to verbal disclosure, termination could not have prevented the written findings from existing; suppression would have been substantially more difficult
Contractual relationship allowing termination by client
Doe's decision to communicate findings verbally rather than in writing first
XYZ Corporation's awareness of adverse findings prior to written documentation
XYZ Corporation's motivation to suppress non-compliant data
XYZ Corporation (primary); Engineer Doe (contributory)
Verbal-only disclosure + client's suppression motive + contractual termination right = suppression of written report
From issuance of State Pollution Control Authority notice through permit application deadline
Regulatory Permit Deadline Pressure State
XYZ Corporation's regulatory compliance obligation to State Pollution Control Authority
Permit application submission or deadline expiration
State Pollution Control Authority advises XYZ Corporation of 60-day permit application requirement
{'entity_type': 'Corporation', 'action': 'Terminated contract and prohibited written report after adverse findings', 'subsequent_conduct': 'Provided testimony at public hearing'}
XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract after receiving adverse verbal findings, explicitly instructed him not to produce a written report, and subsequently provided testimony at a public hearing that raised questions about the suppressed findings.
{'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Trustee Engineer'}
{'type': 'suppressed_findings_of', 'target': 'Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer'}
the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report
The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered
XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c)
XYZ Corporation Industry Manufacturing Process Client
{'type': 'Private industrial corporation', 'regulatory_context': '60-day permit application deadline for discharge into receiving body of water', 'conduct': 'Suppressed adverse engineering findings; presented contradictory data at public hearing'}
Retained Engineer Doe to produce a report supporting its permit application, then terminated the contract and suppressed the written report upon learning findings were unfavorable. Subsequently presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority.
{'type': 'engineer', 'target': 'Engineer Doe'}
{'type': 'regulatory_authority', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit
instructs Doe not to render a written report
the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment
XYZ Instruction to Suppress Doe's Written Report
From contract termination and suppression instruction through Doe's decision on whether to disclose to the authority
Engineer Doe's professional obligation to document and report findings
Doe's disclosure to the regulatory authority, or Doe's decision to remain silent
XYZ Corporation terminates Doe's contract and explicitly instructs him not to render a written report
XYZ Misleading Data Presentation at Public Hearing
From XYZ's presentation of data at the public hearing through Doe's decision to act or remain silent
Client-Suppressed Findings at Public Hearing State
State Pollution Control Authority's public hearing record and Engineer Doe's knowledge of contradicting findings
Doe discloses findings to the authority, authority independently discovers the suppressed findings, or hearing concludes without correction
Doe learns that XYZ has presented data to the authority at a public hearing claiming discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's findings
XYZ Non-Compliance with Environmental Standards
From Doe's confirmed findings through corrective action or regulatory enforcement
XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge relative to established environmental standards
XYZ implements corrective action to meet standards, or regulatory authority enforces compliance
XYZ Corporation has been advised of the minimum standard that must be met
Doe concludes that XYZ's discharge will lower water quality below established minimum standards set by the State Pollution Control Authority
XYZ hiring of Engineer Doe before Doe's completion of studies
the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services... After completion of his studies...
XYZ instruction not to render written report equals XYZ termination of Doe's contract
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation.
XYZ instruction not to render written report
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
XYZ presentation of data at hearing during public hearing by the authority
Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards.
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
XYZ termination of Doe's contract before public hearing by the authority
Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe... Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing.
public hearing by the authority after XYZ termination of Doe's contract
Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards.
Doe's assessment that the manufacturing waste discharge will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established environmental standards invokes his domain-specific obligation as an environmental engineer to protect the recei
XYZ Corporation's use of contract termination and full payment as a mechanism to prevent the production of a written report does not constitute a legitimate scope-of-work limitation that excuses Doe from disclosing his completed findings to
After XYZ Corporation suppressed the written report and terminated the contract, Doe's obligation to proactively disclose his completed findings of discharge standard violations to the State Pollution Control Authority arose independently o
Engineer Doe's obligation to proactively communicate his completed findings — that XYZ's discharge will violate established minimum standards — to the State Pollution Control Authority, without waiting for a formal request, because the publ
Doe's completed finding that the discharge will lower water quality below established standards creates a paramount obligation to protect the public — including the affected community relying on the receiving body of water — that supersedes
Engineer Doe's paramount duty to the public safety, health, and welfare — established by §2(a) — overrides his terminated contractual relationship with XYZ Corporation and requires him to take affirmative action upon learning that XYZ prese
Doe's studies are complete and his conclusions are definite — he has concluded (not merely suspected) that the discharge will violate established standards and that corrective action will be very costly — establishing the factual predicate
The Board interprets §2(c)'s reference to 'plans and specifications' expansively to include all engineering instruments of service — including written reports — so that the provision's public welfare protective purpose is not defeated by th
Engineer Doe's disclosure obligation is grounded in his completed engineering studies — not mere speculation or unverified concern — which established that XYZ's discharge would violate minimum standards; the fact-based character of the fin
Engineer Doe's disclosure to the State Pollution Control Authority that XYZ's discharge will violate established minimum standards does not constitute disclosure of XYZ's 'technical processes or business affairs' within the meaning of §7, b
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation has presented data at the public hearing asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed finding that it will lower water quality below established sta
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing that contradicted his own completed findings, Engineer Doe is obligated to take affirmative steps — including voluntary testimony before the State Pollution Control Aut
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing that contradicted his own completed findings, Engineer Doe's failure to take further affirmative action — such as notifying the State Pollution Control Authority — woul
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation has presented data at the public hearing contradicting his completed findings, Doe bears a professional obligation to provide truthful, objective testimony at the hearing based on his completed engineering
Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation by completing his studies and honestly advising XYZ Corporation of his adverse findings; the ethical limits of that obligation were reached when the client instructed him to suppress the written r
Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by verbally advising the client that his studies indicated the established standards would be violated — satisfying both the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c)
XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to render a written report, issued after receiving adverse verbal findings, constitutes a client directive to suppress safety-relevant professional findings that Doe is ethically prohibited from obey
Engineer Doe, having been discharged from his consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation following disclosure of adverse findings, was obligated to continue fulfilling his reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority notwi
Engineer Doe, having been discharged from the XYZ Corporation project following his disclosure of adverse environmental findings, was obligated to continue to fulfill his reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority notwit
Engineer Doe was obligated to report his completed findings — that XYZ Corporation's discharge would violate established minimum standards — to the State Pollution Control Authority after contract termination and upon learning of XYZ's cont
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed findings — Doe was obligated to come forward and present his accur
Engineer Doe was obligated, upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing, to bring his completed technical findings forward at or after the public hearing to protect the public's interest in environm
Engineer Doe was obligated to take affirmative action — rather than remain passive — upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing contradicting his completed findings, because inaction in the face of known contrad
Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by completing his studies and honestly advising the corporation verbally of his adverse findings before the written report was completed, acting as a trustee of the cli
Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by verbally advising the corporation that his studies indicated the established discharge standards would in his opinion be violated, satisfying the letter and spirit o
Engineer Doe was obligated under §2(c) to report XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report — constituting a request for unprofessional conduct — to proper authorities, particularly upon learning that XYZ presented contrad
Public Safety at Risk — Water Quality Degradation
From Doe's confirmed findings through regulatory resolution and corrective action
Public health and welfare dependent on receiving water body quality
Corrective action implemented or discharge prevented by regulatory enforcement
Doe's engineering analysis confirms discharge will lower water quality below established environmental standards
Confidentiality Scope Limitation Doe XYZ Discharge Findings Disclosure
After contract termination, Doe possessed completed findings that XYZ's discharge would violate established standards. The question arose whether §7 confidentiality barred him from disclosing these findings to the State Pollution Control Authority.
Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to recognize that §7 confidentiality did not bar his disclosure of findings that XYZ's discharge would violate established minimum standards, because such disclosure concerns a regulatory violation and public danger — not XYZ's technical processes or business affairs — and therefore the confidentiality provision did not apply to prevent his reporting to the State Pollution Control Authority.
Upon considering whether to disclose findings to the State Pollution Control Authority after contract termination
Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting Doe XYZ Discharge Violation
XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract with full payment after receiving adverse verbal findings, then presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing. Doe's paramount duty to public welfare survived the contract termination.
Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting Obligation
Engineer Doe, having been discharged from his consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation following disclosure of adverse findings, was obligated to continue fulfilling his reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship, given his credible technical evidence that XYZ's discharge would violate established minimum standards detrimental to public health and safety.
Following contract termination and throughout the regulatory hearing process
Doe Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting XYZ Discharge
Doe was discharged after providing adverse verbal findings. The State Pollution Control Authority subsequently held a public hearing at which XYZ Corporation presented data contradicting Doe's findings. Doe's discharge did not extinguish his duty to report to the regulatory authority.
Engineer Doe, having been discharged from the XYZ Corporation project following his disclosure of adverse environmental findings, was obligated to continue to fulfill his reporting obligations to the State Pollution Control Authority notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship.
From contract termination through the public hearing and beyond, until the regulatory authority has received accurate information
Doe Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion XYZ Discharge Regulatory Hearing
Doe's studies were complete and his conclusions were definitive — the discharge would lower water quality below established standards. XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing. Doe's obligation to ground public technical opinion in established facts required him to correct the record.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to ensure that any public technical opinion regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge was grounded in his completed studies and definitive findings, and to present those findings to the regulatory authority so that the public hearing record reflected accurate and complete technical information.
Upon learning of the contradictory data presentation at the public hearing
Doe Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override XYZ Report Suppression
XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report was motivated by the economic cost of corrective action and the desire to obtain a discharge permit without disclosing the standards violation. Doe's acquiescence to this instruction constituted subordination of public safety to client economic interests.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated not to acquiesce to XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report of his adverse findings, recognizing that the client's economic interest in avoiding costly corrective action did not override the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health and environmental welfare.
Upon receipt of XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report
Doe Public Interest Environmental Testimony XYZ Discharge Public Hearing
Doe possessed completed technical findings that the discharge would violate established environmental standards. XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing. Doe's specialized technical knowledge created an obligation to testify or otherwise present his findings to the regulatory authority.
Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated, upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing, to bring his completed technical findings forward at or after the public hearing to protect the public's interest in environmental protection and accurate regulatory decision-making.
Upon learning of the public hearing and XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'specialty': 'Environmental/water quality engineering', 'contract_status': 'Terminated with full payment'}
Retained by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering studies and submit a detailed report on whether manufacturing waste discharge would meet environmental standards. Concluded discharge would lower water quality below established standards, verbally advised the client, was then terminated and instructed not to produce a written report.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
{'type': 'regulatory_audience', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
Engineering Instrument Expansive Interpretation Board XYZ Doe Written Report
The Board considered whether §2(c)'s reference to 'plans and specifications' applied to Doe's written environmental engineering report, which was not a traditional set of construction plans or specifications.
Engineering Instrument Scope Expansive Interpretation Obligation
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was obligated to interpret 'plans and specifications' in §2(c) expansively to include all engineering instruments of service — including Doe's written report — so that the protective intent of §2(c) was not frustrated by a narrow textual reading that would exclude written environmental engineering reports from the scope of the provision.
Faithful Agent Verbal Advice Fulfillment Doe XYZ Corporation
Doe completed consulting engineering studies for XYZ Corporation on whether manufacturing waste discharge would meet minimum standards, and verbally communicated his adverse findings to the client before the contract was terminated.
Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by verbally advising the corporation that his studies indicated the established discharge standards would in his opinion be violated, satisfying the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c) of the historical ethics code.
Upon completion of engineering studies and before contract termination
Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Doe State Pollution Control Authority
Doe's contract was terminated with full payment after he verbally advised XYZ of adverse findings. XYZ then presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority to obtain a discharge permit.
Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to report his completed findings — that XYZ Corporation's discharge would violate established minimum standards — to the State Pollution Control Authority after contract termination and upon learning of XYZ's contradictory public hearing testimony, notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship.
After contract termination and upon learning of XYZ's contradictory public hearing testimony
Professional Inaction Avoidance Doe XYZ Public Hearing Contradictory Testimony
After contract termination, Doe learned that XYZ Corporation presented data at the State Pollution Control Authority hearing asserting the discharge met minimum standards, directly contradicting Doe's completed findings that the standards would be violated.
Engineer Doe was obligated to take affirmative action — rather than remain passive — upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing contradicting his completed findings, because inaction in the face of known contradictory public hearing testimony constitutes unprofessional conduct and violates his paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Upon learning of XYZ Corporation's contradictory testimony at the public regulatory hearing
It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code.
Client Instruction Unprofessional Conduct Reporting Doe XYZ Suppression Instruction
XYZ Corporation instructed Doe not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings, then presented data at a public hearing asserting the discharge met minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed findings.
Client Instruction Unprofessional Conduct Reporting to Proper Authority Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated under §2(c) to report XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report — constituting a request for unprofessional conduct — to proper authorities, particularly upon learning that XYZ presented contradictory data at the public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Applied to Doe Testimony
§7 confidentiality provision as potential bar to Doe's testimony at the public hearing
Engineer Doe's disclosure to the State Pollution Control Authority that XYZ's discharge will violate established minimum standards does not constitute disclosure of XYZ's 'technical processes or business affairs' within the meaning of §7, because the disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code rather than revealing protected confidential information
The confidentiality provision of §7 does not shield the client from disclosure of public safety violations to proper authorities; advising the authority of apparent danger to the public interest falls outside the protected category of technical processes or business affairs
Engineer Doe Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
Confidentiality does not apply because the disclosure of public danger to proper authorities is categorically distinct from disclosure of protected business or technical information
Section 7-'The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent.'
Doe Client Report Suppression Resistance XYZ Corporation Written Report Instruction
After Doe verbally advised XYZ Corporation that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards, the corporation terminated his contract with full payment and explicitly instructed him not to render a written report.
Client Report Suppression Resistance Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to resist XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report, recognizing that the client's payment of fees and contract termination did not extinguish his duty to document and preserve his adverse findings regarding discharge standards violation.
Upon receipt of XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report, following verbal disclosure of adverse findings
Doe Contradictory Hearing Data Correction Testimony XYZ Public Hearing
Doe's completed studies concluded that the discharge would lower water quality below established standards. XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority. Doe learned of this contradictory presentation after the fact.
Contradictory Hearing Data Correction Testimony Obligation
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed findings — Doe was obligated to come forward and present his accurate findings to the State Pollution Control Authority to correct the misleading record.
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented contradictory data at the public hearing; obligation persists until the regulatory authority has received accurate information
Doe Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting XYZ Discharge Findings
Doe completed his studies and reached a definitive conclusion that the discharge would violate established environmental standards. XYZ Corporation terminated his contract and suppressed the written report. The State Pollution Control Authority subsequently held a public hearing at which XYZ presented contradictory data.
Engineer Doe was obligated, after contract termination, to report his completed findings that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards to the State Pollution Control Authority, notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship and the instruction not to render a written report.
From the moment of contract termination and instruction not to report, and with heightened urgency upon learning of the public hearing and contradictory data presentation
After Doe disclosed adverse findings to XYZ Corporation, the corporation terminated his contract and suppressed the report rather than taking corrective action. The State Pollution Control Authority — the appropriate regulatory body — was the proper escalation target.
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to escalate his findings regarding the discharge's violation of established environmental standards to the State Pollution Control Authority when XYZ Corporation refused to act on his disclosed findings and suppressed the written report.
Upon XYZ Corporation's refusal to act and suppression of the written report; escalating urgency upon learning of the public hearing
Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Doe Regarding Receiving Water Quality
Manufacturing waste discharge into receiving body of water
State Pollution Control Authority permit application process
Doe's assessment that the manufacturing waste discharge will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established environmental standards invokes his domain-specific obligation as an environmental engineer to protect the receiving water body from degradation
Environmental stewardship requires Doe not only to accurately assess the environmental impact of the discharge but to ensure that his findings reach the regulatory authority responsible for protecting the receiving water body, even when the client has suppressed the written report
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Environmental stewardship as a domain-specific principle reinforces the public welfare paramount obligation; the receiving body of water is an environmental resource that Doe's expertise uniquely positions him to protect through disclosure
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded In Completed Studies
Doe's completed engineering assessment of discharge impacts
State Pollution Control Authority permit review
Doe's studies are complete and his conclusions are definite — he has concluded (not merely suspected) that the discharge will violate established standards and that corrective action will be very costly — establishing the factual predicate for mandatory disclosure despite the absence of a written report
The absence of a written report does not diminish the epistemic status of Doe's findings; his studies are complete, his conclusions are definite, and he has already communicated them verbally to the client — the factual predicate for mandatory disclosure is fully established
The fact-based disclosure obligation is fully triggered because Doe's findings are confirmed, not merely suspected; the verbal communication to the client demonstrates that the findings are sufficiently complete to support disclosure to the regulatory authority
Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled Then Superseded By Ethical Limits
Doe's consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation
Verbal communication of adverse findings to client
Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation by completing his studies and honestly advising XYZ Corporation of his adverse findings; the ethical limits of that obligation were reached when the client instructed him to suppress the written report and then presented contradictory data at the public hearing
Faithful agent obligation required Doe to complete his studies diligently and communicate findings honestly to the client; it did not require him to suppress those findings when the client terminated the contract and presented false data at a regulatory hearing
The faithful agent obligation was fully discharged when Doe completed his studies and advised the client of his findings; the subsequent instruction to suppress the report and the client's presentation of contradictory data at the public hearing activated the overriding public welfare obligation
Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled by Verbal Advice to XYZ
Doe's verbal communication of adverse findings to XYZ Corporation prior to contract termination
The faithful agent obligation requires the engineer to advise the client of project risks, including adverse findings; Doe's verbal advice satisfied this obligation even though no written report was produced
The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by verbal advice; the subsequent public welfare obligation arose independently upon learning of the hearing and XYZ's contradictory testimony
Section 1(c)-'He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful.'
Section 1-'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
Misleading Data Correction Obligation Triggered By XYZ Hearing Presentation
State Pollution Control Authority permit decision process
XYZ Corporation's data presentation at State Pollution Control Authority public hearing
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation has presented data at the public hearing asserting that the present discharge meets minimum standards — directly contradicting Doe's completed finding that it will lower water quality below established standards — Doe bears an affirmative obligation to correct the regulatory record through testimony, written submission, or direct notification to the authority
The discovery that a former client has presented data at a regulatory hearing that directly contradicts the engineer's completed findings is the paradigmatic triggering condition for the misleading data correction obligation; the regulatory authority's ability to make an informed permit decision depends on Doe correcting the record
Misleading Data Correction Obligation at Regulatory Hearing
The misleading data correction obligation overrides any residual confidentiality or loyalty obligation because the former client has weaponized the suppressed report by presenting contradictory data at a public hearing; the client's own conduct has forfeited any claim to Doe's silence
Misleading Data Correction Obligation at Regulatory Hearing Applied to XYZ Testimony
XYZ Corporation's presentation of contradictory data at the State Pollution Control Authority hearing
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing that contradicted his own completed findings, Engineer Doe is obligated to take affirmative steps — including voluntary testimony before the State Pollution Control Authority — to correct the false record and prevent regulatory approval of a discharge that violates established minimum standards
Doe's possession of completed technical findings directly contradicting XYZ's hearing testimony, combined with the public health stakes of the permit decision, creates an affirmative obligation to correct the record — not merely a permission to do so
The obligation to correct the misleading record at the regulatory hearing is grounded in both the public welfare paramount principle and the broad interpretation of §2(c); confidentiality does not bar the disclosure
Section 2-'He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
Professional Inaction as Unprofessional Conduct Applied to Doe Post-Hearing
Doe's decision whether to act after learning of XYZ's contradictory testimony at the public hearing
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation presented data at the public hearing that contradicted his own completed findings, Engineer Doe's failure to take further affirmative action — such as notifying the State Pollution Control Authority — would itself constitute unprofessional conduct under §2(c), interpreted in light of §§2 and 2(a)
The ethics code's requirement to report unprofessional conduct to proper authorities, read in light of the public welfare paramount principle, means that Doe's passive silence in the face of XYZ's false testimony would itself be unprofessional — the obligation to act is affirmative, not merely permissive
Professional Inaction as Unprofessional Conduct
The public welfare paramount principle and the broad interpretation of §2(c) resolve in favor of affirmative action; inaction is characterized as itself unprofessional conduct
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Triggered By Contradictory Hearing Data
State Pollution Control Authority public hearing
XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation
Post-Reporting Advocacy as Personal Choice
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation has presented data at the public hearing contradicting his completed findings, Doe bears a professional obligation to provide truthful, objective testimony at the hearing based on his completed engineering assessment, even though he is no longer a retained professional in the matter
The public hearing is precisely the forum where Doe's specialized technical knowledge is most needed; his obligation to testify is not contingent on being retained as an expert witness — it arises from his possession of completed findings that directly contradict data being used to obtain regulatory approval for a standard-violating discharge
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
The public interest testimony obligation is not merely a personal choice in this case because the contradictory data at the hearing creates an affirmative professional obligation to correct the record; the regulatory authority's ability to protect the public depends on accurate technical information
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Doe Hearing Obligation
XYZ Corporation's permit application hearing before the State Pollution Control Authority
Engineer Doe's paramount duty to the public safety, health, and welfare — established by §2(a) — overrides his terminated contractual relationship with XYZ Corporation and requires him to take affirmative action upon learning that XYZ presented contradictory data at the public hearing
The paramount duty to the public is not extinguished by contract termination; it persists as an independent professional obligation that activates whenever the engineer possesses knowledge of a threat to public safety, health, or welfare
Engineer Doe Public Health Risk Reporting Engineer
Public welfare paramount overrides both the terminated contractual relationship and any residual confidentiality concerns, because §2(a) explicitly establishes public welfare as the paramount duty
Scope-of-Work Limitation Defense Rejected For Contract Termination Mechanism
XYZ Corporation's contract termination and instruction not to produce written report
XYZ Corporation's use of contract termination and full payment as a mechanism to prevent the production of a written report does not constitute a legitimate scope-of-work limitation that excuses Doe from disclosing his completed findings to the regulatory authority
The contract termination mechanism is functionally equivalent to a scope-of-work limitation imposed after the findings were made; the existing principle establishes that such limitations do not authorize suppression of findings already made within the investigation
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
The scope-of-work limitation defense is rejected because Doe's findings were complete before the contract was terminated; the termination cannot retroactively convert completed findings into findings outside the scope of the engagement
Doe Faithful Agent Obligation Fulfilled XYZ Corporation Verbal Disclosure
Doe was retained by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. He completed his studies and verbally advised the corporation of his adverse findings before any written report was produced.
Engineer Doe fulfilled his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Corporation by completing his studies and honestly advising the corporation verbally of his adverse findings before the written report was completed, acting as a trustee of the client's interests within ethical limits.
From engagement through verbal disclosure of adverse findings to XYZ Corporation
Doe Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization XYZ Discharge
XYZ Corporation terminated Doe's contract and explicitly instructed him not to render a written report, effectively withdrawing authorization for any disclosure. Doe's completed findings indicated a definitive violation of established environmental standards — a material public welfare risk requiring proactive regulatory disclosure.
Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to proactively disclose his completed findings of environmental standards violation to the State Pollution Control Authority independent of XYZ Corporation's authorization, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare required disclosure to regulators even after the client terminated the contract and withheld authorization for a written report.
From the moment of contract termination and suppression instruction; with heightened urgency upon learning of the public hearing
Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon Applied to Plans and Specifications
§2(c) of the NSPE Code of Ethics as applied to Engineer Doe's written report findings
Strict textual reading of ethics code provisions
The Board interprets §2(c)'s reference to 'plans and specifications' expansively to include all engineering instruments of service — including written reports — so that the provision's public welfare protective purpose is not defeated by the fact that Doe's work product was a report rather than formal plans
The specific enumeration of 'plans and specifications' in §2(c) must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a); the provision applies to all engineering instruments of service, not only formal design documents
Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon
The purposive interpretation prevails over the literal text; the protective purpose of the provision encompasses all engineering instruments of service
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Grounded in Completed Doe Studies
Doe's completed engineering studies on XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge
Engineer Doe's disclosure obligation is grounded in his completed engineering studies — not mere speculation or unverified concern — which established that XYZ's discharge would violate minimum standards; the fact-based character of the findings both triggers and justifies the disclosure obligation
The disclosure obligation is anchored in confirmed professional findings; Doe is not speculating about potential violations but reporting the results of completed studies, which places his disclosure squarely within the fact-based disclosure category rather than the prudential concern category
Because the findings are completed and confirmed, the disclosure obligation is mandatory rather than discretionary; the fact-based character of the findings removes any ambiguity about whether disclosure is appropriate
Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation To Regulatory Authority After Contract Termination
Affected community relying on receiving water body
State Pollution Control Authority permit review process
After XYZ Corporation suppressed the written report and terminated the contract, Doe's obligation to proactively disclose his completed findings of discharge standard violations to the State Pollution Control Authority arose independently of any contractual relationship
Proactive risk disclosure requires Doe to notify the regulatory authority of his findings without waiting for a formal request, particularly because the client has actively suppressed the written report and the regulatory authority is proceeding on the basis of contradictory data
The proactive disclosure obligation is activated by the combination of confirmed risk findings, client suppression of the report, and the regulatory authority's reliance on contradictory data; these factors collectively override any residual confidentiality obligation
Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation to State Pollution Control Authority
State Pollution Control Authority's permit decision regarding XYZ Corporation's discharge
Engineer Doe's obligation to proactively communicate his completed findings — that XYZ's discharge will violate established minimum standards — to the State Pollution Control Authority, without waiting for a formal request, because the public's health and safety are at risk and no other mechanism exists to bring the findings to the authority's attention
The proactive disclosure obligation is triggered by the combination of completed findings, client suppression of the written report, and the authority's pending permit decision based on contradictory data
He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.
Proactive disclosure is required because the public cannot protect itself from the engineering decision, and no other mechanism exists to bring the safety-relevant findings to the authority's attention
Section 2-'The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.'
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Doe Regarding Discharge Standard Violation
XYZ Corporation's manufacturing waste discharge permit application
Doe's completed finding that the discharge will lower water quality below established standards creates a paramount obligation to protect the public — including the affected community relying on the receiving body of water — that supersedes XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report
In this context, public welfare paramount requires Doe to disclose his completed findings to the regulatory authority and to correct the false data presented at the public hearing, even though the client has paid in full and instructed him not to produce a written report
Public welfare paramount overrides client loyalty and confidentiality when the client has suppressed safety-relevant findings and presented contradictory data at a regulatory hearing; the public's inability to independently assess the technical merits makes the engineer's disclosure obligation non-waivable
Client Report Suppression Prohibition Violated By XYZ Corporation Instruction
XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report
XYZ Corporation's instruction to Doe not to render a written report, issued after receiving adverse verbal findings, constitutes a client directive to suppress safety-relevant professional findings that Doe is ethically prohibited from obeying
The combination of contract termination and explicit instruction not to produce a written report is a paradigmatic instance of client report suppression; the full payment mechanism does not convert the suppression into a legitimate scope-of-work decision
The client's authority to direct the scope and terms of the engagement does not extend to suppressing completed findings material to public health and environmental standards; Doe must produce and disclose the written report despite the instruction
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Engineering studies and compliance assessment', 'engagement_type': 'Consulting contract'}
Engineer Doe conducted studies for XYZ Corporation, advised the client verbally that established standards would be violated, and acted as faithful agent and trustee in the client relationship per §§1 and 1(c) of the code.
{'type': 'owes_duty_to', 'target': 'The Public'}
{'type': 'serves_as_agent_for', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation Client'}
the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee'
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'trigger': 'Discovery that client presented misleading data at public hearing', 'contract_status': 'Discharged'}
After contract termination, Doe learns that XYZ Corporation has presented data at a public hearing that contradicts his own findings. This creates an obligation for Doe to consider acting as a private citizen/professional to present accurate technical information to the public regulatory body.
{'type': 'former_client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'finding': 'Discharge will lower water quality below established environmental standards', 'suppression_instruction': 'Corporation instructed Doe not to render a written report'}
Having identified that the discharge will lower water quality below established standards — a public health and environmental risk — Doe bears obligations to escalate beyond the client relationship, including potential written notification to the regulatory authority, even after being discharged and instructed to suppress his written report.
Doe further concludes that corrective action will be very costly