Accepting Confidentiality Agreement → Occupants Remain Exposed to Hazard
Agent-Trustee Conceptual Framework for Engineer-Client Relationships
Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients.
engineers as 'agents' or 'trustees' of such information are expected to maintain the confidential nature of the information revealed to them in the course of rendering their professional services.
Board of Ethical Review in explaining the rationale for Section III.4
The Board invokes the agent/trustee characterization of the engineer-client relationship to explain the rationale for the non-disclosure obligation: engineers are privy to client business information and are expected to maintain its confidential nature
Relevant code-setting bodies (e.g., NEC, ASME, local building authority)
Applicable Codes and Standards (Electrical and Mechanical Systems)
the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
Referenced by the client and recognized by Engineer A as the violated standard
The client explicitly acknowledges that the building's electrical and mechanical systems contain deficiencies that violate applicable codes and standards, establishing the objective benchmark against which the safety violations are measured
Appropriate Authority Notification When Professional Judgment Overruled — Engineer A Obligation
Engineer A's failure to notify appropriate regulatory authority after client's 'as is' sale decision overruled Engineer A's implicit safety judgment
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
The Board identifies notification of the appropriate authority as a specific step Engineer A was obligated to take — and failed to take — after the client refused to address the code violations, establishing that the engineer's paramount professional obligation includes notifying regulatory authorities when professional safety judgment has been overruled by the client.
When a client's decision effectively overrules the engineer's professional safety judgment, the engineer's obligation does not end with the client relationship — it extends to notifying the authority with jurisdiction to protect the public from the identified safety risk.
Appropriate Authority Notification When Professional Judgment Overruled on Safety
We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
The confidentiality obligation is displaced by the Code exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and the paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.), authorizing and requiring notification of appropriate authorities.
Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
this Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. and III.4. particularly in the context of the obligations of employed engineers to maintain the confidences of their employer particularly with regard to certain confidential information which might be made available to the engineer during the course of employment as in Case 61-8
Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning
Cited as precedent interpreting Sections II.4 and III.4 in the context of employed engineers' obligations to maintain employer confidences
in Case 82-2, an engineering consultant performed home inspection services for a prospective purchaser of a residence and thereafter disclosed the contents of the report to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence. The Board reaffirmed the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client.
The Board has interpreted Section II.1.c. on three different occasions (Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2)
Board of Ethical Review for analogical reasoning and distinguishing present facts
Cited as precedent on client confidentiality in private practice: engineer disclosed home inspection report to real estate firm; Board reaffirmed client's right of confidentiality and clarified that Section III.4 applies to confidential information transmitted by the client to the engineer
Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project.
They found it was unethical for the engineer to proceed with his work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time project representative.
Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent for Engineer A's obligation to escalate or withdraw
Cited as the key analogical precedent: engineer proceeded with a dangerous project after client refused to hire a full-time on-site project representative; Board found it unethical for the engineer to 'go along' without insisting on safety measures or refusing to continue; applied by analogy to Engineer A's conduct
The Board has interpreted Section II.1.c. on three different occasions (Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2) but in none of those cases has the Board outlined the scope of the Code section.
Board of Ethical Review in reviewing prior interpretations of Section II.1.c
Cited as one of three cases interpreting Section II.1.c, though the Board notes none of these cases fully outlined the scope of the exception permitting disclosure
{'occupancy_status': 'current occupants', 'risk_type': 'injury from electrical and mechanical code violations', 'awareness_of_violations': False}
Residents of the 60-year-old occupied apartment building who are exposed to injury risk from the undisclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; the paramount public safety duty owed to them is the central ethical tension in the case.
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Building Owner Selling As-Is Client'}
{'type': 'protected_by_duty_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer'}
a 60-year old occupied apartment building
those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
{'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'sale_condition': 'as is', 'remedial_action_planned': False, 'disclosed_violations': 'Electrical and mechanical system deficiencies violating applicable codes and standards'}
Client retaining Engineer A under a confidentiality agreement to assess the building for sale; explicitly states the building will be sold 'as is' with no remedial action; discloses known electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during the engagement.
{'type': 'imposes_confidentiality_on', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer'}
Building Owner Selling As-Is with Known Code Violations Client
the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is'
Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
Case 61-8 interpretation before Cases 82-2, 85-4, 87-2, 84-5 interpretations
Case 84-5 Client Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
{'precedent_case': 'Case 84-5', 'objection_basis': 'Cost', 'safety_measure_refused': 'Full-time on-site project representative'}
Referenced from Case 84-5: a client who retained an engineer for complete engineering services, was advised that a full-time on-site project representative was needed for safety during the dangerous construction phase, and refused to authorize the measure on cost grounds — pressuring the engineer to proceed without the required safeguard.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Case 84-5 Engineer Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer'}
Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
After reviewing the complete project plans and costs, the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly
Case 84-5 Engineer Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
{'precedent_case': 'Case 84-5', 'safety_measure_recommended': 'Full-time on-site project representative', 'client_objection': 'Cost', 'failure_mode': 'Proceeded with work without insisting on safety measure or refusing to continue'}
Referenced analogously from Case 84-5: an engineer who recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a dangerous construction phase, then abandoned that recommendation when the client objected on cost grounds and proceeded with the work. The Board found this conduct unethical and used it as the precedent framework for evaluating Engineer A's conduct in the present case.
{'type': 'analogous_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client (Case 84-5)'}
Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project
Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client
the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
the engineer recommended that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project
Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Analogous Violation
Case 84-5 engineer recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction phase; client refused on cost grounds; engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing — conduct the Board found unethical and applied analogously to Engineer A's situation.
Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation
The engineer in Case 84-5 was obligated to insist that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase or refuse to continue work on the project, rather than 'going along' without dissent or comment after the client refused to hire the representative on cost grounds.
The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
After client's refusal to hire on-site project representative on cost grounds
If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Analogous Violation Instance
Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Capability
The engineer in Case 84-5 failed to recognize that proceeding with the dangerous construction phase project without insisting on a full-time on-site project representative — after the client refused on cost grounds — constituted an independent ethical violation through passive acquiescence
Case 84-5 engineer recommended full-time on-site project representative for dangerous construction phase; client refused on cost grounds; engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing
Proceeding with the project without dissent or comment after the client refused to hire a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction phase
The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment
Case 84-5 Engineer Going-Along Without Dissent Construction Phase
Analogical precedent applied to Engineer A's case; engineer proceeded with dangerous project after client refused to fund safety-protective measure
Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
The engineer in Case 84-5 violated the prohibition on going along without dissent by proceeding with the dangerous construction phase project after the client refused to hire a full-time on-site project representative — the engineer neither insisted on the safety measure nor withdrew from the project, constituting an independent ethical violation that the Board applied by analogy to Engineer A's situation.
BER Case 84-5; NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous.
During the construction phase of the project in Case 84-5
The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
CausalLink_Accepting Confidentiality Agre
CausalLink_Conducting Structural Integrit
CausalLink_Declining to Report Violations
CausalLink_Documenting Conversation in Re
CausalLink_Verbally Warning Client of Dan
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
Engineer A when deciding whether to report safety violations to third parties despite confidentiality terms
Governs how Engineer A must weigh the contractual confidentiality agreement against the paramount obligation to protect occupants from known electrical and mechanical hazards that violate applicable codes
The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
Board of Ethical Review in resolving the core ethical conflict
The Board explicitly constructs and applies a framework for balancing the engineer's confidentiality obligation (Sections II.4, III.4) against the paramount public safety obligation (Section I.1, II.1.a), concluding that public safety takes precedence and the engineer must escalate or withdraw rather than 'go along'
Client As-Is Sale No Remediation Intent Active
From client's explicit statement through the end of the engagement
the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
Client's explicit declaration that no remedial action will be taken on any system prior to sale, despite known code violations that could injure occupants
Client makes clear the building is being sold 'as is' with no planned remediation of any system
Client Confidential Safety Information Transmitting Client
{'information_type': 'Confidential business affairs with public safety implications', 'consent_status': 'Did not consent to disclosure', 'code_reference': 'NSPE Section III.4; Section II.1.c'}
The client transmitted confidential business information to Engineer A during the course of professional service delivery. This information implicated public safety. The client's interest in maintaining confidentiality conflicted with Engineer A's paramount obligation to notify appropriate authorities.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer'}
{'type': 'transmitted_confidential_information_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer'}
Confidential Safety Information Transmitting Client
under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
an engineer has an ethical obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of any present client without the consent of that client
the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation Applied To Engineer A Confidentiality Reliance
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer A relied on the client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party — treating client directions as authorizing what constituted an ethical violation of the public safety obligation
The client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive did not authorize Engineer A's non-disclosure of safety-endangering code violations — client directions cannot authorize ethical violations, and Engineer A retained an independent obligation to report the violations regardless of client instructions
Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation
in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
Engineer A should have recognized that the client's directions did not authorize the ethical violation of suppressing safety-endangering information — the independent professional obligation to report the violations overrode the client's instructions
the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action
Client Notification Obligation Partially Discharged By Engineer A Brief Mention
Electrical and mechanical code violations
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report, raising the question of whether this constitutes adequate client notification of the safety hazard
A 'brief mention' of a conversation about safety-endangering code violations may be insufficient to discharge the client notification obligation — the principle requires clear, unambiguous notification of identified risks, not merely a passing reference to a conversation
Client Notification Obligation for Discovered Safety Hazard
Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
The brief mention likely falls short of adequate client notification — Engineer A should have provided a clear, detailed written notification of the code violations and their potential consequences for building occupants
he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
Client Relationship Established Under Confidential Structural Engagement
From retention through delivery of the structural report
Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell
Engineer A's active professional relationship with the building owner, including the confidentiality obligation and scope limitations of the structural investigation
Completion of the structural investigation and report delivery
Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of the occupied apartment building
Code Exception Clause Activation Obligation Failed By Engineer A
Electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied building
Ethics code public safety exception clause
Engineer A failed to recognize and activate the ethics code's public safety exception clause, treating the general confidentiality provision as absolute rather than reading the code as an integrated normative system in which the public safety exception qualifies the general confidentiality obligation
The factual conditions for activating the public safety exception were present — code violations that could cause injury to building occupants — and Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply the exception clause rather than treating the general confidentiality provision as controlling
Code Exception Clause Activation for Public Safety Disclosure
The exception clause should have been activated, requiring Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities — his failure to do so constitutes a misreading of the ethics code as a whole
Code Exception Clause Activation — Section II.1.c. Releases Engineer A from Confidentiality
Engineer A's obligation to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities despite the confidentiality agreement
The Board identifies Section II.1.c.'s exception clause — which releases the engineer from confidentiality when disclosure is authorized or required by law or the Code — as the mechanism by which Engineer A's public safety obligation (Section II.1.a.) displaces the confidentiality obligation (Section III.4.), establishing that the Code's own provisions authorize the disclosure.
Section II.1.c.'s exception clause is triggered when another Code provision (here, Section II.1.a.'s public safety paramount obligation) affirmatively requires disclosure; the confidentiality obligation is thereby displaced, not merely overridden.
Importantly, however, this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code. In other words if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.
The exception clause in Section II.1.c. structurally resolves the conflict by releasing the engineer from confidentiality when Code authorization exists; the conflict is not merely balanced but resolved by the Code's own exception mechanism.
Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality
this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
Competence Boundary Recognition Partially Discharged By Engineer A
Engineer A's structural engineering competence boundary
Engineer A recognized that electrical and mechanical engineering fell outside his competence as a structural engineer, and informed the client of the deficiencies — but failed to escalate to appropriate authorities or recommend engagement of competent specialists to address the identified safety risks
Engineer A's recognition of his competence boundary was appropriate, but the escalation obligation required more than merely informing the client — he should have recommended engagement of electrical and mechanical engineers and escalated to appropriate authorities when the client refused to act
Competence Boundary Recognition and Escalation Obligation
While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
The competence boundary recognition triggered an escalation obligation that Engineer A partially discharged by informing the client but failed to fully discharge by not recommending specialist engagement or escalating to authorities
Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing — III.4 vs. II.1.a. vs. II.1.c.
Engineer A's dual obligations of confidentiality and public safety disclosure
The Board engages in explicit cross-provision balancing of three Code sections — Section III.4 (confidentiality), Section II.1.c. (exception clause), and Section II.1.a. (public safety paramount) — holding that no section may be read in isolation and that the three provisions must be interpreted together to produce a coherent ethical obligation.
The Code is a coherent normative system; apparent conflicts between provisions must be resolved through integrated reading that gives effect to the Code's hierarchy of values, not through mechanical application of any single provision.
Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
Integrated reading of III.4, II.1.c., and II.1.a. reveals that the confidentiality obligation contains a built-in exception for Code-required disclosures, and that the public safety paramount obligation constitutes such a Code-required disclosure, resolving the apparent conflict.
Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case
no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code
It was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's failure to report was unethical, the confidentiality agreement itself cannot bear the interpretive weight Engineer A assigned to it. Section II.1.c expressly releases engineers from confidentiality obligations when public danger is present, meaning the contractual arrangement never legally or ethically foreclosed disclosure to public authorities. Engineer A's reliance on the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external reporting therefore reflects a fundamental misreading of the NSPE Code's internal hierarchy: the agreement was a valid constraint on routine business disclosures, but it was categorically inapplicable to life-safety code violations in an occupied residential building. The ethical failure was not merely that Engineer A chose confidentiality over safety — it was that Engineer A treated a conditional obligation as an absolute one, never activating the exception clause the Code explicitly provides.
The Board's conclusion that reporting was ethically required is strengthened — not weakened — by the fact that the hazardous information was voluntarily disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered by Engineer A during inspection. Section I.1's public safety obligation is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger, not the source of that knowledge. A client's voluntary disclosure does not transform dangerous information into protected business intelligence; it simply means the engineer received confirmed, first-hand knowledge of a life-safety hazard directly from the party responsible for it. If anything, client-transmitted disclosure eliminates the epistemic uncertainty that might otherwise justify caution before reporting, because the engineer need not rely on inference or indirect evidence — the client has affirmatively confirmed the violations exist. The source of the information therefore strengthens rather than modulates the reporting obligation.
Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies within a confidential structural report constitutes a procedural gesture that affirmatively failed to discharge any meaningful ethical obligation. By embedding safety-critical information in a document contractually shielded from third-party disclosure, Engineer A created a record of awareness while simultaneously ensuring that the parties most exposed to the hazard — the building's current occupants — and the regulatory authorities empowered to act on it would never receive the information. This is not a partial discharge of the notification duty; it is a form of ethical concealment dressed as disclosure. The NSPE Code's public safety obligation under Section I.1 and the notification duty under Section II.1.a are directed at outcomes — specifically, that endangered parties receive actionable information — not at the mere creation of internal documentation. A confidential mention satisfies neither the letter nor the spirit of those provisions.
Engineer A's lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering does not diminish the reporting obligation and may not be invoked as a scope-of-work defense. The threshold for triggering the public safety duty under Section I.1 requires only that the engineer recognize a risk of injury — not that the engineer be technically qualified to evaluate, quantify, or remediate it. Engineer A explicitly acknowledged recognizing that the disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to occupants. That recognition alone activated the reporting duty. The competence boundary argument, if accepted, would produce an absurd result: engineers would be ethically insulated from reporting known dangers simply because those dangers fall outside their primary discipline. The Code contains no such carve-out, and the Board's precedents in analogous cases confirm that out-of-scope safety findings carry independent disclosure obligations. Engineer A's disciplinary limitations were relevant to the scope of his remediation authority — they were irrelevant to his obligation to notify public authorities of a known hazard.
Engineer A's passive acquiescence after verbally warning the client constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from and in addition to the failure to report to public authorities. The Board's precedent in BER Case 84-5 establishes that an engineer who goes along with a client's safety-compromising decision without formal dissent or escalation commits an ethical violation even if the engineer privately disagreed. Engineer A's single verbal warning, followed by silent compliance with the client's 'as is' sale directive, mirrors precisely the going-along-without-dissent pattern condemned in that precedent. The ethical obligation required Engineer A to either insist on remedial action, formally document objection and withdraw from the project, or escalate to public authorities — not to treat a verbal protest as a terminal act of compliance. Passive acquiescence after a client overrules safety concerns is not a neutral act; it is an affirmative ethical failure under Section II.1.a, which requires engineers whose judgment is overruled under life-endangering circumstances to notify appropriate authorities.
The ethical analysis reveals a structural problem that preceded Engineer A's conduct during the engagement: the failure to negotiate a life-safety carve-out from the confidentiality agreement at the outset. An engineer who accepts a blanket confidentiality agreement without reserving the right to disclose safety-critical information to public authorities has, at the moment of contracting, already compromised the ability to fulfill the paramount duty under Section I.1. While the Board did not address this antecedent failure, it represents a distinct ethical lapse — not merely a procedural oversight. Engineers are not passive recipients of contract terms; they are professionals with independent ethical obligations that cannot be contracted away. Accepting confidentiality terms that purport to suppress life-safety disclosures, without negotiating explicit exceptions, creates the very conflict that Engineer A later used as a justification for inaction. The ethical obligation to protect public safety begins before the engagement commences and includes the duty to structure contractual arrangements in ways that preserve — rather than foreclose — the ability to fulfill that obligation.
The fact that the hazardous information was voluntarily disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered by Engineer A does not reduce — and may actually strengthen — Engineer A's reporting obligation. The NSPE Code's paramount safety duty in Section I.1 is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger, not the source of that knowledge. Once Engineer A possessed actual knowledge that occupants of an occupied building faced injury from known code violations, the ethical trigger was complete regardless of how that knowledge was acquired. If anything, the client's voluntary disclosure eliminated any ambiguity about whether the violations existed, removing the epistemic uncertainty that might otherwise counsel caution before reporting. The argument that client-confided information deserves heightened confidentiality protection under Section III.4 is not without force, but it cannot override the explicit exception in Section II.1.c, which releases engineers from confidentiality obligations precisely when public danger is present. The source of the information is therefore ethically irrelevant to the reporting threshold; it is relevant only to the weight of the confidentiality interest being overridden, and even that interest is expressly subordinated by the Code when safety is at stake.
Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his confidential structural report did not constitute a meaningful discharge of any ethical obligation to protect public safety. On the contrary, it created a false appearance of compliance — a record that Engineer A had 'noted' the violations — while structurally ensuring that the information would never reach the parties who needed it most: the building's current occupants and the public authorities responsible for enforcing safety codes. A disclosure that is deliberately confined to a document the client controls, that no regulator will ever see, and that no occupant will ever read is functionally equivalent to no disclosure at all from a public safety standpoint. The NSPE Code's obligation under Section II.1.a requires notification to appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property. A notation in a confidential report addressed to the party who has already refused remediation satisfies none of the elements of that obligation: it reaches no authority, it triggers no regulatory response, and it protects no occupant. The brief mention therefore represents a procedural gesture that obscures rather than discharges the substantive ethical duty.
Engineer A's lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering does not diminish his obligation to report the known code violations to public authorities. The threshold for triggering a public safety reporting duty under the NSPE Code requires only that the engineer recognize a risk of injury to the public — not that he be technically qualified to evaluate, diagnose, or remediate the hazard. Engineer A himself acknowledged that the disclosed deficiencies 'could cause injury to the occupants,' which means the recognition threshold was met by his own assessment. The scope-of-work and domain-competence arguments function as incomplete defenses at best: they might limit Engineer A's authority to demand specific corrective measures or to certify the severity of the violations, but they do not limit his capacity to convey to a public authority that a client has disclosed the existence of code violations in an occupied building. Reporting what one knows to those with the competence and authority to investigate is precisely the appropriate response when an engineer encounters a hazard outside his discipline. Domain incompetence is therefore a reason to escalate to qualified authorities, not a reason to remain silent.
Engineer A had an independent ethical obligation to consider notifying the building's current occupants directly of the known code violations, separate from any duty to report to regulatory or public authorities. The occupants of the 60-year-old apartment building are the parties most immediately and continuously exposed to the hazard: they live within it, they cannot protect themselves from dangers they do not know exist, and they have no contractual relationship with Engineer A that would generate any competing confidentiality interest. While the NSPE Code's explicit reporting pathway runs through 'appropriate public authorities' under Section II.1.a, the paramount safety obligation in Section I.1 is not exhausted by that single channel. When regulatory reporting is the most effective route, it should be pursued; but when occupants are immediately at risk and regulatory response may be delayed, direct notification to those at risk is consistent with — and may be required by — the spirit of the paramount safety obligation. Engineer A's failure to consider this pathway represents an additional dimension of ethical shortcoming beyond the failure to notify authorities.
The conflict between the faithful agent principle under Section II.4 and the paramount safety obligation under Section I.1 is resolved unambiguously by the NSPE Code's own internal hierarchy: public safety is explicitly designated as paramount, meaning it takes precedence over all other duties including client loyalty and confidentiality. The faithful agent role is not absolute — it is expressly conditioned on the engineer acting 'within ethical limits,' and those limits are defined in part by the safety obligations in Sections I.1 and II.1.a. The condition that triggers the override is not merely theoretical danger but actual knowledge of a hazard that could cause injury to occupants, which Engineer A possessed. Engineer A's misapplication of the faithful agent principle as a basis for confidentiality absolutism therefore represents a category error: he treated a conditional, subordinate duty as though it were unconditional and supreme. The principle that controls is public safety, and the condition under which it controls is precisely the one present in this case — known, code-violating hazards in an occupied building.
The tension between Section III.4's protection of client-transmitted confidential information and Section II.1.c's explicit exception releasing engineers from confidentiality when public danger is present is resolved by reading the Code as an integrated normative system rather than a collection of isolated provisions. Section III.4 establishes a genuine confidentiality obligation that applies to business affairs and technical processes disclosed by clients, and the fact that the client voluntarily confided the violations to Engineer A does carry some weight in calibrating the confidentiality interest at stake. However, Section II.1.c is not a general provision — it is a specific exception clause that was drafted precisely to address the situation where confidentiality and public danger collide. Specific exception clauses override general rules in any coherent normative system. Moreover, the source of the information (client disclosure versus independent discovery) may modulate the weight of the confidentiality interest, but it cannot eliminate the operation of an explicit exception clause. Engineer A's failure to activate Section II.1.c therefore cannot be justified by appeal to Section III.4, because the Code itself resolves that conflict in favor of disclosure when danger to the public is present.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer A failed to fulfill his categorical duty to protect public safety. The NSPE Code's structure is explicitly hierarchical: Section I.1 designates public safety as paramount, and Section II.1.c contains an express exception clause that releases engineers from confidentiality obligations when public danger is involved. A deontological analysis does not require Engineer A to calculate consequences — it requires him to follow the duty that the Code itself identifies as supreme. The confidentiality obligation under Sections II.1.c and III.4 is not a categorical duty in the Kantian sense; it is a conditional duty that yields when the paramount duty is triggered. Engineer A's reliance on the confidentiality agreement as a categorical bar to disclosure therefore inverts the Code's own normative hierarchy. He treated a subordinate, conditional obligation as though it were absolute, while treating the paramount, unconditional obligation as though it were merely one consideration among many. This inversion is not a defensible interpretation of the Code — it is a failure to apply the Code's own explicit priority rules.
From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's decision to limit disclosure to a brief mention in a confidential report produced the worst reasonably foreseeable outcome for the most vulnerable affected parties. The building's current occupants — who had no knowledge of the violations, no ability to protect themselves, and no contractual relationship with Engineer A — remained continuously exposed to electrical and mechanical hazards that the client had already acknowledged violated applicable codes. The client's interests were served in the short term by the suppression of the violations, but even those interests are not clearly advanced by a strategy that exposes the client to future liability for selling a building with known, undisclosed safety defects. Engineer A's professional standing was not protected by his silence — it was ultimately condemned. The only outcome that would have produced the best reasonably achievable result for all affected parties was notification of public authorities, which would have triggered regulatory inspection, potentially required remediation before sale, and protected occupants from ongoing exposure. The consequentialist calculus therefore aligns with the deontological conclusion: reporting was the ethically required action.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a licensed engineer. Virtue ethics asks not merely whether an agent followed rules but whether the agent acted as a person of good character would act in the circumstances. A virtuous engineer, upon learning that occupants of an occupied building faced injury from known code violations, would not have passively acquiesced to the client's 'as is' sale directive after a single verbal warning. Moral courage — a core professional virtue — requires the willingness to act on one's convictions even when doing so is costly, inconvenient, or contrary to a client's economic interests. Engineer A's conduct reflects the opposite disposition: he identified the danger, warned the client privately, documented the warning in a document no one outside the transaction would ever see, and then did nothing further. This pattern of behavior — identifying a problem, performing a minimal gesture, and then acquiescing — is precisely what the BER condemned in Case 84-5 as 'going along' without meaningful dissent. A virtuous engineer would have insisted on remedial action, withdrawn from the project if refused, or escalated to public authorities — not performed a procedural gesture designed to create a record of awareness while ensuring no protective action was taken.
Engineer A's failure to negotiate a carve-out from the confidentiality agreement for life-safety code violations before accepting the engagement represents a preliminary ethical lapse that created the conditions for all subsequent failures. A prudent engineer, aware that he was being retained to inspect an occupied building and that confidentiality would be required, should have anticipated that the inspection might uncover — or that the client might disclose — safety-critical information. Negotiating an explicit exception permitting disclosure of life-safety violations to public authorities would have been consistent with the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation and would have placed the client on notice from the outset that safety disclosures were non-negotiable. The failure to do so does not excuse Engineer A's subsequent inaction — the Code's safety obligations exist independently of contractual terms and cannot be waived by agreement — but it does represent a missed opportunity to prevent the ethical conflict from arising at all. Engineers who accept confidentiality agreements without safety carve-outs in contexts where safety-critical discoveries are foreseeable are not merely passive victims of an unforeseen conflict; they are partially responsible for creating the conditions that made the conflict inevitable.
Had Engineer A immediately notified the appropriate public authorities upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations, the most likely consequences would have been: regulatory inspection of the building, potential enforcement action requiring remediation before occupancy could continue or the sale could proceed, protection of current occupants from ongoing exposure to the hazard, and possible delay or restructuring of the client's 'as is' sale. These consequences would have been ethically preferable to the outcome that actually occurred — in which occupants remained exposed, the client proceeded with a sale concealing known violations, and Engineer A's conduct was ultimately condemned. The client's short-term economic interests would have been disrupted, but the client had no legitimate interest in selling a building with known, code-violating safety defects to an uninformed buyer while current occupants remained at risk. Engineer A's professional standing would have been protected, not harmed, by compliance with the Code's paramount safety obligation. The counterfactual therefore confirms that the ethically correct action was available, feasible, and would have produced better outcomes for every party except the client's immediate economic interest — which the Code does not recognize as a legitimate basis for suppressing safety disclosures.
If Engineer A had been a licensed electrical or mechanical engineer rather than solely a structural engineer, the scope-of-work and domain-competence arguments would have carried no weight whatsoever, and the ethical obligation to report the known life-safety code violations to public authorities would have been even more clearly and unambiguously triggered. The domain-competence argument, as applied in the actual case, is already an incomplete defense — it limits Engineer A's authority to evaluate or certify the violations but does not limit his duty to report what he knows. In the counterfactual where Engineer A possessed full competence in the relevant domains, he would have had both the knowledge and the technical authority to assess the severity of the violations, making the case for reporting even stronger. This counterfactual confirms that domain incompetence functions as a marginal modulator of the reporting obligation at most — it might affect the specificity of what the engineer reports, but it cannot eliminate the duty to report the existence of known hazards to those with authority to investigate and enforce. The reporting obligation is triggered by knowledge of danger, not by technical mastery of the domain in which the danger exists.
Drawing on the precedent established in BER Case 84-5, formal documentation of Engineer A's objection to the client's 'as is' sale decision — even if it had been explicit and emphatic rather than merely a brief mention in a confidential report — would not alone have been sufficient to discharge the ethical obligation. Case 84-5 established that an engineer who 'goes along' with a client's safety-overriding decision without meaningful dissent commits an independent ethical violation, but the lesson of that case is not that dissent alone is sufficient — it is that dissent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical compliance when public safety is at stake. The NSPE Code's obligation under Section II.1.a requires notification to appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property. This is an affirmative duty to act, not merely a duty to object. An engineer who formally objects, documents the objection, and then does nothing further has satisfied the dissent requirement of Case 84-5 but has not satisfied the notification requirement of Section II.1.a. Subsequent escalation to public authorities would therefore still have been required, because the Code's safety obligation is not discharged by internal protest — it is discharged by ensuring that those with authority to protect the public are informed.
The tension between client confidentiality and public safety was not genuinely unresolvable in this case — it was falsely treated as such by Engineer A. The NSPE Code does not present these principles as equals requiring ad hoc balancing; it establishes a normative hierarchy in which public safety is explicitly paramount. Section I.1 places the safety, health, and welfare of the public at the apex of engineering obligation, and Section II.1.c contains an explicit exception clause that releases engineers from confidentiality duties precisely when public danger is present. Engineer A's error was not a failure of judgment in a genuinely ambiguous situation but a failure to recognize that the Code had already resolved the tension in advance. By treating confidentiality as an absolute constraint capable of overriding a known life-safety hazard in an occupied building, Engineer A inverted the Code's own priority structure. This case teaches that when the Code itself contains an exception clause addressing the exact conflict an engineer faces, invoking the general confidentiality rule while ignoring the exception is not a defensible ethical position — it is a misreading of the Code's architecture.
The source of the hazardous information — client voluntary disclosure rather than independent discovery — introduced a genuine complication that the Board did not fully resolve, but that complication does not ultimately alter the outcome. Section III.4 does create a distinct confidentiality weight for information transmitted by a client in confidence, and this distinguishes the case from one where an engineer independently discovers a defect during inspection. However, Section I.1's public safety obligation is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger, not the origin of that knowledge. Once Engineer A possessed knowledge that occupants of an occupied building faced injury from known code violations, the triggering condition for the paramount safety duty was satisfied regardless of how that knowledge was acquired. The source-of-information distinction is therefore relevant to calibrating the confidentiality weight on one side of the balance, but it cannot extinguish the safety obligation on the other side when the hazard is concrete, known, and affecting identifiable persons. This case teaches that Section III.4 and Section II.1.c must be read together, not in isolation: the former establishes that client-transmitted information carries confidentiality expectations, while the latter establishes that those expectations yield when public danger is present.
Engineer A's domain incompetence in electrical and mechanical engineering does not diminish his reporting obligation, and this case establishes an important principle about the threshold for triggering a public safety duty: recognition of injury risk, not technical competence to evaluate it, is the operative standard. Engineer A himself acknowledged that the disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to occupants — that acknowledgment is precisely the threshold event. The duty to hold public safety paramount does not require the engineer to be able to diagnose, quantify, or remediate the hazard; it requires only that the engineer recognize that a hazard exists and that persons are exposed to it. Requiring technical competence as a precondition for reporting would perversely insulate engineers from safety obligations in exactly those situations where they are most dependent on others' expertise — and would allow scope-of-work boundaries to function as shields against accountability. This case teaches that the faithful agent role under Section II.4 is bounded by ethical limits, and that those limits include the obligation not to allow disciplinary boundaries to suppress safety-critical information from reaching appropriate authorities.
Engineer A's passive acquiescence after verbally warning the client constitutes an independent ethical failure distinct from the failure to report to public authorities, and this case teaches that the duty of non-acquiescence has both a procedural and a substantive dimension. Procedurally, as established in BER Case 84-5, an engineer who disagrees with a client's safety-compromising decision must formally document that objection — a single verbal warning does not satisfy the requirement. Substantively, even formal objection and documented dissent do not discharge the engineer's obligation when the hazard remains active and occupants remain exposed: the engineer must either insist on remedial action, withdraw from the project, or escalate to public authorities. The brief mention in a confidential report satisfies neither the procedural nor the substantive dimension — it is a record that ensures the information will never reach those who need it, while creating a superficial appearance of disclosure. This case therefore teaches that the principle requiring insistence on remedial action or withdrawal under Section II.1.a and the principle requiring appropriate authority notification when professional judgment is overruled are sequential obligations, not alternatives: exhausting one does not eliminate the other.
Conducting Structural Integrity Tests → Building Found Structurally Sound
Confidential Structural Engagement Agreement Active
From execution of the engagement agreement through completion and delivery of the structural report
Engineer A's structural report and all findings under the confidential engagement agreement
Not terminated within the case facts — confidentiality persists at case end
Client and Engineer A agree that the structural report is to remain confidential
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession Principle Violated By Engineer A
Electrical and mechanical code violations endangering occupants
Engineer A treated the contractual confidentiality agreement as superseding his professional duty to disclose conditions constituting a danger to building occupants — the principle establishes that such agreements cannot override the paramount public safety obligation
The confidentiality agreement, while legitimate for protecting business information, could not legally or ethically override Engineer A's professional duty to disclose conditions that posed a danger to building occupants — Engineer A's reliance on the agreement to justify non-disclosure constitutes an ethical violation
The public safety disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement — Engineer A should have reported the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the agreement
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession — Engineer A's Contractual Confidentiality vs. Imminent Danger
Engineer A's confidentiality agreement with the building owner client and the obligation to disclose code violations to appropriate authorities
The confidentiality agreement under which Engineer A was retained does not supersede the professional obligation to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations posing risk to building occupants; the Board holds that the Code's public safety paramount obligation and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause override any contractual confidentiality commitment.
Contractual confidentiality obligations — including those explicitly agreed to by the engineer at the outset of the engagement — yield to the professional duty to disclose when building occupants face imminent safety risk from undisclosed code violations.
The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
The imminent danger disclosure obligation overrides the contractual confidentiality agreement; the Code's exception clause (Section II.1.c.) and paramount safety obligation (Section I.1.) together displace the contractual commitment.
The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation.
Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Applied in Case 82-2 Contrast
Determination of whether Section III.4 confidentiality obligation applies to Engineer A's possession of code violation information
The Board distinguishes the present case from Case 82-2 by reference to the source of the confidential information: in Case 82-2 the engineer discovered information through independent inspection (no client transmission), so Section III.4 did not apply; in the present case the client transmitted the information directly, so Section III.4 is fully engaged.
The confidentiality obligation's applicability turns on whether the client affirmatively transmitted the information to the engineer; independently discovered information does not carry the same confidentiality expectation.
Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Principle
In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer. However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
The source-of-information distinction determines which confidentiality framework applies, but even the stronger client-transmission confidentiality is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation.
However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A.
In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report to Third Parties
From execution of the confidentiality agreement through Engineer A's final decision not to report
Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
The contractual confidentiality agreement functioning as the operative reason Engineer A withholds the safety violation information from regulatory authorities and other third parties
Not terminated — Engineer A accepts the suppression and limits disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential report
the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
Client's confidentiality instruction combined with client's explicit 'as-is' sale intent effectively suppresses Engineer A's safety reporting to third parties
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Violated By Engineer A
Confidentiality agreement covering structural report
Electrical and mechanical code violations endangering building occupants
Engineer A's failure to report electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities violated the principle that confidentiality obligations do not bar disclosure of apparent public dangers — the code violations constituted an apparent danger to building occupants that Engineer A was obligated to report
The confidentiality agreement covered the structural report as a business document but did not extend to bar Engineer A from advising appropriate authorities of the apparent danger posed by the electrical and mechanical code violations — this disclosure would not constitute a violation of the protected confidentiality obligation
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
The principle establishes that disclosure of apparent public dangers is outside the scope of confidentiality protection — Engineer A's failure to recognize this distinction constitutes the core ethical violation in this case
Confidentiality Obligation vs. Occupant Safety Competing Duties
From client's disclosure of deficiencies through Engineer A's decision not to report to third parties
Confidentiality Obligation vs. Imminent Public Danger Competing Duties State
Engineer A's simultaneous obligation to maintain client confidentiality and obligation to protect occupants from known code-violating safety hazards
Engineer A's decision to include only a brief mention in the confidential report and not report to third parties — state persists unresolved
Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
Engineer A learns of code violations that could injure occupants while bound by a confidentiality agreement
Confidentiality Principle Engaged by Client Transmission to Engineer A
Engineer A's possession of confidential client information about electrical and mechanical code violations in the apartment building
The Board finds that Section III.4.'s confidentiality obligation is fully engaged in this case because the client directly transmitted confidential information about the building's code violations to Engineer A during the professional engagement, distinguishing this case from Case 82-2 where no such transmission occurred.
Section III.4. confidentiality applies specifically to information given by the client to the engineer in the course of providing services; the client's direct transmission of the code violation information triggers this obligation.
However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
Confidentiality obligation is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation and displaced by the Section II.1.c. exception clause when Code authorization for disclosure exists.
Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client
Confidentiality Principle Invoked By Engineer A Under Contractual Agreement
Client-disclosed electrical and mechanical deficiency information
Engineer A invoked the confidentiality agreement with the client to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party, treating the confidentiality obligation as absolute and overriding the public safety exception
The confidentiality agreement legitimately protects the structural report as a business document, but cannot be extended to suppress safety-endangering code violations that endanger building occupants — the principle must be balanced against the public safety exception
Engineer A incorrectly resolved the tension by treating confidentiality as absolute — the correct resolution requires recognizing that the public safety exception overrides the general confidentiality obligation when building occupants face injury risk
Confidentiality Source-of-Information Distinction Applied To Client Voluntary Disclosure
Client's voluntary disclosure of electrical and mechanical deficiencies
The electrical and mechanical deficiency information was voluntarily disclosed by the client to Engineer A during the course of the engagement — not independently discovered through Engineer A's contracted structural investigation — raising the question of whether this volunteered disclosure carries the same confidentiality protection as the contracted structural report
The confidentiality agreement explicitly covered the structural report — the client's voluntary disclosure of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies may carry a different and potentially weaker confidentiality expectation, particularly given that the disclosure implicates public safety
The source-of-information distinction supports treating the client's voluntary safety disclosure as outside the scope of the confidentiality agreement's protection, further supporting Engineer A's obligation to report the code violations
Should Engineer A report the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, or treat the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external disclosure?
Engineer A, having learned from the client that the occupied apartment building contains electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure occupants, must decide whether to report those violations to appropriate public authorities or to treat the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external disclosure — notwithstanding the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation in Section I.1 and the explicit exception clause in Section II.1.c.
Notify appropriate public authorities (building code enforcement, fire marshal, or housing authority) of the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, invoking Section II.1.c's explicit exception to the confidentiality obligation on the grounds that public danger is present.
Treat the signed confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to external disclosure, relying on Section III.4's protection of client-transmitted confidential information and the faithful agent role under Section II.4, while limiting disclosure to the brief mention in the confidential structural report.
Inform the client that Engineer A will withdraw from the engagement and notify public authorities unless the client either undertakes remediation or authorizes Engineer A to disclose the violations to appropriate authorities, treating the ultimatum as a final attempt to resolve the conflict within the client relationship before escalating externally.
After the client refused remediation, should Engineer A have escalated to public authorities or formally withdrawn from the project, or was a brief mention of the violations in the confidential structural report a sufficient discharge of his ethical obligation?
Having verbally warned the client of the danger and received the client's 'as is' sale directive, Engineer A must decide whether passive acquiescence — limited to a brief mention of the violations in a confidential structural report — constitutes adequate discharge of his ethical obligation, or whether the NSPE Code requires affirmative escalation beyond client notification when professional judgment on a life-safety matter is overruled.
Following the client's refusal to remediate, notify appropriate public authorities (building code enforcement, fire marshal, or housing authority) of the known electrical and mechanical code violations, recognizing that Section II.1.a requires escalation when professional judgment on life-endangering matters is overruled by the client.
Formally withdraw from the engagement after the client refuses remediation, documenting the objection in writing, on the grounds that continued participation would constitute going along with a safety-compromising decision — while treating the confidentiality agreement as still barring external disclosure to public authorities.
Complete the structural engagement, include a written record of the client's disclosure and Engineer A's verbal warning in the confidential structural report, and take no further action — treating the written documentation as a sufficient discharge of the notification obligation given the scope-of-work limitation and the confidentiality agreement.
Should Engineer A report the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical violations to public authorities despite lacking competence in those domains, or does his structural-only scope of work and domain incompetence limit his reporting obligation to client notification alone?
Engineer A must determine whether his lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering — combined with the fact that the violations were disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered — diminishes or eliminates his obligation to report those violations to public authorities, or whether the NSPE Code's public safety duty is triggered by recognition of injury risk alone, making domain incompetence a reason to escalate rather than a reason to remain silent.
Notify appropriate public authorities of the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, conveying what the client confirmed rather than what Engineer A independently assessed, on the grounds that the recognition of injury risk — not technical mastery — is the operative threshold for the public safety reporting duty.
Treat the verbal warning to the client as the limit of Engineer A's authority to act on out-of-discipline violations, on the grounds that his structural scope of work and lack of electrical and mechanical competence constrain both his ability to evaluate the severity of the hazard and his professional authority to demand or report corrective action beyond his discipline.
Decline to report directly to public authorities given domain incompetence, but condition delivery of the structural report on the client retaining a licensed electrical and mechanical engineer to assess and certify the disclosed violations — treating the engagement of a competent specialist as the appropriate escalation pathway consistent with the competence boundary recognition obligation.
Should Engineer A report the known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, or confine disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential structural report delivered only to the client?
Engineer A, having accepted a confidentiality agreement and learned through client disclosure that an occupied apartment building contains electrical and mechanical code violations capable of injuring occupants, must decide whether to report those violations to appropriate public authorities — or to limit disclosure to a brief mention in the confidential structural report addressed solely to the client. The core tension is between the paramount safety obligation under NSPE Code Section I.1 and Section II.1.a, which requires notification of appropriate authorities when professional judgment on life-endangering matters is overruled, and the confidentiality obligation under Sections II.1.c and III.4, which Engineer A treated as an absolute bar to external disclosure.
Notify the appropriate regulatory or public authorities of the disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations, invoking the Section II.1.c exception clause that releases engineers from confidentiality obligations when public danger is present, and inform the client in advance that this disclosure is required by the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation.
Document the electrical and mechanical violations in the confidential structural report delivered to the client, treating the confidentiality agreement and Section III.4's protection of client-transmitted information as a complete bar to external disclosure, on the grounds that the violations were client-confided rather than independently discovered and fall outside Engineer A's structural scope of work.
Formally demand in writing that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical violations before proceeding with the sale, and if the client refuses, withdraw from the engagement and decline to deliver the structural report — stopping short of notifying public authorities on the grounds that the confidentiality agreement and domain-competence limitations constrain the reporting duty, while avoiding passive acquiescence to the client's 'as is' directive.
After the client refuses remediation, should Engineer A escalate by formally documenting objection and notifying occupants or public authorities, withdraw from the project, or treat the verbal warning as sufficient discharge of the safety obligation and proceed with delivering the confidential report?
Engineer A, after verbally warning the client of the danger posed by the electrical and mechanical violations and receiving no remedial commitment, must decide whether to passively acquiesce to the client's 'as is' sale directive — treating the verbal warning as a terminal act of compliance — or to escalate through formal dissent, project withdrawal, or direct notification of building occupants. This decision point captures the independent ethical dimension of passive acquiescence under BER Case 84-5 and the question of whether the paramount safety obligation requires Engineer A to consider notification channels beyond regulatory authorities, including the occupants most immediately exposed to the hazard.
After the client refuses remediation, formally document the objection in writing, notify the appropriate public regulatory authorities of the known code violations invoking the Section II.1.c safety exception, and consider direct notification to the building's occupants as an independent channel required by the paramount safety obligation — then withdraw from the engagement if the client objects to these disclosures.
Formally document the objection to the client's 'as is' directive in writing and withdraw from the engagement, declining to deliver the structural report, on the grounds that the scope-of-work and domain-competence limitations constrain Engineer A's authority to demand remediation of electrical and mechanical systems — while stopping short of notifying public authorities or occupants on the basis that the confidentiality agreement and Section III.4 continue to bind after withdrawal.
Treat the verbal warning to the client as a complete discharge of the safety notification duty, note the violations briefly in the confidential structural report to create a written record of awareness, and deliver the report to the client — relying on the faithful agent obligation under Section II.4, the confidentiality agreement, and the domain-competence limitation to justify taking no further escalatory action after the client's refusal.
Declining to Report Violations Externally
Declining to Report Violations Externally → Occupants Remain Exposed to Hazard
Documenting Conversation in Report → Engineer A's Conduct Retrospectively Condemned
Domain-Specific Incompetence in Electrical and Mechanical Systems
Throughout the engagement — Engineer A is a structural engineer without electrical or mechanical expertise
While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
Engineer A's lack of competence in electrical and mechanical engineering while holding structural engineering licensure
Not terminated — Engineer A's competence boundary persists
Engineer A is confronted with client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations outside his domain
Electrical and Mechanical Violations Disclosed
Electrical and Mechanical Violations Disclosed → Verbally Warning Client of Danger
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A when evaluating whether client's refusal to remediate triggers a duty to notify authorities
Governs Engineer A's obligation to escalate known safety hazards to regulatory authorities or the public when the client declines to take remedial action prior to sale of the occupied building
Standard Governing Engineer Conduct When Client Rejects Safety Recommendation
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
The Board applies the principle from Case 84-5 that an engineer who 'goes along' with a client's rejection of a safety-protective measure without insisting or withdrawing acts unethically; this standard is applied by analogy to Engineer A's failure to escalate the public safety concern
As applied in this BER case via Case 84-5 analogy
Engineer A Agent-Trustee Confidentiality Rationale Non-Absolutism
Engineer A's role as agent/trustee of client information did not justify suppressing safety-critical information about code violations in an occupied building
Agent-Trustee Confidentiality Rationale Non-Absolutism Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from invoking the agent/trustee rationale for confidentiality — that engineers are privy to sensitive client business affairs and must maintain confidentiality — as a basis for treating the confidentiality obligation as absolute and overriding the paramount public safety obligation to notify appropriate authorities of the electrical and mechanical code violations.
NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section III.4.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.
Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients. They are privy to a great deal of information and background concerning the business affairs of their client.
Throughout the engagement and post-client-override period
Engineer A Appropriate Authority Notification After Client Safety Override Failure
After the client refused to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations and declared the building would be sold 'as is,' Engineer A failed to notify any appropriate public authority and instead proceeded passively with the structural assessment engagement.
Appropriate Authority Notification After Professional Judgment Safety Override Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to notify the appropriate public authority — such as the building code official, fire marshal, or housing authority — of the electrical and mechanical code violations after the client overruled his professional judgment by refusing to remediate and declaring the building would be sold 'as is', because the paramount public welfare obligation required affirmative escalation to enforcement authorities when his safety judgment was rejected.
After client's declaration that building would be sold 'as is' without remediation of known code violations
Engineer A Appropriate Authority Notification Post-Client-Safety-Override Failure
Engineer A's professional judgment on safety was effectively overruled by the client's 'as is' sale declaration; Engineer A failed to notify appropriate public authorities
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
Engineer A was constrained by the paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate public authority — such as the building code official, fire marshal, or housing authority — of the electrical and mechanical code violations after the client overrode Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation by declaring the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation; Engineer A failed to discharge this obligation by proceeding without escalation.
NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; BER Case 84-5
After the client declared 'as is' sale with no remediation intent
Engineer A As-Is Sale Business Decision Safety Escalation Non-Override
The client explicitly stated the building was being sold 'as is' with no remediation planned; Engineer A treated this commercial directive as a factor supporting non-disclosure of the safety violations, which was ethically impermissible.
As-Is Sale Business Decision Safety Escalation Non-Override Constraint
The client's business decision to sell the apartment building 'as is' without remediation did not override or extinguish Engineer A's obligation to report the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities; the 'as is' sale designation was a commercial arrangement between buyer and seller that did not bind Engineer A's independent professional safety obligations.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c
Throughout the engagement, from the point the client communicated the 'as is' sale intent
Engineer A As-Is Sale Directive Safety Non-Override Recognition
As-Is Sale Business Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that the client's 'as is' sale directive — the business decision not to remediate prior to sale — did not override his independent professional obligation to report known electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to building occupants.
The client explicitly stated the building would be sold 'as is' with no remedial action; Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party, apparently treating the client's business decision as overriding his safety reporting obligation
Engineer A treated the client's 'as is' sale directive as a justification for not reporting safety violations to public authorities — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
Engineer A As-Is Sale Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override
The client explicitly stated the building would be sold 'as is' with no remedial action. Engineer A treated this directive, combined with the confidentiality agreement, as justification for not reporting the safety violations to any third party.
As-Is Sale Client Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the client's 'as is' sale directive — the client's business decision not to remediate prior to sale — did not override Engineer A's duty to report known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the client's commercial decision cannot extinguish the engineer's paramount public welfare obligation.
Upon the client's declaration of the 'as is' sale intent and throughout the remainder of the engagement
Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Precedent Cross-Domain Application
Board applied Case 84-5 going-along principle by analogy to Engineer A's failure to insist on remediation or withdraw after client declared 'as is' sale
BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Precedent Cross-Domain Safety Application Constraint
The Board applied the going-along prohibition from BER Case 84-5 — originally arising in a construction-phase project representative context — by analogy to Engineer A's situation involving client-confided out-of-scope safety violations in an occupied building, establishing that the underlying ethical principle transcends the specific factual context of Case 84-5 and applies wherever an engineer identifies a genuine public safety concern and the client refuses to act.
We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
Throughout the Board's ethical analysis of Engineer A's conduct
Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Principle Cross-Context Analogical Application Failure
Cross-Case Ethical Precedent Analogical Transfer Capability
Engineer A failed to apply the BER Case 84-5 'going along' principle to his own situation — specifically, the principle that an engineer who has genuine safety concerns must insist on corrective action or withdraw rather than proceeding without dissent after a client safety refusal
Engineer A's continuation of engagement after client safety refusal, analogous to the Case 84-5 engineer who proceeded without insisting on a full-time on-site project representative
Proceeding with the structural assessment engagement after the client's 'as is' directive without insisting on remediation or withdrawing, mirroring the ethical violation identified in Case 84-5
We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case
Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further
Engineer A BER Dual-Precedent Confidentiality Safety Synthesis
BER Dual-Precedent Confidentiality-Safety Factual Distinction Synthesis Capability
Engineer A was required to retrieve and synthesize relevant BER precedent cases involving the confidentiality-versus-public-safety dilemma, identify the material factual distinctions between those precedents and his situation (including the presence of a formal confidentiality agreement, client-disclosed rather than incidentally observed violations, and the occupied building context), and apply that synthesis to reach a calibrated ethical conclusion about his reporting obligations.
The case involves a formal confidentiality agreement, client-disclosed (not incidentally observed) code violations, an occupied building, and a client declining remediation — factual elements requiring careful precedent triangulation
Engineer A's failure to correctly apply precedent-based reasoning to determine that his confidentiality agreement did not override his safety reporting obligation in the occupied building context
Engineer A Brief Report Mention Insufficiency Public Authority Safety Notification
Engineer A made only a brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report, which was not transmitted to any public authority, and took no further action to notify regulatory bodies.
Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Constraint
Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies within his confidential structural report did not discharge his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of the safety violations; a mention in a confidential document not transmitted to public authorities cannot substitute for direct notification to an authority with jurisdiction to act.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.c; BER Case 89-7
in his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
At the time of report preparation and submission to the client
Engineer A Brief Report Mention Insufficiency Recognition
Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that his brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies within his confidential structural report did not satisfy the independent professional obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations.
Engineer A included a brief mention of his conversation with the client about the deficiencies in his confidential structural report, treating this as sufficient discharge of his professional obligations
Engineer A made only a brief mention of the code violations in his confidential report and took no further action to notify public authorities — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
Engineer A Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification
Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report, which was a confidential document provided only to the client — not to any public authority with enforcement jurisdiction.
Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Obligation
Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities, because the brief mention was buried in a confidential document that public enforcement authorities would never receive, and therefore could not trigger the enforcement action necessary to protect building occupants.
Client Notification Obligation Partially Discharged By Engineer A Brief Mention: Engineer A made only a 'brief mention' of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his structural report.
Upon completion of the structural assessment report
Engineer A Client-Confided Out-of-Scope Safety Violation Confidentiality Weight Calibration
The client affirmatively confided the code violations to Engineer A under a confidential engagement; this created a stronger confidentiality expectation than independently observed violations, but the occupied-building occupant injury risk ultimately triggered the safety escalation obligation.
Client-Confided Out-of-Scope Safety Violation Confidentiality Weight Constraint
The client-confided nature of the electrical and mechanical code violations — as opposed to violations independently observed by Engineer A — heightened the confidentiality weight attached to the information, warranting measured deliberation before escalation; however, this heightened confidentiality weight did not eliminate the escalation obligation when the violations posed a genuine risk of injury to current occupants of the occupied building.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c, Section III.4; BER Cases 82-2, 89-7
From the point of client disclosure through the completion of the engagement
Engineer A Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance As-Is Sale Suppression
The client's 'as is' directive and confidentiality agreement together functioned as an implicit instruction to suppress safety violation disclosure; Engineer A complied with this implicit instruction by not reporting to any third party.
Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from complying with the client's implicit instruction — embedded in the 'as is' sale directive and the confidentiality agreement — to suppress disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities; the client's commercial and confidentiality instructions did not override Engineer A's independent ethical obligation to protect occupant safety.
Engineer A Client-Disclosed Safety Hazard Out-of-Scope Reporting
Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client during the course of professional services — activated a professional duty to report those violations to appropriate public authorities, notwithstanding that the violations fell outside his structural engineering discipline and contracted scope of work.
Engineer A, a structural engineer, received client-disclosed information about electrical and mechanical code violations; he recognized the injury potential but treated his disciplinary and contractual limitations as excusing non-reporting
Engineer A recognized the injury risk but did not report to public authorities — demonstrating partial awareness but failure to fully activate and execute the reporting duty
Engineer A Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification
Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was engaged because the client transmitted confidential information about electrical and mechanical code violations to him during professional service delivery — distinguishing this from Case 82-2 where no such transmission occurred — but failed to proceed correctly to assess the safety exception
Client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during structural assessment of occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'
The BER's analysis confirms that Section III.4 was engaged by the client's transmission of information, and Engineer A's confidential report mention suggests he recognized the confidentiality obligation, but he failed to apply the exception clause
Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case
Engineer A Client Confidentiality Reliance Factor Escalation Modulation Client-Confided Violations
The client affirmatively confided the electrical and mechanical deficiencies to Engineer A during the confidential structural engagement; this client-confided status modulated but did not eliminate Engineer A's escalation obligations.
Client Confidentiality Reliance Factor Escalation Modulation Constraint
The fact that the electrical and mechanical code violations were client-confided — rather than independently observed by Engineer A — created a stronger basis for measured deliberation before escalation, but did not eliminate the escalation obligation when the violations posed a genuine risk of injury to current building occupants; Engineer A could not treat the client-confided nature of the information as a complete bar to public authority notification.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c, Section III.4; BER Case 89-7; BER Case 82-2
Engineer A Client Cost-Driven Safety Oversight Rejection (Case 84-5 Analogy)
From client's refusal to hire on-site project representative through engineer's continued work without dissent
Client Cost-Driven Safety Oversight Rejection State
The analogous state from Case 84-5 referenced in the discussion, where a client refused to fund a full-time on-site project representative recommended by the engineer on safety grounds, and the engineer proceeded without insisting or withdrawing
Not terminated within the referenced case — engineer proceeded without resolution
If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
Client's determination that the project would be too costly if a full-time on-site project representative were hired, leading to refusal of the engineer's safety recommendation
Engineer A Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Failure
Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or alternatively to withdraw from the project — instead proceeding without dissent after the client's 'as is' sale directive
Engineer A's failure to insist on corrective action or withdraw after client's 'as is' sale directive regarding electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
Continuing to work on the structural assessment without insisting on remediation or withdrawing from the engagement after the client's refusal to address known safety code violations
Engineer A Client Insistence or Withdrawal Safety Enforcement
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or alternatively to withdraw from the project — recognizing that the NSPE Code's 'paramount' safety obligation required affirmative action beyond merely informing the client.
After informing the client of the injury risk from electrical and mechanical violations, Engineer A continued and completed the structural engagement without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing
Engineer A informed the client of the injury risk but did not insist on remediation or withdraw from the project — demonstrating the capability was not adequately exercised
Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal
The client made clear the building would be sold 'as is' with no remedial action. Engineer A did not insist on remediation and did not withdraw from the project, instead completing the structural report with only a brief mention of the deficiencies.
Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, or — if the client continued to refuse — to withdraw from the project rather than passively completing the structural report while known safety violations remained unaddressed.
After the client's 'as is' sale directive became clear and before completion of the structural report
Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Failure
Client refused to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations and declared the building would be sold 'as is.' Engineer A neither insisted on remediation nor withdrew from the project, instead completing the structural assessment with only a brief mention of the deficiencies.
Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural assessment, or to withdraw from the project when the client refused to remediate and declared the building would be sold 'as is,' rather than proceeding passively with the engagement.
Upon client's refusal to remediate and declaration of 'as is' sale
Engineer A Code-Based Confidentiality Exception Activation
From the point at which the Board determines the code exception applies through the point at which Engineer A should have disclosed to appropriate authority
Code-Based Confidentiality Exception Activation State
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 and Section II.1.c, where the code's own exception clause releases the engineer from non-disclosure when public safety is at stake
Would be terminated by Engineer A notifying appropriate authority — which did not occur
Board's interpretation that Section II.1.c's exception ('authorized or required by law or by the Code') applies when public health and safety are endangered, releasing Engineer A from confidentiality
Engineer A Code No-Direct-Exception Non-Absolute Interpretation
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 had no explicit exception, but the Board held that no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum
Code Provision No-Direct-Exception Non-Absolute Interpretation Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from treating Section III.4's absence of an explicit exception clause as rendering the confidentiality obligation absolute — the Board established that the absence of a direct exception in Section III.4 does not mean the provision is immune from being qualified by other Code provisions, including Section II.1.c.'s exception clause and Section I.1.'s paramount safety language.
NSPE Code Section III.4; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.
That provision makes no specific exception to the language. For example, the drafters of the Code could have provided exceptional circumstances where such confidential information could be disclosed by the engineer; however no such provisions have been included.
At the time of deciding whether to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations
Engineer A Code Section Non-Vacuum Cross-Provision Integrated Reading Failure
Code Section Non-Vacuum Cross-Provision Integrated Reading Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to read Section III.4's confidentiality provision in conjunction with Section I.1's paramount safety language and Section II.1.c's exception clause, instead treating confidentiality as an isolated and absolute obligation
Engineer A retained under confidentiality agreement to assess 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; Engineer A mentioned violations briefly in confidential report but did not escalate to public authorities
Failure to integrate the three operative NSPE Code provisions into a unified normative framework, resulting in treatment of confidentiality as an absolute bar to safety reporting
Engineer A Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Failure
Engineer A failed to perform the required contextual balancing between the confidentiality obligation and the paramount public safety obligation, instead applying Section III.4 in isolation and treating it as an absolute bar to disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations.
Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to contextually balance Section III.4's confidentiality obligation against Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, and to resolve that conflict in favor of public safety disclosure rather than treating the confidentiality provision as absolute.
Upon discovery of the conflict between confidentiality and public safety obligations
Engineer A Competing Confidentiality Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing
Engineer A faced a direct conflict between his contractual confidentiality obligation and his duty to report electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure building occupants. He resolved the conflict in favor of confidentiality without applying the public-safety exception.
Engineer A was obligated to recognize the conflict between the NSPE Code's confidentiality provision (Section III.4) and the paramount public welfare obligation (Section II.1.a), and to resolve that conflict by applying the public-safety exception clause (Section II.1.c) rather than treating the confidentiality agreement as absolute.
Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations from the client
Engineer A Competing Confidentiality Safety Provision Balancing
Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize the conflict between the NSPE Code's confidentiality provision (Section III.4) and the paramount public welfare obligation (Section II.1), and to correctly resolve that conflict by determining that the 'paramount' safety obligation superseded the confidentiality duty when known code violations posed injury risk to occupied building tenants.
Engineer A faced a direct conflict between his contractual confidentiality obligation and his professional duty to report known safety code violations; he resolved the conflict in favor of confidentiality rather than safety
Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as overriding his safety reporting obligation — demonstrating failure to correctly balance the competing code provisions
he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building
Engineer A Comprehensive Code Integration Confidentiality-Safety Conflict
Engineer A read Section III.4. in isolation rather than in conjunction with the full Code framework, leading to an absolutist confidentiality interpretation
Comprehensive Code Integration Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to integrate all applicable Code provisions — Section III.4. (confidentiality), Section II.1.c. (exception clause), Section I.1. (paramount safety), and Section II.1.a. (primary safety obligation) — into a unified resolution of the confidentiality-safety conflict, rather than treating Section III.4. as automatically superseding the safety provisions.
NSPE Code Section III.4.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
As we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
At the time of deciding how to respond to the client's disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations
We believe under the facts, Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
Engineer A Confidential Client Information Electrical Mechanical Violation Disclosure Boundary
The confidentiality agreement established a genuine constraint on Engineer A's disclosure of client information, but that constraint was defeasible in the face of the paramount public safety obligation when the client-confided violations posed a risk of occupant injury.
Confidential Client Information Constraint
Engineer A's ability to disclose the client-confided electrical and mechanical code violation information to third parties was constrained by the confidentiality agreement, but that constraint was bounded by the overriding obligation to disclose the safety violations to regulatory authorities when the client refused to act and occupants remained at risk.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c, Section III.4; contractual confidentiality agreement
Throughout the engagement and upon completion of the structural report
Engineer A Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency Non-Recognition
Engineer A failed to recognize that his brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations
Engineer A included brief mention of electrical and mechanical deficiencies in confidential structural report but did not separately notify public authorities
Treating the brief mention in the confidential report as sufficient discharge of safety reporting obligations, without separately notifying building code officials, fire marshals, or other appropriate public authorities
Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical code violations in his confidential structural report did not constitute adequate discharge of his obligation to notify appropriate public authorities
Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'duty_violated': 'NSPE Section I.1 paramount public safety obligation; Section II.1.a', 'duty_honored_incorrectly': 'NSPE Section III.4 and II.1.c confidentiality', 'failure_mode': 'Inaction — proceeded with work without escalating to appropriate authorities'}
Engineer A received confidential information from the client during professional service delivery that implicated public safety. Rather than notifying appropriate authorities or refusing to proceed, Engineer A 'went along' and continued work, subordinating the paramount public safety obligation to client confidentiality. The Board found this conduct ethically impermissible under the Code.
{'type': 'analogous_to', 'target': 'Engineer in Case 84-5 (Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer)'}
{'type': 'obligated_to_notify', 'target': 'Appropriate Public Authority'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client (Confidential Safety Information Transmitting Client)'}
Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer
Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered
His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code
there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
Engineer A Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Structural engineering', 'confidentiality_agreement': True, 'out_of_specialty_discovery': 'Electrical and mechanical code violations', 'action_taken': 'Informed client verbally; noted in report; did not escalate to authorities'}
Retained under a confidentiality agreement to assess structural integrity of a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'; determines the building is structurally sound but learns from the client of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to occupants; informs the client verbally and notes the conversation briefly in the report but does not report the safety violations to any third party or authority.
{'type': 'owes_duty_to', 'target': 'Building Occupants'}
{'type': 'serves_client', 'target': 'Building Owner Client'}
Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer
Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building
Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound
Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Bar Safety Code Violation Reporting
Engineer A was retained under a confidential structural engagement for a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'; the client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure occupants; Engineer A did not report to any third party citing the confidentiality agreement.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Bar to Public Authority Safety Code Violation Reporting Constraint
Engineer A's contractual confidentiality agreement with the building owner did not bar him from reporting the known electrical and mechanical code violations — which could cause injury to occupants — to appropriate public authorities; the NSPE Code's paramount public safety obligation supersedes the contractual confidentiality term.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c; BER Case 89-7
Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse Safety Code Violation Reporting
Engineer A operated under a confidentiality agreement requiring his structural report to remain confidential. He used this agreement to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to any third party, despite knowing those violations could injure occupants.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse for Known Safety Code Violation Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, because the NSPE Code's paramount public welfare obligation supersedes contractual confidentiality when safety code violations pose a risk of injury to building occupants.
Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse Safety Reporting Self-Recognition
Confidentiality Agreement Scope Limitation for Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure Capability
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not extend to bar disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to building occupants, and that the NSPE Code's 'paramount' safety obligation superseded the contractual confidentiality duty.
Engineer A operated under a confidentiality agreement requiring the structural report to remain confidential; he used this agreement as justification for not reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities
Engineer A's failure to report safety violations to any third party despite the confidentiality agreement — demonstrating the capability was not adequately exercised
Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Scope Limitation for Safety Disclosure Non-Recognition
Engineer A failed to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not extend to bar disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to building occupants, and that the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation superseded the confidentiality agreement in this context
Engineer A retained under confidentiality agreement; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations; Engineer A failed to escalate to public authorities citing confidentiality
Treating the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the confidentiality agreement with the client did not excuse him from reporting known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety
Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Applicability Public Danger Assessment
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Assessment Capability
Engineer A was required to assess whether the confidentiality obligation arising from his agreement with the client barred disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to regulatory authorities, and to correctly determine that confidentiality does not apply when the disclosure involves apparent danger to the public — specifically, injury risk to occupants of the occupied apartment building.
Engineer A operated under a formal confidentiality agreement and used it as justification for not reporting known safety code violations to any third party, including public regulatory authorities
Engineer A incorrectly determined that the confidentiality agreement barred disclosure to public authorities — failing to correctly apply the public danger exception to confidentiality obligations
Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety-Critical Regulatory Disclosure
Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as a bar to disclosure of safety-critical information about code violations in an occupied building
Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety-Critical Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4. and the confidentiality agreement with the client did not bar disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate regulatory or public authorities — the confidentiality obligation was defeasible in the face of the paramount public safety duty and the Section II.1.c. exception clause.
NSPE Code Section III.4.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.
Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
At the time of deciding whether to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations
Importantly, however, this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code.
Engineer A Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety
Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition Capability
Engineer A was required to recognize that the confidentiality obligation arising from his agreement with the client was pre-empted by the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare when the client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations posed injury risk to the occupants of the occupied apartment building.
Engineer A operated under a formal confidentiality agreement while possessing knowledge of safety code violations posing injury risk to occupied building tenants; he prioritized confidentiality over public safety
Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as overriding his safety reporting obligation — failing to recognize that the public safety obligation pre-empted the confidentiality duty in this context
Engineer A Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Competing Duties
From the moment the client disclosed the out-of-scope safety violations to Engineer A through the conclusion of the engagement without escalation
The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information...and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety
Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to maintain client confidentiality and to protect occupant/public safety regarding disclosed code violations
Not terminated — Engineer A 'went along' without resolving the conflict in favor of public safety
matters of public health and safety must take precedence. The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount'
Client's voluntary disclosure of safety-relevant code violations in systems outside Engineer A's domain, combined with client's stated intent to sell the building 'as is' and the existing confidentiality agreement
Engineer A Dual NSPE Code Provision Simultaneous Obligation Recognition Failure
Dual NSPE Code Provision Simultaneous Obligation Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that the factual situation simultaneously triggered Section III.4's confidentiality obligation and Section I.1's paramount safety obligation, treating the confidentiality provision as wholly displacing the safety obligation rather than recognizing both as operative and requiring contextual balancing
Engineer A's failure to recognize the simultaneous operation of confidentiality and paramount safety obligations when client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations
Treating confidentiality as an absolute bar to safety reporting rather than recognizing both provisions as simultaneously operative and requiring resolution through the Section II.1.c exception clause
The facts presented in this case raise a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety
Engineer A Ethics Code Cross-Provision Non-Vacuum Reading Failure
Engineer A applied Section III.4's confidentiality obligation as if it were absolute and contained no exceptions, failing to integrate it with the Code's paramount safety provisions and the internal exception clause that authorized disclosure.
Ethics Code Cross-Provision Non-Vacuum Reading Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to read Section III.4's confidentiality provision in conjunction with Section I.1.'s paramount safety language, Section II.1.a.'s public safety obligation, and Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, rather than treating Section III.4 in isolation as an absolute prohibition on disclosure.
Throughout the professional engagement and upon discovery of the client's refusal to remediate
Engineer A Faithful Agent Role Confidentiality Absolutism Misapplication
Faithful Agent Role Confidentiality Absolutism Misapplication Non-Acquiescence Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that invoking the faithful agent and trustee role to justify treating the confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive as absolute bars to safety reporting constituted a misapplication of that role, which is itself bounded by the paramount public safety obligation
Engineer A's reliance on confidentiality agreement and faithful agent role to justify non-disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
Treating the confidentiality agreement and client's business directive as sufficient justification for non-escalation of known safety code violations to public authorities
Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients
The obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence
Engineer A Faithful Agent Role Misapplication to Confidentiality Absolutism
Engineer A relied on the faithful agent and trustee relationship and the confidentiality agreement to justify not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities, treating client loyalty as overriding the paramount public safety obligation.
Faithful Agent Role Misapplication to Confidentiality Absolutism Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A violated the prohibition on misapplying the faithful agent role by treating the client confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive as requiring absolute non-disclosure, failing to recognize that the faithful agent role is bounded by the paramount public safety obligation and does not authorize suppression of known safety hazards.
Throughout the professional engagement and upon client's refusal to remediate
The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
Engineer A Going-Along After Client Safety Refusal Independent Ethical Violation
Engineer A, after informing the client of electrical and mechanical deficiencies and being told the building would be sold 'as is,' made only a brief mention in his structural report and proceeded passively with the engagement — mirroring the conduct condemned in Case 84-5.
Engineer A violated the prohibition on 'going along' by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation after the client refused to remediate known electrical and mechanical code violations and declared the building would be sold 'as is,' constituting an independent ethical failure separate from any failure to report.
After client's refusal to remediate and throughout completion of the structural assessment engagement
Engineer A Going-Along Without Dissent Independent Ethical Violation
Engineer A continued work on behalf of the client without dissent, comment, insistence on remediation, or withdrawal from the project after learning of the client's non-remediation intent
Engineer A violated the prohibition on going along without dissent by proceeding with the structural assessment engagement after the client declared the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation of the electrical and mechanical code violations — Engineer A neither insisted on corrective action nor withdrew from the project, constituting an independent ethical violation under the going-along prohibition established in BER Case 84-5.
NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.; BER Case 84-5
Engineer A Going-Along Without Dissent Independent Ethical Violation Self-Recognition Failure
Engineer A failed to recognize that proceeding with the structural assessment engagement after the client's 'as is' sale directive — without dissent, comment, or escalation — constituted an independent ethical violation, not merely an insufficient response
Engineer A's passive continuation of engagement after client's refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
Continuing to work on the structural assessment after the client declared the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation of known electrical and mechanical code violations, without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing
Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment
Engineer A NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Exception Clause Confidentiality Release
Engineer A failed to apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause to recognize that the Code's paramount safety obligation released him from the confidentiality obligation
NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Safety Exception Clause Confidentiality Override Constraint
Engineer A was constrained by Section II.1.c.'s exception clause — which releases the engineer from the confidentiality obligation when disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code — to recognize that the paramount safety obligation under Section I.1. and Section II.1.a. constituted a Code-authorized basis for disclosing the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement with the client.
NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
At the time of deciding whether to disclose the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities
In other words if the engineer has a legal or ethical responsibility to disclose the information in question, the engineer is released from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.
Engineer A NSPE Code Section II.1.c Exception Clause Non-Activation Failure
NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Public Safety Exception Clause Activation Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize and apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, which released him from the confidentiality obligation because the Code itself — through Section I.1.'s paramount safety language — authorized and required disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
Engineer A's failure to apply the Section II.1.c exception clause to release the confidentiality obligation when the Code's paramount safety provisions required disclosure
Non-escalation to public authorities despite the Code's exception clause being activated by the known safety code violations in an occupied building
Engineer A NSPE Code Section II.1.c Safety Exception Clause Confidentiality Override
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 was subject to the Section II.1.c exception permitting disclosure when public health and safety is endangered; Engineer A failed to apply this exception when he declined to report the violations to any third party.
NSPE Code Section II.1.c created an explicit code-authorized exception to Engineer A's general confidentiality obligation, permitting and requiring disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities when those violations endangered the health and safety of building occupants — Engineer A could not treat the general confidentiality obligation as absolute when the Section II.1.c exception conditions were met.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; BER Cases 85-4, 87-2
Upon Engineer A's recognition that the code violations could cause injury to occupants
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client As-Is Sale Economic Override Safety
The client's refusal to remediate was economically motivated (preserving sale proceeds by avoiding remediation costs); Engineer A continued the engagement without insisting on remediation or escalating, analogous to the BER Case 84-5 engineer who 'went along' with a client's safety-protective measure rejection.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from acquiescing to the client's economically motivated refusal to remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations — the client's decision not to spend money on remediation prior to sale was an economic override of safety that Engineer A could not accept without either insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or escalating to public authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a; BER Case 84-5
From the point the client communicated the 'as is' no-remediation intent
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Safety Refusal
Client's business decision to sell 'as is' was an economic override of Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation; Engineer A acquiesced without dissent
Engineer A was constrained from acquiescing to the client's economic decision to sell the building 'as is' without remediation — the client's business decision not to remediate prior to sale did not override Engineer A's obligation to insist on corrective action or withdraw from the project, as established by the BER Case 84-5 precedent applied by analogy.
After reviewing the complete project plans and costs, the client indicated to the engineer that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired.
Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client.
Engineer A Non-Expert Domain Threshold Safety Identification Electrical Mechanical
Engineer A is a structural engineer, not an electrical or mechanical engineer, but recognized that the client-disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to occupants — his non-expert status was not a valid basis for declining to escalate the known safety concern.
Non-Expert Domain Threshold Safety Identification Permissibility Constraint
Engineer A, while not an electrical or mechanical engineer, was nonetheless competent and professionally obligated to identify and escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations as a safety concern apparent from general engineering awareness — his non-expert status appropriately limited the depth of technical analysis he could provide but did not excuse him from raising and escalating the safety concern.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a; general engineering competence standards
Engineer A Occupied Building Electrical Mechanical Violation Occupant Escalation
Engineer A knew the building was occupied and that the electrical and mechanical code violations could injure occupants. He informed the client but took no further escalation steps, relying on the confidentiality agreement and the client's 'as is' sale directive as justification.
Occupied Building Electrical-Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Risk Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations — which he knew could cause injury to current occupants of the 60-year-old occupied apartment building — to appropriate public enforcement authorities (building code officials, fire marshal, or housing authorities), recognizing that the occupants' ongoing exposure created an immediacy requiring affirmative escalation beyond client notification.
Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations and their potential to injure current occupants
Engineer A Occupied Residential Building Electrical Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Escalation
The apartment building was actively occupied at the time of the engagement; the electrical and mechanical code violations were known to pose an injury risk to current occupants; Engineer A did not escalate to any public authority.
Occupied Residential Building Electrical-Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Escalation Constraint
Engineer A was required to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations in the occupied 60-year-old apartment building to appropriate public authorities because those violations posed a genuine risk of injury to current occupants — the combination of a confidentiality agreement, an out-of-scope discipline, and the client's 'as is' sale directive did not collectively discharge this safety escalation obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c; applicable building, electrical, and mechanical codes and standards
From the point of learning of the violations through the completion of the engagement and beyond
Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Non-Recognition
Engineer A failed to recognize that the client's direct disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations — even though outside his structural engineering expertise — activated a professional duty to report those violations to appropriate public authorities, independent of his disciplinary credentials in those areas
Engineer A (structural engineer) received client disclosure of electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building; failed to report to public authorities
Non-escalation of client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities, apparently treating out-of-discipline nature of violations as limiting his reporting obligation
Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities notwithstanding that the information came from the client rather than from his own technical investigation
Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Electrical Mechanical Code Violation Public Authority Reporting
Engineer A, a structural engineer retained under a confidentiality agreement to assess a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is,' was informed by the client that the building contained electrical and mechanical code violations that could injure occupants. Engineer A did not report these violations to any third party.
Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Public Authority Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to report the electrical and mechanical code violations — disclosed to him by the client — to appropriate public authorities (e.g., building code enforcement, fire marshal), notwithstanding that electrical and mechanical engineering fell outside his structural engineering scope and notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement, because those violations could cause injury to building occupants.
Upon receiving client disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations, and no later than completion of the structural engagement
Engineer A Out-of-Discipline Injury Risk Recognition
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations — outside his structural engineering discipline — activated a professional duty to report those violations to appropriate public authorities, notwithstanding his lack of credentials in those disciplines.
Engineer A, a structural engineer, was informed by the client of electrical and mechanical code violations in a 60-year-old occupied apartment building; he recognized the injury risk but did not report to public authorities
Recognition that electrical and mechanical deficiencies disclosed by the client could cause injury to building occupants, and informing the client of this — though Engineer A failed to fully exercise the reporting duty by not notifying public authorities
Engineer A Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Confidentiality Subordination
Engineer A treated confidentiality as effectively overriding the paramount safety obligation by proceeding without dissent or escalation after the client declared 'as is' sale
Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Confidentiality Subordination Constraint
Engineer A was constrained by the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' in Section I.1. from treating the confidentiality obligation under Section III.4. as co-equal with or superior to the public safety obligation — the word 'paramount' established a normative hierarchy requiring Engineer A to subordinate confidentiality to public safety when the electrical and mechanical code violations posed a genuine risk of injury to building occupants.
NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section III.4.
Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
At the time of deciding whether to escalate the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities
We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence. The Code of Ethics is clear on this point.
Engineer A Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Supremacy Application Failure
Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Supremacy Application Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize and apply the normative supremacy of the 'paramount' public safety obligation over the confidentiality obligation, treating both as equivalent competing duties rather than recognizing the hierarchical priority established by the Code's use of 'paramount'
Engineer A's failure to escalate known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities despite client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate
Proceeding with the engagement and making only a brief confidential report mention rather than escalating to public authorities, indicating failure to apply the safety supremacy hierarchy
we further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence
Engineer A Paramount Safety Obligation Notification Duty
From the point at which Engineer A's safety concerns were effectively overruled by the client's decision through the end of the engagement
Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
Engineer A's obligation to notify the appropriate authority when professional judgment regarding safety was overruled by the client's 'as-is' sale decision, calibrated to the severity of the safety risk posed to occupants and prospective purchasers
Would be terminated by notification to appropriate authority — which did not occur
Client's refusal to remediate known safety violations and intent to sell the building 'as is,' overruling Engineer A's implicit professional judgment that the conditions were unsafe
Engineer A Paramount Safety Word Supremacy Hierarchy Non-Recognition
Engineer A treated the confidentiality obligation as effectively overriding the public safety obligation, failing to apply the hierarchical supremacy that the Code's use of 'paramount' was intended to establish.
Paramount Safety Word Supremacy Hierarchy Recognition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' in Section I.1. established a normative hierarchy placing public safety above the confidentiality obligation in Section III.4., and to apply that hierarchy by disclosing the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate authorities rather than treating the confidentiality obligation as co-equal with or superior to the paramount safety duty.
Upon discovery of electrical and mechanical code violations and throughout the professional engagement
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
Engineer A informed the client of electrical and mechanical deficiencies but then made only a brief mention in his structural report and completed the engagement without further action, passively acquiescing to the client's 'as is' sale decision.
Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation
Engineer A's passive acquiescence — informing the client of electrical and mechanical code violations and then proceeding with the engagement without insisting on remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying public authorities — constituted an independent ethical failure under the NSPE Code, separate from and in addition to his failure to report the violations to appropriate authorities.
After client notification of deficiencies and throughout completion of the structural assessment
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure Recognition
Engineer A was required to recognize that making only a brief mention of the code violations in a confidential report — without insisting on corrective action or withdrawing from the engagement — constituted passive acquiescence that was an independent ethical failure separate from the failure to report to public authorities.
Engineer A informed the client of the injury risk but did not insist on corrective action or withdraw from the project, instead completing the structural report with only a brief mention of the violations
Engineer A completed the structural engagement without insisting on remediation of the electrical and mechanical violations, making only a brief mention in the confidential report — demonstrating failure to exercise this capability
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure
Engineer A informed the client of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies but then proceeded passively — making only a brief mention in his report and taking no further action — while the client maintained the 'as is' sale position and refused any remediation.
Engineer A was obligated to actively insist that the client take corrective action on the electrical and mechanical code violations rather than passively proceeding with the structural engagement after merely informing the client of the deficiencies, because passive acquiescence after client notification constitutes an independent ethical failure.
Engineer A does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
After informing the client of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies and before completing the structural engagement
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal
From Engineer A's acknowledgment of the safety risk through completion of the engagement without escalation or withdrawal
Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5, 'went along' and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code
Engineer Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal State
Engineer A's continuation of work on behalf of the client without insisting on safety remediation, withdrawing from the project, or notifying appropriate authorities after the client's 'as-is' sale intent became clear
Not terminated — Engineer A's passive acquiescence persisted through the end of the engagement
Client's disclosure of safety violations combined with stated intent to sell 'as is,' and Engineer A's decision to proceed with work without further objection
Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Assessment
After informing the client of the deficiencies and receiving no commitment to remediate, Engineer A failed to assess or pursue escalation to public authorities, instead treating the client notification as sufficient discharge of his safety obligation.
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, after the client declined to take any remedial action on the electrical and mechanical code violations, to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently serious to require escalation to appropriate regulatory or public enforcement authorities, and to take such escalation steps given the known injury risk to occupants.
After the client's refusal to take remedial action became clear
Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Failure
Client declared the building would be sold 'as is' despite known electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied 60-year-old apartment building. Engineer A failed to assess or pursue any escalation to public authorities after this client override.
After the client overrode Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation by declaring the building would be sold 'as is' without remediation, Engineer A was obligated to evaluate whether the residual risk to building occupants was sufficiently serious to require escalation to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to take such escalation steps — which the Board found were clearly warranted given the occupied building and identified code violations.
After client's declaration of 'as is' sale and refusal to remediate
Engineer A Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Failure Instance
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
Engineer A failed to assess whether the client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations required escalation to appropriate public authorities such as building code officials, fire marshals, or housing authorities
After client declared building would be sold 'as is' without remediation, Engineer A continued engagement without escalating to public authorities
Proceeding with the engagement without escalating to public authorities after the client's refusal to remediate known safety code violations
Engineer A Post-Client-Refusal Regulatory Escalation Assessment
Post-Client-Refusal Public Safety Authority Escalation Assessment Capability
Engineer A was required to assess, after informing the client of the injury risk and receiving no remedial response (the client having explicitly declined any remediation), whether the residual public safety risk from the electrical and mechanical code violations was sufficient to trigger an obligation to escalate to appropriate public authorities.
After informing the client of the injury risk, Engineer A received no remedial commitment from the client (who had already stated the building would be sold 'as is'); Engineer A then completed the engagement without regulatory escalation
Engineer A did not escalate to public authorities after the client declined remediation — failing to exercise the post-client-refusal escalation assessment capability
Engineer A Public Safety Escalation After Client Override Failure
Engineer A failed to escalate the known electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities — such as building code officials, fire marshals, or housing authorities — after the client's 'as is' sale directive effectively overruled Engineer A's implicit safety recommendation
Engineer A's failure to notify appropriate public authorities after client's refusal to remediate known safety code violations in occupied apartment building
Non-escalation to any public authority despite knowing of electrical and mechanical code violations posing injury risk to occupants of an occupied apartment building
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Electrical Mechanical Violations
Engineer A faced a direct conflict between his contractual confidentiality obligation and his paramount duty to protect occupant safety; the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' to describe the public safety obligation signals its precedence over confidentiality in cases of genuine safety risk.
Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
Engineer A's paramount obligation to protect the health and safety of building occupants pre-empted his duty of confidentiality to the client regarding the electrical and mechanical code violations — he was prohibited from remaining silent about the known safety risks on the basis of the confidentiality agreement, and was required to notify appropriate public authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, Section II.1.a, Section II.1.c; BER Cases 76-4, 90-5
From the point of learning of the code violations through the completion of the engagement and beyond
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Occupied Building
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to the building owner conflicted with the paramount obligation to protect occupants from known electrical and mechanical code violations
Engineer A's obligation to protect the public health and safety of the occupants of the 60-year-old apartment building — who were exposed to known electrical and mechanical code violations — took precedence over the confidentiality obligation under Section III.4., prohibiting Engineer A from treating the confidentiality agreement as a complete bar to disclosure of the safety violations to appropriate public authorities.
NSPE Code Section I.1.; NSPE Code Section II.1.a.; NSPE Code Section II.1.c.; NSPE Code Section III.4.
Engineer A Scope-of-Work Non-Shield Safety Disclosure Non-Recognition
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, and that the paramount duty to public safety overrides scope-of-work constraints when genuine safety risks are known
Engineer A retained for structural assessment; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations outside structural scope; Engineer A failed to escalate out-of-scope violations to public authorities
Treating the structural engineering scope of work as a limitation on the obligation to report out-of-discipline code violations to public authorities
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities
Engineer A Scope of Work Non-Shield Electrical Mechanical Safety Disclosure
Engineer A's contracted scope was structural integrity assessment. He was not an electrical or mechanical engineer. He used the scope limitation, combined with the confidentiality agreement, to justify not reporting the electrical and mechanical violations to any third party.
Scope-of-Work Non-Shield for Structural Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations he became aware of during the engagement, because the scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense when the engineer has actual knowledge of a safety hazard.
Engineer A Scope of Work Non-Shield Safety Disclosure Recognition
Engineer A was required to recognize that his structural engineering scope of work did not shield him from the obligation to disclose electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities, even though those violations fell outside his contracted scope and disciplinary expertise.
Engineer A was retained solely for structural integrity assessment; the electrical and mechanical violations were outside his contracted scope, but he was informed of them by the client and recognized their injury potential
Engineer A's failure to report out-of-scope electrical and mechanical violations to public authorities — treating his structural scope as limiting his safety disclosure obligations
Engineer A Section II.1.c. Exception Clause Non-Activation Violation
Engineer A treated the confidentiality agreement as absolute and failed to invoke the Code's internal exception clause that would have authorized disclosure of the safety-threatening electrical and mechanical code violations in the occupied apartment building.
Section II.1.c. Law-or-Code-Authorized Confidentiality Release Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize and apply Section II.1.c.'s exception clause, which released him from the confidentiality obligation because the Code itself — through Section I.1.'s paramount safety language and Section II.1.a.'s public safety obligation — authorized and required disclosure of the electrical and mechanical code violations to appropriate public authorities.
Upon discovery that client would not remediate and building would be sold 'as is' with known code violations
Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Engagement Recognition
Client directly disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during a structural assessment engagement conducted under a confidentiality agreement for a 60-year-old occupied apartment building being sold 'as is'.
Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Information Engagement Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was fully engaged because the electrical and mechanical deficiency information was directly and voluntarily transmitted by the client during the professional engagement, creating a heightened confidentiality expectation that had to be weighed — but not treated as absolute — against the paramount public safety obligation.
Upon receipt of client-transmitted confidential safety information during the professional engagement
Engineer A Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Full Engagement
Engineer A retained for structural assessment of 60-year-old apartment building; client disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations during the engagement; client declared 'as is' sale with no remediation
Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Information Confidentiality Engagement Constraint
Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 was fully engaged because the client affirmatively transmitted information about the electrical and mechanical code violations to Engineer A during the course of the structural engagement — distinguishing this case from Case 82-2 where no client transmission occurred — but this full engagement did not render the confidentiality obligation absolute in the face of the Section II.1.c. exception and the paramount safety obligation.
NSPE Code Section III.4; BER Case 82-2 (distinguishing); NSPE Code Section II.1.c.
Throughout the structural engagement and post-engagement period
Engineer A Tenant Occupant Direct Notification Consideration
Occupied Building Tenant Occupant Direct Safety Notification Consideration Capability
Engineer A was required to consider whether the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare required directly notifying the building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury — particularly given that the client had declined remediation and the building remained occupied.
The 60-year-old apartment building was occupied; the client declined remediation; Engineer A recognized the injury risk to occupants but did not notify them directly or through public authorities
Engineer A did not notify building occupants of the safety violations — failing to consider or act on the direct notification pathway to the at-risk population
Engineer A Tenant Occupant Direct Notification Electrical Mechanical Violations
The building was occupied at the time of Engineer A's engagement. The client intended to sell 'as is' without remediation. The occupants were exposed to injury risk from electrical and mechanical code violations that Engineer A knew about but did not disclose to any third party, including the occupants.
Tenant Imminent Structural Danger Direct Notification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to consider directly notifying the building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury, recognizing that the occupants are identifiable third parties directly exposed to the hazard and that no other party was positioned to protect them given the client's 'as is' sale intent.
Upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations and their potential to injure occupants
Engineer A informing client of danger before report writing
Engineer A's Conduct Retrospectively Condemned
Engineer A's engagement and report before building sale
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Misapplied By Engineer A
Engineer A treated the faithful agent obligation as requiring compliance with the client's confidentiality agreement and 'as is' sale directive, failing to recognize that the faithful agent role operates within ethical limits that include the public safety exception to confidentiality
The faithful agent obligation required Engineer A to execute the structural assessment diligently and protect legitimate client confidentiality interests — but it did not require compliance with client directives that violated the public safety exception to confidentiality
The ethical limits of the faithful agent role required Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities despite the confidentiality agreement — faithful agency does not extend to facilitating ongoing endangerment of building occupants
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Withdrawal — Engineer A Obligation
Engineer A's response to the client's refusal to address code violations in the occupied apartment building
The Board establishes that Engineer A was obligated either to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before proceeding with the 'as is' sale, or to withdraw from the project entirely — the mere noting of the concern followed by passive continuation was insufficient.
The insistence obligation is active, not passive; the engineer must force the issue, not merely note it, and withdrawal is the required alternative when insistence fails.
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project. We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
The insistence/withdrawal obligation takes precedence over the desire to maintain the client relationship or complete the engagement; the public safety paramount obligation requires active agency.
The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired.
the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
Insistence on Remedial Action or Withdrawal Obligation Not Met By Engineer A
Engineer A failed to insist that the client remediate the electrical and mechanical code violations before completing the structural engagement, and did not withdraw from the project despite the client's explicit statement that no remedial action would be taken
The client's explicit statement that the building would be sold 'as is' with no remediation triggered Engineer A's obligation to insist on remediation or withdraw — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement without either insisting or withdrawing constitutes an ethical violation
Engineer A should have conditioned continued engagement on client commitment to remediate the code violations, and should have withdrawn when the client refused — the 'as is' sale directive did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation
Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies; however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
Inspection-Discovered vs. Client-Disclosed Safety Information Distinction Active
From the moment the client confides the deficiencies through Engineer A's ethical deliberation about reporting obligations
the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems
Inspection-Discovered vs. Client-Disclosed Safety Information Distinction State
The ethical weight of Engineer A's confidentiality obligation as modulated by the fact that the deficiency information came from client disclosure rather than Engineer A's independent inspection
Not explicitly resolved — Engineer A treats client-confided information as fully confidential
Client voluntarily and directly discloses the electrical/mechanical deficiencies to Engineer A rather than Engineer A discovering them through independent inspection
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics – Section I.1 (Fundamental Canon: Paramount Public Safety)
Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
Cited to establish that the engineer's obligation to protect public health and safety is 'paramount', taking precedence over confidentiality duties
NSPE Code of Ethics – Section II.1.a (Primary obligation to protect safety, health, property and welfare of the public)
Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a. The latter section refers to the primary obligation of the engineer to protect the safety, health, property and welfare of the public.
Cited as the primary obligation of the engineer to protect public safety, read in conjunction with Section II.1.c to resolve the confidentiality-safety conflict
NSPE Code of Ethics – Section II.1.c (Confidentiality with exception for legal or ethical disclosure obligation)
this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code.
Cited to establish the engineer's duty of confidentiality and the exception permitting disclosure when authorized or required by law or the Code; interpreted in conjunction with the public safety paramount obligation
NSPE Code of Ethics – Section II.4 (Confidentiality of client business affairs)
this Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. and III.4. particularly in the context of the obligations of employed engineers to maintain the confidences of their employer
Board of Ethical Review in reviewing prior BER interpretations
Cited in the context of employed engineers' obligations to maintain employer confidences, interpreted alongside Section III.4
NSPE Code of Ethics – Section III.4 (Non-disclosure of confidential client business information)
Section III.4 can be clearly understood to mean that an engineer has an ethical obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of any present client without the consent of that client.
That provision makes no specific exception to the language.
Cited as the primary provision establishing the engineer's obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning client business affairs without consent; analyzed for scope and exceptions
Engineer A in deliberating whether to disclose safety violations to third parties
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's competing obligations: confidentiality to client versus paramount duty to protect public safety of building occupants from known electrical and mechanical code violations
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directive Violated By Engineer A
Client's refusal to remediate code violations
Engineer A acquiesced to the client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate electrical and mechanical code violations, proceeding to complete the structural engagement without refusing to continue or withdrawing from the project
The client's 'as is' sale directive combined with the refusal to remediate code violations that could cause injury to occupants constituted an unsafe client directive — Engineer A was obligated to refuse to proceed rather than acquiesce
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
Engineer A should have refused to complete the engagement without client commitment to remediate the code violations — the 'as is' directive did not override the professional obligation to refuse unsafe client directives
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives — Engineer A Should Have Refused to Continue
Engineer A's decision to continue professional engagement after client refused to address code violations
The Board holds that Engineer A should have refused to continue work on the building assessment project when the client insisted on proceeding with an 'as is' sale despite the identified electrical and mechanical code violations posing risk to building occupants, rather than subordinating public safety to the client's economic interest in the sale.
Client economic preferences — including the desire to sell a building 'as is' without remediation — do not override the engineer's obligation to refuse continuation of work when safety measures have been identified as necessary and rejected.
If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project. We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case.
The non-acquiescence obligation prevails; client economic interests cannot override the public safety paramount obligation, and the engineer must refuse to continue rather than proceed passively.
We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case.
Out-of-Scope Safety Finding Reporting Standard
While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants
Engineer A when deciding how to handle client-disclosed deficiencies outside his contracted structural scope
Directly applicable because Engineer A was retained for structural integrity only, yet became aware of electrical and mechanical code violations outside his scope; governs whether and how he must report those findings
Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale
From the moment the client confides the deficiencies to Engineer A through the end of the engagement and beyond
Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale State
Engineer A's knowledge of client-disclosed electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied building being sold 'as is'
Not terminated within the case facts — Engineer A does not report to third parties and the sale proceeds
Client voluntarily discloses to Engineer A that the building contains electrical and mechanical deficiencies violating applicable codes and standards
Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification Independent Ethical Failure By Engineer A
Client notification of electrical and mechanical deficiencies
Engineer A informed the client of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies but then proceeded passively — making only a brief mention in his report and not reporting to any third party — constituting an independent ethical failure beyond the notification obligation
Engineer A's passive acquiescence after notifying the client — proceeding to complete and deliver the structural report without insisting on remediation or withdrawing — constitutes an independent ethical violation distinct from any failure to notify the client
Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure
The paramountcy of public safety required active insistence on remediation or project withdrawal — Engineer A's passive completion of the engagement after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure
Passive Acquiescence Ethical Failure — Engineer A Going Along After Client Safety Refusal
Engineer A's conduct after discovering code violations and receiving client's 'as is' sale decision
Engineer A, after discovering electrical and mechanical code violations in the occupied apartment building and being told by the client the building would be sold 'as is,' proceeded with the professional engagement without insisting on remedial action, notifying appropriate authorities, or withdrawing — a passive 'going along' that the Board finds constitutes an independent ethical violation.
Passive continuation after a safety concern has been raised and rejected by the client is not a neutral act — it is an independent ethical failure because the 'paramount' public safety obligation requires active insistence and escalation, not mere acquiescence.
The passive acquiescence prohibition overrides any claim that the engineer discharged obligations by noting the concern; the paramount safety obligation requires active agency.
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Not Conducted By Engineer A
Client's 'as is' sale directive and refusal to remediate
After the client made clear that no remedial action would be taken and the building would be sold 'as is,' Engineer A failed to assess whether the client's refusal triggered an obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities or notify building occupants directly
The client's explicit refusal to remediate, combined with the severity of the code violations and the direct exposure of building occupants to injury risk, required Engineer A to conduct a structured assessment of escalation options — his failure to do so constitutes an ethical violation
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
The post-refusal assessment should have led Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate building or safety authorities — the client's refusal did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment — Engineer A After 'As Is' Sale Decision
Engineer A's response to the client's 'as is' sale decision after code violations were identified
After the client indicated the building would be sold 'as is' despite the identified code violations, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether this refusal — combined with the nature of the safety risk to building occupants — triggered an obligation to escalate to appropriate authorities, rather than treating the client's decision as a complete discharge of professional obligation.
The client's refusal to address safety concerns is not the end of the engineer's professional obligation — it is the trigger for an escalation assessment that may require notification of authorities or withdrawal from the project.
Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further. We believe under the facts, Section II.1.c. should be read in conjunction with Section II.1.a.
The escalation assessment obligation prevails; the client's refusal activates rather than terminates the engineer's public safety obligation.
Engineer A in acknowledging the boundaries of his structural engineering scope
Relevant to Engineer A's recognition that, while not an electrical or mechanical engineer, he nonetheless has sufficient professional awareness to identify that the disclosed deficiencies pose injury risk to occupants, and to the limits of his authority to formally assess or certify those systems
Public Safety at Risk from Known Code Violations in Occupied Building
From client's disclosure of deficiencies through the end of the case — no remediation is planned
The safety of current occupants of the 60-year-old apartment building who are exposed to known electrical and mechanical code violations
Not terminated — no remediation planned, no third-party reporting made
Engineer A learns that electrical and mechanical deficiencies violating applicable codes could cause injury to occupants
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A In Occupied Building Safety Context
Building occupants exposed to injury risk
Electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
Engineer A recognized that electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied 60-year-old apartment building could cause injury to occupants, triggering the paramount public safety obligation that overrides the confidentiality agreement — but Engineer A failed to act on this obligation by not reporting to any third party
The paramount public safety obligation required Engineer A to report the code violations to appropriate authorities and notify building occupants, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement — the occupants' safety interest is the highest-priority obligation in the ethics code hierarchy
Public welfare obligation should have overridden the confidentiality agreement per the ethics code's public safety exception clause — Engineer A's failure to make this determination constitutes an ethical violation
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Confidentiality-Safety Conflict
Engineer A's decision to proceed with work after client refused to address electrical and mechanical code violations in occupied apartment building
The Board invokes the 'paramount' language of Section I.1. to establish that Engineer A's public safety obligation takes precedence over the confidentiality obligation of Section III.4., resolving the conflict between these two provisions in favor of safety disclosure.
The word 'paramount' in the Code is not merely aspirational — it is a structural hierarchy term that places public safety at the apex of the engineer's duties, overriding confidentiality when genuine safety risks are present.
We further believe that matters of public health and safety must take precedence. The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
Public welfare paramount obligation overrides confidentiality obligation per Section I.1.'s explicit 'paramount' designation; the Code's own hierarchy resolves the conflict.
matters of public health and safety must take precedence
Was it ethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities?
Does the fact that the safety-critical information was voluntarily disclosed by the client — rather than independently discovered by Engineer A — reduce, eliminate, or actually strengthen Engineer A's obligation to report it to public authorities?
Was Engineer A's brief mention of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in his confidential structural report a meaningful discharge of any ethical obligation, or did it create a false appearance of compliance while ensuring the information would never reach those who needed it — the occupants or public authorities?
Given that Engineer A is a structural engineer without competence in electrical or mechanical systems, does his professional incompetence in those domains diminish his reporting obligation, or does the threshold for triggering a public safety duty require only that he recognize a risk of injury — not that he be able to evaluate it technically?
Did Engineer A have an independent ethical obligation to notify the building's current occupants directly of the known code violations, separate from any duty to report to regulatory or public authorities, given that the occupants are the parties most immediately exposed to the hazard?
Does the principle that an engineer must act as a faithful agent or trustee of the client conflict with the principle that public safety is paramount and that confidentiality agreements cannot supersede the duty to prevent imminent danger — and if so, which principle controls and under what conditions?
Does the principle that confidentiality does not apply when public danger is present conflict with the principle that client-transmitted confidential information carries its own distinct confidentiality weight under Section III.4 — and does the source of the information (client disclosure versus independent discovery) legitimately modulate the engineer's reporting threshold?
Does the principle requiring an engineer to insist on remedial action or withdraw from a project when safety is at stake conflict with the principle that an engineer's scope-of-work limitations and out-of-discipline boundaries constrain his authority to demand corrective action on electrical and mechanical systems — and how should these competing obligations be reconciled?
Does the principle that an engineer must notify appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled conflict with the principle that the engineer's duty to report is triggered only by dangers within his professional competence — and does passive acquiescence after verbally warning the client constitute an independent ethical violation even if the engineer genuinely believed the reporting duty was blocked by confidentiality?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty to protect public safety when they allowed a contractual confidentiality obligation to override the paramount duty established in NSPE Code Section I.1, given that the code itself contains an explicit exception clause in Section II.1.c that releases engineers from confidentiality when public danger is involved?
From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision to limit disclosure to a brief mention in a confidential report — rather than notifying public authorities — produce the best reasonably achievable outcome for all affected parties, including building occupants who remained exposed to known electrical and mechanical code violations?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a licensed engineer when, after verbally warning the client of the danger, they passively acquiesced to the client's 'as is' sale directive rather than insisting on remedial action, withdrawing from the project, or escalating to public authorities?
From a deontological perspective, does the fact that the hazardous information was voluntarily disclosed by the client rather than independently discovered by Engineer A during inspection meaningfully alter Engineer A's duty to report, given that the NSPE Code's public safety obligation in Section I.1 is framed in terms of the engineer's knowledge of danger rather than the source of that knowledge?
If Engineer A had refused to accept the confidentiality agreement as a condition of engagement — or had negotiated an explicit carve-out permitting disclosure of life-safety code violations to public authorities — would the ethical conflict between client confidentiality and occupant safety have arisen at all, and does the failure to negotiate such terms itself constitute an ethical lapse?
If Engineer A had immediately notified the appropriate public authorities upon learning of the electrical and mechanical code violations — rather than merely mentioning them in a confidential report — what would the likely consequences have been for the building occupants, the client's sale transaction, and Engineer A's professional standing, and would those consequences have been ethically preferable to the outcome that actually occurred?
If Engineer A had been a licensed electrical or mechanical engineer rather than solely a structural engineer, would the scope-of-work and domain-competence arguments invoked as partial defenses have carried any weight, or would the ethical obligation to report known life-safety code violations to public authorities have been even more clearly triggered regardless of disciplinary boundaries?
Drawing on the precedent established in BER Case 84-5, if Engineer A had explicitly objected to the client's 'as is' sale decision and formally documented that objection — rather than passively acquiescing after a single verbal warning — would that act of dissent alone have been sufficient to discharge the ethical obligation, or would subsequent escalation to public authorities still have been required?
Scope-of-Work Limitation Invoked As Incomplete Defense By Engineer A
Engineer A's structural scope of work did not cover electrical and mechanical systems, but he had actual knowledge of code violations in those systems — his 'brief mention' of the deficiencies in his structural report may reflect an attempt to invoke scope limitations as justification for inadequate disclosure
The scope limitation defined what Engineer A was required to investigate, not what he was permitted to suppress — his actual knowledge of safety-endangering code violations required more than a brief mention in the structural report
The scope limitation does not constitute an adequate defense for the inadequate disclosure of safety-endangering code violations — Engineer A should have provided clear, detailed disclosure of the violations despite the structural scope limitation
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation Not Discharged By Engineer A
Engineer A failed to directly notify building occupants of the electrical and mechanical code violations that could cause them injury, despite having actual knowledge of the hazard and the client's refusal to remediate
The building occupants were identifiable third parties directly exposed to injury risk from the code violations — Engineer A's obligation to protect their safety required direct notification when the client refused to remediate and regulatory reporting was not pursued
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
Direct notification of building occupants was required given the direct exposure to injury risk and the client's refusal to remediate — Engineer A's failure to notify occupants constitutes an ethical violation
client's disclosure of deficiencies after structural tests (or overlapping)
client's disclosure of deficiencies before Engineer A informing client of danger
client's disclosure of electrical/mechanical deficiencies during Engineer A's service engagement
client's retention of Engineer A before building sale
remedial action (planned but refused) before building sale
structural tests during Engineer A's service engagement