Public Welfare—Client Action Following Engineers Services
The Board cited this case as a more recent example of balancing client confidentiality against public safety obligations, and distinguished it from the current case because the engineer's findings were based on speculation and he lacked structural engineering expertise, justifying a more cautious approach.
The Board cited this case to illustrate the fundamental ethical tension between an engineer's duty of confidentiality to a client and the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety, and to show how the current case differs from a situation where confidentiality and lack of expertise warranted a more measured approach.
Reporting to authorities fulfils the paramount obligation to public welfare and the duty to disclose known violations, but it violates faithfulness to the client, and this tension matters because the action is causally terminal in the chain, meaning it produces consequences for the client that cannot be undone once taken.
Contacting the client first fulfils faithfulness to the client by giving the responsible party an opportunity to correct the violation before authorities are involved, and this step is causally upstream of both compliance monitoring and authority reporting, so its normative weight lies in how it shapes which corrective path is ultimately taken.
CausalLink_Compliance Monitoring Decision
Monitoring whether the client actually follows through on corrective action fulfils the obligation to protect public health and welfare because, without verification, the client contact decision could produce only a hollow promise, leaving the illegal fill and its environmental harm unaddressed.
CausalLink_Confidential Non-Disclosure De
Because this decision flows from the discovery of a structural deficiency and forecloses any downstream corrective action, honoring client confidentiality at the cost of public safety reporting means that a known hazard remains unaddressed, which is precisely why the violation of the paramount obligation to protect public health and welfare carries serious normative weight in this causal position.
CausalLink_Field Notes Retention Decision
Because the bridge inspection deficiency finding triggers this decision, retaining the field notes fulfills both the duty to document professional observations and the duty of faithfulness to the client by preserving an accurate record, and this matters causally because those notes constitute the evidentiary foundation that any subsequent safety or compliance action would depend upon.
CausalLink_Professional Service Completio
By completing the wetland delineation competently and faithfully, Engineer A establishes the factual baseline that makes the subsequent violation discovery possible, meaning that fulfilling these obligations is what creates the causal conditions under which the engineer later faces harder ethical choices about reporting.
CausalLink_Public Authority Non-Reporting
Although this decision is guided by the obligation to hold paramount public health and safety, it fulfills only client faithfulness and violates no listed obligation, which reflects the normative judgment that in this causal context the engineer's discretion not to escalate to public authorities is treated as permissible rather than required, even though the guiding principle of public welfare shapes how that discretion must be exercised.
CausalLink_Violation Observation Decision
The decision to recognize and register the illegal wetland fill as a violation matters because it is the cognitive and moral threshold that activates the engineer's downstream obligations, and failing to treat the observation as ethically significant would have broken the causal chain leading to client contact and potential corrective action.
Engineer A should contact the client and inquire about the actions the client has taken and point out the action is a violation of the law and that steps need to be take to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must contact the client and identify the violation, the post-engagement nature of the discovery does not diminish Engineer A's ethical duty to act. The obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is not bounded by the temporal limits of a professional engagement. Engineer A's incidental observation while driving past the property is sufficient to trigger the duty because the violation is substantial, visible, and unambiguous to a trained environmental engineer who personally delineated the wetlands. The accidental character of the discovery is ethically irrelevant: what matters is that Engineer A now possesses knowledge of a significant ongoing environmental law violation, and that knowledge carries professional responsibility regardless of how or when it was acquired. Waiting for a formal re-assessment before acting would allow continued irreversible ecological harm and would be inconsistent with the public welfare obligation.
The Board's graduated-response framework — requiring Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to regulatory authorities — is ethically sound as a first step, but it is not an indefinite shield against escalation. If the client refuses to remediate the violation, denies its existence, or provides an implausible or unverifiable claim that permits are pending, Engineer A's obligation shifts decisively toward regulatory reporting. At that point, client confidentiality cannot be invoked to suppress disclosure of an ongoing, substantial violation of federal and state environmental law. The confidentiality duty under the Code protects legitimate business information; it does not protect a client's active commission of illegal conduct that causes ongoing public and environmental harm. Providing Engineer A's wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators in that circumstance would not constitute an impermissible breach of confidentiality but would instead represent the proper exercise of Engineer A's professional and ethical responsibility to the public. The faithful-agent duty, which survives engagement completion in attenuated form, yields entirely when the client's conduct crosses into clear illegality causing irreversible harm.
From both deontological and virtue ethics perspectives, Engineer A's ethical obligations in this case are reinforced by the convergence of multiple independent duties rather than resting on any single principle. Deontologically, Engineer A bears a categorical duty to report violations of law that endanger public welfare, a duty that is not contingent on the existence of an active client relationship or on the client's consent. From a virtue ethics standpoint, professional integrity and civic courage require Engineer A to confront the client directly rather than rationalizing inaction on the grounds that the engagement has ended. From a consequentialist standpoint, the cumulative and potentially irreversible ecological harm caused by more than half an acre of unpermitted wetland fill — combined with the deterrent value of consistent professional reporting — substantially outweighs any relational or reputational cost Engineer A might incur by escalating the matter. The convergence of all three ethical frameworks on the same course of action — contact the client, demand remediation, and escalate to authorities if the client fails to act — provides strong justification for the Board's conclusion and underscores that no legitimate ethical theory supports Engineer A's silence.
The post-engagement nature of Engineer A's discovery does not weaken or eliminate the duty to act. The ethical obligation to protect public welfare is not contractually bounded by the scope or duration of a professional engagement. Engineer A's duty arises from his status as a licensed engineer with direct knowledge of a substantial ongoing violation of federal and state law, not from any residual contractual relationship with the client. The completion of the wetland delineation services terminated Engineer A's faithful-agent duties in the transactional sense, but it did not extinguish his broader professional obligation to the public. An engineer who happens upon clear evidence of an environmental law violation is no less obligated to act because the violation was discovered after the engagement ended than one who discovers it during active service. If anything, the post-engagement context slightly simplifies the analysis by removing any argument that client loyalty during an active engagement should temper the response.
Engineer A's incidental observation while driving past the property is a legally and ethically sufficient factual basis to trigger a reporting obligation, provided the observation is clear and unambiguous to a qualified professional. Engineer A is an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation on this specific site. He possesses direct, site-specific knowledge of the pre-existing wetland boundaries and conditions. When such a professional observes more than half an acre of fill material placed across a portion of wetlands he personally delineated, that observation carries substantial evidentiary weight. No formal re-assessment is required before the duty to contact the client is activated. However, Engineer A should be careful not to overstate certainty about permit status — the client may theoretically have obtained permits unknown to Engineer A — which is precisely why the Board's graduated response of contacting the client first is appropriate. The incidental nature of the discovery is irrelevant to the strength of the duty; what matters is the quality and reliability of the observation, which here is high given Engineer A's expertise and prior site familiarity.
Engineer A has no affirmative duty to monitor the client's property after completing wetland delineation services. No provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes a post-engagement surveillance obligation on engineers, and imposing such a duty would be practically unworkable and professionally unreasonable. The ethical obligation in this case arises solely from the accidental discovery of the violation — that is, from Engineer A's actual knowledge of a substantial and ongoing breach of federal and state environmental law. The triggering condition is knowledge, not monitoring. Had Engineer A never driven past the property, he would have had no residual obligation to inquire about compliance. The accidental nature of the discovery does not, however, diminish the strength of the duty once knowledge is acquired. Once an engineer has direct, reliable knowledge of a substantial public welfare violation, the source of that knowledge — whether systematic monitoring or pure chance — is ethically irrelevant to the obligation to respond.
If the client refuses to remediate the violation or obtain a variance, Engineer A's obligation escalates to reporting the violation to the appropriate regulatory authorities. The more difficult sub-question is whether Engineer A may proactively provide his wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators. The answer is yes, and doing so does not constitute an impermissible disclosure of confidential client information under these circumstances. Code provision II.1.c. protects confidential client information, but confidentiality protections do not extend to shielding ongoing violations of federal and state law from regulatory enforcement. The wetland delineation report documents the pre-violation condition of the site and is directly relevant to establishing the nature and extent of the illegal fill. Providing it to regulators in the context of reporting a substantial environmental law violation falls within the recognized exception that confidentiality obligations yield when public welfare is at stake. Furthermore, Code provision II.1.f. affirmatively requires engineers with knowledge of violations to report to appropriate professional bodies, and by extension to regulatory authorities when the violation involves public welfare. Withholding the technical report in this context would undermine the very reporting obligation the Code imposes.
The faithful-agent principle yields entirely to the public welfare obligation when the client's conduct constitutes a substantial, ongoing violation of federal and state environmental law. During an active engagement, the faithful-agent duty is robust and requires engineers to subordinate personal preferences to the client's legitimate interests. However, Code provision II.4. makes clear that faithful agency operates within the bounds of law and ethics — it does not require or permit an engineer to become complicit in a client's illegal conduct. The tipping point is reached when the client's actions cross from business decisions Engineer A may disagree with into clear violations of law that cause ongoing harm to a protected public resource. Unpermitted fill across more than half an acre of wetlands is not a borderline case; it is a substantial violation that triggers the paramount public welfare obligation under Code provision I.1. At that point, the faithful-agent duty does not merely yield — it is extinguished with respect to any conduct that would shield the violation from correction.
Client confidentiality cannot be legitimately invoked to avoid reporting a clear and ongoing environmental law violation that Engineer A personally observed. Code provision II.1.c. and III.4. protect confidential business information, but these provisions have never been interpreted to require engineers to remain silent about active, substantial violations of law that endanger public welfare. The confidentiality obligation is a professional duty owed to clients in the context of legitimate business activities; it is not a shield that immunizes clients from regulatory accountability for illegal conduct. An engineer who witnessed a client dumping toxic waste could not ethically invoke confidentiality to justify silence, and the same logic applies here. The unpermitted fill of protected wetlands is an ongoing environmental harm affecting a public resource regulated under federal and state law. Engineer A's post-engagement status does not strengthen the confidentiality argument — if anything, it weakens any claim that loyalty to the former client should override the public interest.
The graduated-response principle — requiring Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to regulatory authorities — does not fatally conflict with the environmental law compliance principle, but it does carry a meaningful caveat when irreversible ecological harm is ongoing. The Board's conclusion correctly identifies client contact as the appropriate first step, and this sequence respects the possibility that the client may have obtained permits unknown to Engineer A, or may voluntarily remediate upon being informed of the legal exposure. However, the graduated-response principle is not absolute. If Engineer A's observation reveals that fill activity is actively ongoing and accelerating, or that the ecological damage is clearly irreversible and worsening by the day, the ethical calculus shifts toward more immediate regulatory notification. In the facts as presented — where the fill appears to have already been installed — the graduated response of client contact first is appropriate. But Engineer A should not allow the client-contact step to become an indefinite delay mechanism. If the client is unresponsive or dismissive, escalation to regulatory authorities should follow promptly, without extended waiting periods that allow further harm to accumulate.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer A has a categorical duty to report the unpermitted wetland fill, and this duty is not meaningfully constrained by prior confidentiality obligations arising from the completed engagement. Deontological ethics grounds duties in the nature of the act and the agent's role, not in consequences or relational loyalties. Engineer A's role as a licensed professional engineer carries with it a categorical commitment to public welfare that is independent of any particular client relationship. The fact that the violation was discovered entirely outside the scope of the completed engagement actually strengthens the deontological case for reporting: Engineer A has no competing duty of active service to the client that might create a genuine conflict. The prior engagement created a confidentiality obligation with respect to legitimately confidential business information, but deontological reasoning would not extend that obligation to cover ongoing illegal conduct harming a public resource. The categorical imperative — that Engineer A should act only on principles he could will to be universal law — clearly supports disclosure: a universal rule that engineers report substantial environmental law violations they personally observe is both coherent and socially necessary.
From a consequentialist standpoint, the cumulative environmental harm caused by allowing unpermitted fill to remain on more than half an acre of protected wetlands substantially outweighs any professional or relational costs Engineer A incurs by escalating the matter to regulatory authorities. Wetlands provide irreplaceable ecological services — flood mitigation, water filtration, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration — and their destruction is frequently permanent or requires decades of costly restoration. The harm to the public from inaction is concrete, ongoing, and potentially irreversible. By contrast, the costs to Engineer A of escalating — potential reputational friction with the former client, possible loss of future referrals from that client — are modest, speculative, and entirely private in nature. A consequentialist analysis also accounts for systemic effects: engineers who report violations reinforce the regulatory framework that protects wetlands broadly, while engineers who remain silent signal that professional observers can be relied upon to look away, undermining deterrence. On any reasonable consequentialist calculus, the obligation to escalate — following the graduated response of client contact first — is clear.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrates professional integrity and civic courage by proactively confronting the client about the illegal fill rather than rationalizing non-involvement on the grounds that the original engagement has concluded. The virtue ethics framework asks what a person of good professional character would do, and it identifies the relevant virtues as honesty, courage, integrity, and civic responsibility. An engineer of good character who personally observes a substantial environmental law violation does not retreat into technical arguments about the scope of completed engagements or the limits of post-engagement duties. Instead, such an engineer recognizes that professional licensure carries an ongoing civic obligation — one that does not clock out when a project closes. The temptation to rationalize inaction ('it's not my project anymore,' 'I don't want to damage the relationship,' 'I'm not certain about the permit status') represents precisely the kind of moral evasion that virtue ethics identifies as a failure of character. Contacting the client directly and clearly, pointing out the violation, and following through with regulatory escalation if necessary, is the conduct of a professionally virtuous engineer.
The faithful-agent duty Engineer A owed the client during the active engagement does not survive the completion of that engagement in any form that would constrain the obligation to disclose the observed violation to public authorities. Post-engagement, the faithful-agent duty dissolves into a narrower residual obligation: the duty not to use confidential information acquired during the engagement to actively harm the former client's legitimate business interests. That residual duty does not extend to protecting the former client from regulatory accountability for ongoing illegal conduct. Reporting a substantial environmental law violation to regulatory authorities is not an act of aggression against a former client's legitimate interests — it is compliance with a legal and ethical obligation that exists independently of the prior relationship. The deontological framing reinforces this conclusion: the faithful-agent duty is grounded in the trust relationship of an active engagement, and once that engagement ends, the duty's foundation dissolves. What remains is the engineer's permanent, role-based duty to the public.
If Engineer A had never driven past the client's property and therefore never observed the unpermitted fill, he would have had no residual post-engagement obligation to monitor or inquire about the site's compliance status. The ethical duty is triggered by knowledge, not by the passage of time or the nature of the prior engagement. The accidental nature of the discovery does not affect the strength of the disclosure duty once knowledge is acquired — the duty is equally strong whether Engineer A observed the violation by chance, by deliberate site visit, or through a third-party report. This conclusion has an important implication: engineers should not feel that accidental discoveries create a weaker or more discretionary duty than deliberate ones. The source of knowledge is irrelevant; the fact of knowledge is determinative. Equally, engineers should not feel that the absence of a monitoring obligation means they may deliberately avoid acquiring knowledge of violations — willful blindness is not an ethical defense.
If the client provided a plausible but unverified explanation that permits were pending or had been verbally approved, Engineer A would be ethically permitted to defer regulatory escalation temporarily, but only briefly and conditionally. The graduated-response principle supports giving the client a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate compliance. However, given the scale of the violation — more than half an acre of unpermitted fill — Engineer A should not accept an unverified verbal assurance as a basis for indefinite deferral. The appropriate response would be to request documentary evidence of the pending or approved permits within a defined, short timeframe. If the client cannot produce such evidence promptly, or if the explanation proves implausible upon reflection, Engineer A's obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities is restored in full. Engineer A should also consider that regulatory agencies can independently verify permit status, and that reporting the observation while noting the client's claimed explanation is itself a responsible course of action that protects both the public interest and Engineer A's professional integrity.
If the unpermitted fill had been installed during the active engagement rather than after its completion, Engineer A's ethical obligations would have been materially stronger in their immediacy and urgency, though not categorically different in their ultimate direction. During an active engagement, Engineer A would have had direct professional responsibility for the site, ongoing communication with the client, and a heightened duty to address violations discovered in the course of professional services. The active faithful-agent relationship would have created a stronger initial obligation to counsel the client privately and urgently before any external escalation. However, the active engagement would not have permitted Engineer A to remain silent indefinitely — the public welfare obligation would still have required escalation if the client refused to remediate. The primary difference is one of process and urgency: during an active engagement, the client-contact step would carry greater weight and a stronger expectation of immediate response, while the post-engagement context slightly accelerates the timeline for escalation given the absence of an ongoing professional relationship that might facilitate resolution.
If Engineer A had reported the violation directly to regulatory authorities without first contacting the client, that sequence of action would represent a deviation from the graduated-response principle embedded in the Board's conclusion, and could constitute a separate ethical concern — though not necessarily a clear ethical breach. The graduated-response principle reflects the professional norm that engineers should give clients an opportunity to correct violations before escalating externally, particularly when there is a plausible possibility that the client is unaware of the legal requirements or believes permits are in order. Bypassing the client-contact step eliminates this opportunity and may expose the client to regulatory consequences that could have been avoided through voluntary compliance. However, the ethical weight of this concern is context-dependent: if Engineer A had reason to believe the client was aware of the violation and was actively concealing it, or if the fill activity was ongoing and accelerating, direct regulatory reporting without prior client contact might be justified. In the facts as presented, the Board's graduated approach — client contact first — is the ethically preferred sequence, and departing from it without compelling justification would reflect a failure to apply professional judgment proportionately.
The tension between faithful agency toward the client and the public welfare obligation is resolved in this case by a clear hierarchical ordering: the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public supersedes the duty of loyal service to the client once the client's conduct crosses into substantial, ongoing violation of federal and state environmental law. The faithful agent duty is not eliminated — it survives the completion of the engagement in the form of a graduated response requirement that obligates Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to authorities — but it is subordinated. The faithful agent principle functions here as a procedural constraint on how Engineer A discharges the public welfare obligation, not as a substantive barrier to discharging it at all. This case teaches that faithful agency is a bounded duty: it governs the manner and sequence of Engineer A's response but cannot be invoked to justify inaction in the face of a clear, ongoing, and substantial environmental violation.
The principle of client confidentiality does not shield the client's unpermitted wetland fill from disclosure, and this case clarifies the outer boundary of that principle with precision. Confidentiality protections under the NSPE Code attach to business affairs, technical processes, and professional information entrusted to the engineer in the course of the engagement. They do not extend to independently observable, ongoing violations of law that the engineer perceives through his own senses entirely outside the scope of any confidential communication. Engineer A's incidental observation while driving past the property is not derived from confidential client information — it is a direct perception of a physical condition on land that is visible from a public road. Accordingly, the confidentiality principle is not genuinely in tension with the disclosure duty here; rather, the two principles operate in different domains. This case teaches that confidentiality is a relational and informational principle, not a territorial one, and that it cannot be stretched to immunize a client's illegal conduct from an engineer's professional reporting obligations.
The graduated response principle and the environmental law compliance principle are not in fundamental conflict in this case, but their interaction reveals an important limiting condition: the graduated response sequence — contact the client first, then escalate to authorities if the client fails to act — is ethically defensible only so long as the ongoing harm is not so immediate and irreversible that the delay inherent in client notification would itself constitute a failure to protect the public. In the present facts, the fill has already been installed; the acute act of violation is complete even if its ecological consequences are ongoing. This means the graduated response does not sacrifice urgent prevention in the way it might if fill were actively being deposited in real time. The case therefore teaches that the graduated response principle retains its validity in post-hoc discovery scenarios but would yield to a more immediate escalation duty if the violation were actively ongoing and causing accelerating irreversible harm at the moment of discovery. Engineer A's obligation to contact the client first is thus context-sensitive, not absolute, and the environmental law compliance principle sets the ceiling on how much procedural deference to the client is permissible.
Should Engineer A report the client's unpermitted wetland fill to federal and state regulatory authorities after the engagement has concluded, or treat the observation as confidential information from a prior client relationship?
Engineer A Post-Engagement Disclosure of Observed Wetland Fill Violation
Engineer A reports the observed unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory agencies, treating the post-engagement observation as triggering a mandatory public welfare disclosure duty.
Engineer A contacts the former client to demand voluntary remediation and permit compliance within a defined period, deferring regulatory reporting unless the client fails to act, on the grounds that a graduated response preserves the professional relationship and may achieve compliance without formal enforcement.
Engineer A declines to report the violation, reasoning that the observation arose from proximity to a former client project and that residual confidentiality obligations to a former client shield incidentally acquired information from mandatory disclosure.
Does Engineer A's confidentiality duty from the prior wetland delineation engagement shield the directly observed, unpermitted wetland fill from disclosure, or does the nature of the observation as an established fact override any residual confidentiality interest?
Engineer A Confidentiality Scope Relative to Directly Observed Wetland Violation
Engineer A determines that the directly observed, unpermitted fill is an independently established fact rather than confidential client information, and proceeds to report it to regulatory authorities without treating the prior engagement as a bar to disclosure.
Engineer A treats all knowledge of the site and client activities, including the observed fill, as protected by the confidentiality obligation arising from the prior engagement, and declines to report on the grounds that professional loyalty to a former client extends to incidentally acquired observations.
Engineer A defers any disclosure decision and consults legal counsel to determine whether the prior engagement creates enforceable confidentiality obligations that would expose Engineer A to liability for reporting the observed violation, treating the legal question as a prerequisite to any ethical action.
Should Engineer A disclose the observed wetland fill violations to relevant regulatory authorities, or treat the observations as outside the scope of the engagement and maintain confidentiality toward the client?
Engineer A observed apparent wetland fill violations during a bridge inspection engagement. The core tension is whether Engineer A must disclose those observations to regulatory authorities or other relevant parties, given that the wetland findings fall outside the strict scope of the bridge assignment but within Engineer A's professional expertise.
Disclose the observed wetland fill violations to the appropriate regulatory agency, treating the public welfare obligation as paramount over client confidentiality when an apparent environmental law violation is detected.
Inform the client of the observed wetland conditions and strongly recommend that the client self-report to regulators or take corrective action, without Engineer A independently contacting regulatory authorities.
Treat the wetland observations as outside the contracted scope of the bridge inspection and refrain from reporting, on the basis that Engineer A was not retained to assess wetland compliance and lacks sufficient certainty to make a formal violation allegation.
Should Engineer A treat client confidentiality as an absolute bar to disclosing the wetland violation observations, or recognize that confidentiality obligations have limits when public welfare and legal compliance are at stake?
Engineer A faces the question of whether client confidentiality obligations have limits when the information at issue involves an apparent violation of environmental law. The case requires Engineer A to determine whether the general duty to protect client confidences yields to the public interest in environmental compliance.
Conclude that the duty of client confidentiality does not extend to concealing apparent violations of environmental law, and proceed with disclosure to the appropriate authority consistent with the public welfare paramount principle.
Consult with legal counsel to determine whether the confidentiality obligation or the public disclosure obligation takes precedence under applicable law and professional codes before taking any action, thereby avoiding premature breach of either duty.
Treat the confidentiality obligation as controlling unless there is evidence of imminent danger to persons, reasoning that environmental fill violations, while serious, do not rise to the level of immediate physical harm that would override client confidentiality.
Should Engineer A preserve and make available the bridge inspection field notes for use in subsequent proceedings, or treat those notes as confidential internal documents belonging to the client engagement?
During the bridge inspection, Engineer A generated field notes that may be relevant to subsequent proceedings or regulatory inquiries. The question is whether Engineer A must preserve and potentially produce those field notes, or whether they may be treated as internal working documents subject to the client's confidentiality interests.
Retain all bridge inspection field notes in their original form and make them available in response to any lawful regulatory or legal request, treating preservation as a professional obligation independent of client preference.
Treat the field notes as work product belonging to the client, return or transfer them to the client upon project completion, and defer to the client's decisions about retention and disclosure.
Retain the field notes independently but decline to produce them to third parties without client consent, balancing the preservation duty against the confidentiality obligation until a formal legal or regulatory demand resolves the conflict.
Engineer A Bridge Field Notes Alteration
Engineer A agreed at client request to exclude the speculative wall condition observation from the final report but retained the information in engineering notes. The prohibition on altering those notes was absolute regardless of client preference.
Engineer A was prohibited from altering the engineering notes documenting the observed defective bridge wall condition, even after agreeing not to include that information in the final written report.
From the time of the observation through the conclusion of the engagement and beyond
Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
However, under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes.
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
Police Officer B fatal accident before scheduled overhaul of the bridge begins
Three months prior to the beginning of the scheduled overhaul of the bridge, while traveling across the bridge, Police Officer B lost control of his patrol car.
This question arose because Engineer A's professional role as wetland delineation expert placed her in a position to recognize a clear legal violation, but her engagement with the client had already concluded, leaving her obligations to the client, to regulators, and to the public in direct conflict. The question could not be resolved by a single principle because the data of a completed engagement, a confirmed violation, and no ongoing duty of care triggered at least three competing warrants with incompatible conclusions.
This question arose because the temporal and contractual gap between the completed delineation service and the violation discovery places Engineer A in a structural position where two well-grounded deontological warrants, faithful agency to a former client and paramount public welfare, both have legitimate claims on the same facts. The question is not merely practical but categorical, asking whether any rebuttal condition, such as scope exclusion or post-engagement status, can defeat what deontological theory treats as an unconditional duty once a confirmed legal violation is known.
This question arose because the Illegal Wetland Fill event occurred after Engineer A's professional service was complete, placing Engineer A in a state where no active engagement duty compelled monitoring yet the confirmed violation created a public welfare obligation that the NSPE Code treats as paramount. The consequentialist framing sharpens the question by demanding an explicit comparison of aggregate environmental harm against professional costs, a comparison that neither the faithful agent warrant nor the public welfare warrant resolves on its own without a weighing framework.
The question emerged because Engineer A occupies a post-engagement position that sits outside the normal active-service framework that most professional ethics codes address directly. Virtue ethics language about integrity and civic courage enters the analysis precisely because the deontological structure leaves a gap: the rules do not cleanly resolve whether a former consultant who witnesses a client's illegal act is obligated to act or permitted to remain silent, so the question shifts to what a person of good professional character would do.
This question arose because the temporal boundary of the engagement creates a gap in standard deontological reasoning. The faithful-agent duty is well-defined during active service, but its survival after completion is not settled, and the discovery of a confirmed environmental violation after that boundary forces a direct confrontation between residual client loyalty and the unconditional public-welfare obligation.
This question arose because the scenario separates two normally linked elements, namely the existence of knowledge and the manner of its acquisition, and asks whether the disclosure duty is triggered by the knowledge itself or by the professional relationship that produced it. The accidental discovery exposes a gap in standard warrant structures, which assume that an engineer's obligations flow from deliberate professional engagement rather than from incidental observation after that engagement has closed.
This question arose because Engineer A's situation sits at the intersection of two structurally sound but directionally opposed argument chains. One chain runs from confirmed violation through graduated response to permissible temporary deference, and the other runs from confirmed violation through scale-proportionate verification to mandatory independent confirmation before any deference. The client's unverified explanation does not resolve the contest between these chains; it intensifies it by introducing a factual gap that each warrant treats differently.
This question arose because the base case establishes Engineer A's obligation in a post-engagement posture, leaving open whether the relational context of an active engagement would alter the weight or direction of competing warrants rather than merely their sequence. The question forces analysis of whether the faithful agent obligation during active service is a strengthening conduit for public welfare enforcement or a competing constraint that delays or redirects it.
This question arose because the Board's conclusion implicitly embedded a sequencing norm, client contact before regulatory reporting, into its ethical reasoning, but that norm was never explicitly stated as a binding procedural requirement. Once the sequence is read as obligatory rather than advisory, a new question opens about whether inverting it constitutes a separate ethical breach or merely a deviation from best practice.
This question arose because the sequence of events placed the violation discovery in a temporal gap between the end of formal engagement and any new contractual duty, creating a structural ambiguity in which the data clearly supports a confirmed violation but the warrant authorizing disclosure is contested by the argument that post-engagement conduct falls outside the engineer's professional jurisdiction. The question persists because no single principle in the NSPE Code of Ethics explicitly resolves whether public welfare obligations are time-bounded by contract or are continuous with the engineer's knowledge and expertise.
This question emerged because the data, an incidental observation by a qualified engineer who had previously delineated the same site, sits at the boundary between casual perception and professional judgment. The question could not be resolved by applying a single warrant because Engineer A's expertise makes the observation more credible than a layperson's report, yet the absence of a formal engagement makes the evidentiary basis weaker than a commissioned inspection, leaving the sufficiency of the factual predicate genuinely contested.
This question emerged because the data sequence, a completed professional service followed by an accidental observation of a violation on the same property, sits at the boundary between two distinct warrant structures. The scope-limitation warrant treats completion as a clean ethical terminus, while the public welfare warrant treats Engineer A's specialized knowledge and prior involvement as generating a residual duty that discovery merely confirms rather than creates.
This question arose because Engineer A's reporting obligation, once triggered by the confirmed violation, does not specify whether passive notification to authorities is sufficient or whether active submission of the technical report is required. The client's refusal to remediate removes the graduated response option and forces a direct collision between the Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation obligation and the Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limit constraint, making the scope and method of permissible disclosure the central unresolved issue.
This question arose because Engineer A occupies two roles simultaneously: a former trusted agent of the client whose engagement has ended, and a licensed engineer with an ongoing public welfare obligation that does not expire with the contract. The data of a confirmed, unpermitted, federally regulated wetland fill forces a direct confrontation between those two role-based warrants, and neither the NSPE Code nor general professional norms specify a precise threshold at which the faithful agent duty fully yields, leaving the tipping point genuinely contested.
This question arose because the temporal gap between service completion and violation discovery creates a structural ambiguity in which Engineer A is neither an active agent of the client nor a fully independent third-party observer. The competing warrants of post-engagement disclosure duty and client confidentiality both have legitimate claims on Engineer A's conduct, and neither is clearly overridden by the facts alone, forcing the question of which principle governs when a former engineer witnesses a former client breaking environmental law.
This question arose because two legitimate professional principles, proportionality in escalation and strict compliance with environmental law, were designed for different risk profiles and collide when the violation is both ongoing and ecologically irreversible. Engineer A's situation forces a determination of whether the procedural protection afforded to the client by graduated response can survive contact with the urgency condition embedded in the environmental law compliance principle.
This question arose because the data of an observed but not yet formally re-assessed violation placed two legitimate professional principles in direct conflict. The fact-based disclosure threshold protects against premature or inaccurate reporting, but the public welfare obligation loses its practical force if the harm it is meant to prevent becomes permanent before the threshold is satisfied.
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these facts?
Does Engineer A's ethical obligation to report the violation change depending on whether the unpermitted fill was installed during or after the professional engagement, and does the post-engagement nature of the discovery weaken or eliminate any duty to act?
Is Engineer A's incidental observation while driving by the property sufficient factual basis to trigger a reporting obligation, or must he conduct a more formal re-assessment of the site before concluding that a substantial violation has occurred?
Does Engineer A have any affirmative duty to monitor the client's property after completing wetland delineation services, or does the ethical obligation arise solely from the accidental discovery of the violation?
If the client refuses to remediate the violation or obtain a variance, does Engineer A's obligation to report to authorities extend to proactively providing his wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators, and would doing so constitute an impermissible disclosure of confidential client information?
Does the principle of faithful agency toward the client conflict with the public welfare obligation when the client's unpermitted wetland fill constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state law, and at what point does the faithful agent duty yield entirely to the public welfare obligation?
Does the principle of client confidentiality conflict with the post-engagement disclosure duty, and can Engineer A legitimately invoke confidentiality protections to avoid reporting a clear and ongoing environmental law violation that he personally observed?
Does the graduated response principle—requiring Engineer A to contact the client before escalating to authorities—conflict with the environmental law compliance principle when the ongoing fill activity may be causing irreversible ecological harm that demands immediate regulatory intervention?
Does the fact-based disclosure threshold principle—requiring Engineer A to be confident in his factual findings before disclosing—conflict with the public welfare obligation when waiting to confirm the violation through formal re-assessment could allow further irreversible environmental damage to occur?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have a categorical duty to report the unpermitted wetland fill to regulatory authorities regardless of any prior confidentiality obligations to the client, given that the violation was discovered entirely outside the scope of the completed engagement?
From a consequentialist standpoint, does the cumulative environmental harm caused by allowing unpermitted fill to remain on more than half an acre of protected wetlands outweigh any professional or relational costs Engineer A incurs by escalating the matter to regulatory authorities without the client's consent?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and civic courage by proactively confronting the client about the illegal fill rather than rationalizing non-involvement on the grounds that the original engagement has concluded?
From a deontological perspective, does the faithful-agent duty Engineer A owed the client during the active engagement survive the completion of that engagement, and if so, to what extent does it constrain Engineer A's obligation to disclose the observed violation to public authorities?
If Engineer A had never driven past the client's property and therefore never observed the unpermitted fill, would Engineer A have had any residual post-engagement obligation to monitor or inquire about the site's compliance status, and does the accidental nature of the discovery affect the strength of the disclosure duty?
What if Engineer A had contacted the client and the client provided a plausible but unverified explanation that permits were pending or had been verbally approved — would Engineer A be ethically permitted to defer regulatory escalation, or does the scale of the violation require independent verification before any deference is granted?
Would Engineer A's ethical obligations have been materially different if the unpermitted fill had been installed during the active engagement rather than after its completion — specifically, would the ongoing client relationship have strengthened, weakened, or simply redirected the duty to report?
If Engineer A had reported the violation directly to regulatory authorities without first contacting the client, would that sequence of action violate the graduated-response principle embedded in the Board's conclusion, and could it expose Engineer A to a separate ethical breach for bypassing the client notification step?
Because Engineer A had personally delineated the wetlands and could recognize the unpermitted fill as a clear violation without any further formal assessment, the board concluded that the public welfare obligation was immediately triggered and required Engineer A to contact the client as a first step toward remediation.
Because Engineer A directly observed the illegal fill and the violation was ongoing and substantial, the board concluded that confidentiality protections could not legitimately be invoked to justify silence, drawing an analogy to the principle that an engineer who witnessed a client dumping toxic waste could not ethically use confidentiality to avoid reporting it.
Because the fill appeared to be a completed act rather than an active and escalating one, the board found that contacting the client first was appropriate and did not fatally compromise the public welfare obligation, provided Engineer A treated client contact as a prompt step rather than an open-ended waiting period before regulatory escalation.
Because the violation was discovered after the engagement closed and involved harm to a public resource rather than confidential business information, the board concluded that no prior confidentiality obligation survived in a form that could constrain Engineer A's categorical duty to report, grounded in the universal principle that engineers must disclose substantial environmental violations they personally observe.
Given that the fill covered more than half an acre of protected wetlands and the damage was potentially permanent, the board found that no reasonable consequentialist calculus could justify inaction, because the public harm was concrete and the engineer's costs were speculative and private, and because consistent reporting by professional observers produces systemic benefits that compound the individual case for disclosure.
Because Engineer A personally observed a substantial violation on a property he had professionally delineated and possessed the expertise to recognize it, the board concluded that a professionally virtuous engineer would confront the client directly and follow through with regulatory escalation if necessary, and that any retreat into scope or relationship arguments would constitute the kind of moral evasion that virtue ethics identifies as a failure of character.
Because the engagement had concluded before Engineer A observed the violation, the board found that the faithful-agent duty had already dissolved into a narrow residual obligation not to weaponize confidential information against the former client, and that this residual duty could not be stretched to cover protection from regulatory accountability for ongoing illegal conduct, leaving Engineer A's permanent role-based public duty as the controlling obligation.
Given that Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted fill while driving past the property and possessed the wetland expertise to recognize it as a substantial violation, the board concluded that the disclosure duty was fully triggered, because the ethical obligation attaches to the fact of knowledge and not to the circumstances that produced it, and willful avoidance of such knowledge would not serve as a defense.
Given that the client offered an unverified verbal assurance and the fill covered more than half an acre of protected wetland, the board concluded that Engineer A could defer escalation only briefly and conditionally, because the graduated response principle permits a reasonable opportunity for voluntary compliance but the scale of the violation prevents indefinite reliance on an unsubstantiated claim.
Given that the fill was installed after the engagement ended and Engineer A had no continuing professional relationship with the client, the board concluded that the ethical obligations were directionally identical to those in an active engagement but procedurally adjusted, because the absence of an ongoing relationship reduces the leverage and appropriateness of extended private negotiation and slightly compresses the timeline for regulatory escalation.
Given that the facts did not reveal active concealment or rapidly escalating harm, the board concluded that reporting directly to regulators without first contacting the client would deviate from the graduated response principle and reflect disproportionate professional judgment, though it would not necessarily constitute a clear ethical breach if compelling circumstances had justified the departure.
Because Engineer A had personally delineated the wetlands and could reliably identify the unpermitted fill as a clear violation, the board concluded that neither the post-engagement timing nor the accidental nature of the discovery diminished the duty to act, since what matters is the engineer's present knowledge of an ongoing violation rather than the circumstances under which that knowledge was acquired.
Given that the client's unpermitted fill was substantial, ongoing, and in clear violation of federal and state environmental law, the board concluded that the faithful agent duty could not function as a substantive barrier to disclosure but only as a procedural guide requiring client contact first, because the NSPE Code's hierarchy places public welfare paramount and the faithful agent principle is bounded by that superior obligation.
Because Engineer A perceived the fill through his own senses while driving past on a public road rather than through any client communication, the board concluded that confidentiality protections never attached to that knowledge in the first place, and the faithful-agent and non-disclosure provisions could not be stretched to immunize a client's illegal conduct from reporting obligations that arose from an entirely independent observation.
Because the fill had already been installed and the harm, though ongoing, was not actively escalating at the moment Engineer A discovered it, the board concluded that the graduated response sequence remained ethically valid and that Engineer A was obligated to contact the client first before escalating to regulators, with the understanding that this procedural deference to the client would have been displaced entirely if the violation had been in active progress causing accelerating irreversible damage.
Because the client's unpermitted fill constitutes active illegal conduct causing irreversible ecological harm rather than a confidential business matter, the board concluded that Engineer A's duty to provide his wetland delineation report and technical findings to regulators is not an impermissible breach of confidentiality but is instead the proper exercise of professional responsibility once the client fails to remedy the violation.
Because the scale of the unpermitted fill, the irreversibility of the ecological harm, and the absence of any active client relationship all pointed in the same direction across deontological, consequentialist, and virtue ethics analysis, the board concluded that the convergence of all three frameworks provides unusually strong justification for requiring Engineer A to contact the client, demand remediation, and escalate to authorities if the client fails to act.
Because the wetland delineation engagement had concluded before Engineer A observed the unpermitted fill, the board concluded that the faithful-agent duty had terminated in its transactional sense and that Engineer A's obligation to act arose solely from his professional status and direct knowledge of an ongoing violation, making the public welfare obligation the clear and uncontested governing standard.
Because Engineer A had personally delineated this specific wetland and observed more than half an acre of fill placed across it, the board concluded that his professional judgment was sufficient to trigger the duty to contact the client, without requiring formal re-assessment, though the board noted that Engineer A should not overstate certainty about permit status given the theoretical possibility of unknown permits.
Because Engineer A had completed his engagement and had no contractual or ethical obligation to surveil the property, the board concluded that no affirmative monitoring duty existed, but that the accidental acquisition of direct knowledge of a substantial violation independently activated the disclosure obligation regardless of how that knowledge was obtained.
Because the client refused to act and the delineation report was the precise technical document needed to establish the pre-violation baseline for regulators, the board concluded that providing it to authorities fell within the recognized exception to confidentiality when public welfare is at stake, and that withholding it would undermine the very reporting obligation the Code imposes.
Because the unpermitted fill was a substantial and unambiguous violation of federal and state law rather than a borderline case, the board concluded that the faithful-agent duty did not merely yield to the public welfare obligation but was extinguished with respect to any conduct that would shield the violation from correction, given that II.4. itself conditions faithful agency on lawful and ethical bounds.
property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
Scope limitations can justify excluding observations from a formal report when those observations are speculative and outside the engineer's retained expertise, provided the information is preserved in field notes and communicated verbally to the appropriate party.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.82
Confidentiality protects information disclosed by a client in the course of a professional engagement. It does not protect a client from the consequences of illegal conduct that the engineer observes independently in a public or semi-public setting after the engagement has concluded.
source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.8
the client's subsequent unpermitted fill is a new, independently observed act that constitutes a substantial violation of law, not information confided during the engagement.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.92
The faithful agent duty is a genuine professional obligation but is expressly subordinate to the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare.
source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.72
the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands is a substantial violation of law that rises to a public welfare concern, defeating the faithful agent duty
source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.9
the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands is a substantial violation of law that rises to a public welfare concern, defeating the faithful agent duty under the defeasibility condition recognized in the NSPE Code.
Defeasibility edge from obligationstatement
source_field=obligationstatement; confidence=0.78
the duty to report overrides any residual confidentiality interest.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
The faithful agent duty is a genuine professional obligation but is expressly subordinate to the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare. A client's illegal conduct that harms publicly protected resources falls outside the scope of legitimate client interests that the faithful agent duty is designed to protect.
the duty to report those violations to appropriate authorities overrode any residual confidentiality interest.
source_field=casecontext; confidence=0.7
The graduated response required escalation to authorities if the client did not remediate.
property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Regulatory Authority Notified; Enforcement Action Possible
property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting; Active Monitoring of Client Remediation
Public Safety Risk; Inspection Record Existing; Engineer Awareness of Deficiency
Client Notified of Violation; Remediation Demand Issued
Active Monitoring of Client Remediation; Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting
Public Safety Risk Undisclosed; Confidentiality Agreement Honored
Formal Ethical Duty Established; Remediation Demand Required; Compliance Monitoring Required; Authority Reporting Contingency Active
Ethical Ambiguity About Required Response
Unpermitted Fill Active; Environmental Violation Existing; Public Safety Risk; Regulatory Non-Compliance State
Professional Relationship with Client; Engineer Familiarity with Site Conditions
Public Safety Risk; Confidentiality Constraint Active; Engineer Awareness of Deficiency
Engineer Awareness of Violation; Prior Professional Knowledge Active
Knowledge of Client Violation; Obligation to Act on Observed Violation
Prior Professional Relationship Active; Wetland Baseline Documented
property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Report Known Violations
property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee
property=raisesObligation; action's raisesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action
Faithfulness to Client; Non-Disclosure of Confidential Client Information
property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Faithfulness to Client; Obligation to Document Professional Observations
Act as Faithful Agent or Trustee; Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
Faithfulness to Client; Competent Service Delivery
Obligation to Follow Through on Corrective Action
property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant; VWX Prime Consultant
property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer A (and the Board reasoning about Engineer A's obligations)
relation_type=employs; property=employedBy
VWX Architects and Engineers retained the services of Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant
relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
a public agency retained the services of VWX Architects and Engineers to perform a major scheduled overhaul of a bridge
property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
invokedBy: Engineer A Wetland Delineation Engineer
invokedBy: Engineer A Structural Inspection Sub-Consultant
invokedBy: Engineer A Public Responsibility
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is obligated to report the observed unpermitted fill to the appropriate federal and state environmental authority, applying that specialized knowled
Engineer A, drawing on specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authority
Engineer A's confidentiality obligations arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violations of federal and state wetland laws
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that any confidentiality duty arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not shield the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law from disclos
Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement does not extend to remaining silent about the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law
Because Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted wetland fill with domain expertise, the concern rose to the level of established fact, triggering a mandatory disclosure obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose the directly observed wetland fill violation to the appropriate regulatory authority because the observation constitutes an established fact rather than a preliminary concern, triggering the mandatory dis
Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill violation with directness and specificity
the appropriate first step is direct client contact to demand remediation, with escalation to regulatory authorities re
with escalation to regulatory authorities re
After contacting the client about the wetland fill violation and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A must monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been correc
Engineer A's disclosure and reporting obligations to regulatory authorities are not extinguished by the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement
Engineer A's professional obligations to the public do not terminate upon completion of the wetland delineation engagement.
Engineer A, upon discovering that the client has placed unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of wetlands in violation of federal and state law, faces an obligation to hold the welfare of the public and the protected environment paramo
Engineer A's scope of work was limited to pavement damage, and the Board held it was appropriate not to include speculative structural observations outside that scope in the formal report
that duty did not authorize Engineer A to abandon follow-through o
Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill violation
If the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, Engineer A was obligated to report the unpermitted wetland fill violation to the appropriate federal or state regulatory authority.
Engineer A was obligated to contact the client directly upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, identify the specific violations of federal and state law, and require that immediate remedial steps be taken.
Engineer A was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to remediate, notwithstanding the conclusion of the wetland delineation eng
After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was obligated to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until sufficiently satisfied that the wetland violation had been fully corrected
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is obligated to report the observed unpermitted fill to the appropriate federal and state environmental authority
Engineer A is obligated to report the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authority, because the violation is a substantial breach of law that implicates public wel
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that any confidentiality duty arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not shield the client's subsequent, independently observed violation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose the directly observed wetland fill violation to the appropriate regulatory authority because the observation constitutes an established fact
Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill
Engineer A was obligated to retain the observations about the defective bridge wall condition in engineering notes without alteration
Engineer A was obligated to exclude from the final written bridge inspection report the observation about the defective wall condition
property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Engineer A; Client; Public; Wetland ecosystem; Regulatory agencies
Engineer A; Client; Wetland ecosystem; Downstream and adjacent property owners; Regulatory agencies
Engineer A; Client; Regulatory agencies; Public
Engineer A; Client; Federal and state regulatory agencies
Engineer A; Client; Regulatory authorities; Public and environment
Engineer A; Client; Regulatory authorities
Engineer A; Client; Regulatory authorities; Public and environment affected by wetland destruction
Client; Engineer A; Regulatory authorities; Public and wetland environment
property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Violation is confirmed rather than speculative
Engineer A performed wetland delineation services for the client
property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Professional may not remain silent once a confirmed legal violation is identified
Remedial actions must comply with all applicable environmental laws and may require licensed engineer review
property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Obligation to contact client and identify the violation directly
Obligation to monitor situation until remediation is confirmed
property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Completion of wetland delineation services a few months prior to the observation
Engineer A observes substantial unpermitted fill on wetlands, confirming a concrete environmental and legal violation with no safeguards in place
Client installs substantial fill material across more than half an acre of wetlands without authorization
Removal of fill and site restoration, or regulatory authorization
Confidentiality does not override mandatory reporting when law is violated
Obligation to notify client of violation and demand remediation
Professional independently observes or learns of client conduct constituting a violation
Professional must not certify or endorse the altered site condition without disclosing the violation
Professional may not ignore a substantial known violation simply because the engagement has ended
Obligation to assess whether the violation creates a public safety or environmental risk
Duty to evaluate whether post-engagement reporting obligations are triggered
Professional reports violation to appropriate authority
Obligation to monitor client's remediation progress
Engineer A drives by the client's property and observes substantial fill material installed across more than half an acre of wetlands without permits
Professional may not assist client in concealing or perpetuating the violation
Duty to consider whether continued professional silence constitutes complicity in ongoing violation
Obligation to evaluate post-engagement reporting duties triggered by confirmed regulatory violation
Duty to assess whether the violation creates a public safety or environmental risk requiring mandatory reporting
Fill or alteration is removed and site restored to compliant condition
property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material.
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied... If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
While conducting the bridge inspection, and although not part of the scope of services for which he was retained, Engineer A noticed an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall close to where the accident involving Police Officer B occurred.
Engineer A verbally reported this information to his client, who then verbally reported the information to the public agency.
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
The public agency contacted VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A and asked Engineer A not to include this additional information in his final report since it was not part of his scope of work.
Commissioned wetland delineation services from Engineer A and subsequently installed substantial fill material on more than half an acre of the wetland site without any permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws.
The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
Via class 'Wetland Fill Violator Client': The client here is the party that commissioned wetland delineation services and is the subject of the violation. The existing Client Role covers the party that commissions project work. This is a specialization adding the violation context, so matching to Client Role at medium confidence.
Engineer A Bridge Field Notes Preservation
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to preserve the bridge wall observation in engineering notes without alteration, maintaining an accurate contemporaneous record of the observation even after being asked not to include it in the final report.
After observing an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition during bridge inspection and being asked by the client not to include it in the final report, Engineer A retained the observation in engineering notes without alteration.
Retention of the wall condition observation in engineering notes as a contemporaneous record, with explicit refusal to alter those notes despite the decision to exclude the observation from the formal report.
under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes
Engineer A, retained solely to identify pavement damage, observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition near a fatal accident site. Without structural engineering expertise or testing, the observation was speculative and did not meet the threshold for mandatory inclusion in the final report, though it was appropriately preserved in engineering notes.
Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint
Because Engineer A's observation about the defective bridge wall condition was based on visual inspection alone, without structural engineering expertise or further testing, it constituted a preliminary concern rather than a confirmed factual finding, and Engineer A was not required to include it in the final written report.
During and after the bridge inspection engagement
Engineer A's observation appeared to be based upon a visual inspection without anything more, the facts did not indicate that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering.
While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
there was nothing under the facts to indicate anything more than Engineer A's general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint'
Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that the bridge wall observation was based on general surmise and visual inspection without structural engineering expertise, and to exclude that speculative finding from the formal written report while preserving it in engineering notes.
While performing pavement inspection services as a sub-consultant on a bridge overhaul, Engineer A observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition near a fatal accident site but lacked structural engineering expertise to confirm the observation as a finding.
Decision to retain the wall condition observation in engineering notes but not include it in the final bridge inspection report, on the basis that the observation was speculative and outside Engineer A's structural engineering competence.
Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested
Engineer A surmised that the defective condition may have been a contributing factor in the wall failure and noted this in his engineering notes.
there was nothing under the facts to indicate anything more than Engineer A's general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability'
Engineer A Confidentiality Limit Recognition
Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to reason that any confidentiality obligation arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement did not extend to shielding the client's subsequent unpermitted fill activity from regulatory reporting.
The prior engagement between Engineer A and the client for wetland delineation services created a potential confidentiality consideration that Engineer A was required to reason through before concluding that reporting was obligatory.
Recognizing that the prior professional engagement created no confidentiality duty that would bar disclosure of the client's violation of federal and state wetland laws to regulatory authorities.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability'
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the applicable professional and legal norms governing environmental engineers who observe client violations of wetland law, including the duty to report and the limits of confidentiality in the face of public law violations.
Engineer A was required to identify and apply the relevant professional norms governing post-engagement conduct and environmental compliance reporting.
Recognizing that professional engineering ethics norms and environmental law together created a reporting obligation upon observing the unpermitted fill activity.
Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Norm Awareness Capability'
Engineer A Environmental Violation Reporting
Engineer A is an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation on the client's property. After completing the engagement, Engineer A directly observes the client has placed substantial unpermitted fill across more than half an acre of the delineated wetland in violation of federal and state law. Engineer A's specialized environmental engineering competence means the engineer can recognize the significance and illegality of the observed conduct.
Environmental Violation Reporting Constraint
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is constrained to report the observed unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state environmental regulatory authorities because the fill constitutes a confirmed and substantial violation of applicable law.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 and Section III.2; federal wetland protection statutes; applicable state environmental regulations
Immediately upon confirming the nature and extent of the violation through direct observation
he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
Engineer A completed wetland delineation services and owes a residual duty of loyalty to the former client. However, the client has committed a confirmed substantial violation of environmental law. The faithful agent duty cannot be invoked to justify silence in the face of confirmed illegality that harms public environmental resources.
Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the former client does not extend to remaining silent about a confirmed violation of federal and state environmental law, and that duty cannot override Engineer A's obligation to hold public welfare paramount by reporting the violation.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 and Section IV.a; professional ethics principle that client loyalty is bounded by public welfare obligations
From the time Engineer A observes and confirms the violation
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Instruction Override Constraint'
Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Detection
Post-Engagement Violation Detection Capability
Engineer A possessed the perceptual and professional awareness capability to recognize, while driving past the property after the engagement concluded, that the client had installed unpermitted fill material constituting a substantial legal violation.
Engineer A had completed wetland delineation services and subsequently drove past the property, observing conditions that triggered recognition of a legal violation by the former client.
Observing fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands and recognizing the absence of permits as a substantial violation of federal and state law.
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
Via class 'Post-Engagement Violation Detection Capability': Ethical Perception covers the capability to recognize ethically salient features and dynamically assess environment. The post-engagement incidental observation of a violation is a variant of that general perceptual capability applied in a specific post-engagement context. The existing class is the closest match but does not fully capture the post-engagement and domain-specific legal recognition dimension, so this is treated as a variant warranting a new specialized class.
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Judgment
Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability
Engineer A possessed the ethical reasoning capability to recognize that the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required taking affirmative action to report the client's wetland fill violation, overriding any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
Engineer A faced a tension between residual loyalty to a former client and the paramount public safety and environmental welfare obligation triggered by observing a substantial unpermitted wetland fill.
Weighing the competing considerations of client loyalty and public welfare and concluding that the substantial environmental violation required regulatory reporting regardless of the prior professional relationship.
Via class 'Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability': Ethical Reasoning covers the capability to process ethical information, deliberate on choices, and exercise moral judgment. The public safety paramount judgment is a specific application of ethical reasoning in which the engineer must weigh competing duties and conclude that public welfare prevails. The existing class is the closest match but is more general. The present capability is a distinct and recurrent type of ethical reasoning in engineering ethics cases involving the paramount public safety duty, warranting a new specialized class.
Engineer A Regulatory Authority Identification
Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the observed unpermitted wetland fill triggered a mandatory reporting obligation and to identify the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities to whom the violation must be reported.
Upon observing the unpermitted fill, Engineer A was required to identify which regulatory bodies had jurisdiction and to whom the report should be directed.
Determining that the substantial fill violation required notification to both federal and state regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wetland fill activity.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability'
Client Violation Confrontation Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to directly contact the client upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, to identify the specific violations of federal and state wetland law, and to communicate the obligation to take immediate remedial steps, giving the client an opportunity to remedy the situation before regulatory escalation.
After driving past the former client's property and observing substantial unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of wetlands, Engineer A was required to contact the client directly as the first step before considering regulatory reporting.
The prescribed course of action requiring Engineer A to contact the client directly, point out the violations, and demand immediate remedial action as the first step in a sequenced response to the discovered violation.
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
After completing the wetland delineation engagement, Engineer A observed that the client had placed unpermitted fill on the delineated wetland site. The appropriate first step was direct client contact, not immediate regulatory reporting.
Engineer A was required to contact the client directly as the first step upon discovering the unpermitted wetland fill, identify the specific violations, and demand immediate remediation before considering any report to regulatory authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 97-13 (graduated response framework)
Immediately upon discovering the unpermitted fill
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious: contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, the engineer would have an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limit
Engineer A completed a wetland delineation engagement under a professional services agreement. The client subsequently filled more than half an acre of the delineated wetland without permits. Any implied confidentiality from the prior engagement could not shield this confirmed statutory violation.
Confidentiality Public Violation Limit Constraint
Any confidentiality obligation arising from Engineer A's prior wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's confirmed violation of federal and state wetland protection laws, because the confidentiality duty is bounded by the overriding obligation to hold public welfare paramount.
From the moment Engineer A confirmed the unpermitted fill violation
In deciding it was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities, the Board noted that the facts presented in the case raised 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 Wetland Confidentiality Limits
Confidentiality Limit Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that any confidentiality obligation arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws from the appropriate regulatory authorities.
The prior wetland delineation engagement created a professional relationship with the client, but Engineer A was required to recognize that this relationship did not shield the client's subsequent unpermitted fill activity from regulatory reporting.
Recognition that the public law violation reporting obligation took precedence over any duty of confidentiality to the former client, distinguishing the present situation from cases where confidentiality obligations were more clearly operative.
In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence
In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case
Wetland Delineation Report for Client Property
A few months after Engineer A completes the services
Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site
The completed wetland delineation report establishes the baseline boundary and extent of the regulated wetland area on the client's property, providing the technical reference against which the unpermitted fill placement is assessed
Engineer A Wetland Environmental Reporting
Engineer A's domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental regulation meant the observed unpermitted fill was a confirmed violation rather than speculation, and that expertise created a heightened reporting duty compared to a generalist engineer making the same observation.
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland delineation and applicable federal and state wetland protection regulations, was required to report the client's confirmed unpermitted fill to the appropriate regulatory authorities if the client failed to remediate, because the specialized competence created a heightened duty to act on a violation the engineer could recognize and confirm.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Clean Water Act; applicable state wetland statutes
Upon confirmation of the violation and failure of client remediation
Engineer A Wetland Expertise Calibration
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with domain expertise in wetland delineation and applicable regulations, possessed the capability to recognize that the observed unpermitted fill constituted an established fact rather than a speculative concern, and to calibrate the disclosure obligation accordingly as requiring affirmative action rather than cautious restraint.
Engineer A's specialized knowledge of wetland regulations enabled a determination that the observed fill was a confirmed violation of federal and state law, distinguishing the situation from cases where engineers lacked relevant expertise and observations remained speculative.
Contrast with BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13, where lack of domain expertise justified a more measured approach, while Engineer A's wetland expertise meant the observation rose to the level of a confirmed violation requiring direct action.
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken
the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue. Taken together, it would be reasonable for an engineer under those circumstances to act in a deliberate and cautious manner
Engineer A completed a wetland delineation engagement and subsequently observed that the client had placed unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of the delineated wetland. Unlike the engineers in BER 89-7 and 97-13, Engineer A had domain expertise in the relevant technical and regulatory area, so the observation was not speculative.
Because Engineer A possessed specialized domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental regulation, the observed unpermitted fill constituted a confirmed factual finding rather than mere speculation, triggering mandatory disclosure obligations that would not have applied to a generalist engineer making the same visual observation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case No. 89-7; BER Case No. 97-13 (distinguished)
From the moment Engineer A observed the unpermitted fill following completion of the delineation engagement
In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence. In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
Similarly, in BER Case No. 97-13, the engineer's evaluation was based upon general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall, based entirely upon a visual inspection without anything more.
Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Detection
Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize, after the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, that the former client had committed a substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws by installing fill material on more than half an acre of the delineated wetlands without required permits.
Engineer A drove past the former client's property after the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement and observed substantial fill material on the wetland site, recognizing this as an unpermitted violation of federal and state law.
Recognition of the legal significance of the observed fill conditions encountered incidentally while driving past the former client's property, drawing on domain expertise in wetland regulations to identify the violation.
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious -- contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law
the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
Engineer A Wetland Post-Engagement Reporting
Engineer A completed the wetland delineation engagement and subsequently observed the client's unpermitted fill. The absence of an ongoing professional relationship did not eliminate the reporting duty when a confirmed environmental law violation posed ongoing harm to protected wetland resources.
The termination of Engineer A's wetland delineation engagement did not extinguish the duty to report the client's confirmed unpermitted fill violation to appropriate regulatory authorities if the client failed to remediate, because the post-engagement discovery of a confirmed statutory violation triggers reporting obligations that survive the end of the professional relationship.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Federal and state wetland protection statutes
After completion of the wetland delineation engagement, upon discovery of the unpermitted fill
the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
Engineer A Wetland Precedent Distinction
The Board demonstrated the capability to identify prior ethics rulings in BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13, analyze the factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, and determine that the more measured approach permitted in those cases did not apply where the engineer had domain expertise and the violation was established rather than speculative.
The Board analyzed whether the more deferential approaches approved in BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 governed Engineer A's obligations upon discovering the client's unpermitted wetland fill, concluding that factual distinctions required a more affirmative response.
Systematic comparison of the present case facts against two prior BER rulings, identifying that lack of domain expertise and speculative findings in the prior cases justified caution, while domain expertise and confirmed violations in the present case required more direct action.
Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Precedent Application Capability'
Engineer A Wetland Public Safety Judgment
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public required affirmative action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill, taking precedence over any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
Upon discovering the client's unpermitted wetland fill, Engineer A was required to prioritize the public interest in environmental compliance over any duty of loyalty arising from the prior professional engagement.
Recognition that the public interest in wetland protection and environmental compliance required Engineer A to contact the client, monitor remediation, and escalate to regulatory authorities if necessary, despite the adverse effect on the client's interests.
Engineers play an essential role in society by taking steps and actions to see that products, systems, facilities, structures, and the land surrounding them are reasonably safe.
Sometimes engineers are placed in situations where they must balance the extent of their obligations to their employer or client with their obligations to protect the public health and safety.
Engineer A Wetland Regulatory Escalation
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that if the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, the obligation to protect the public required escalation to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities, and to sequence that escalation correctly by first contacting the client before notifying authorities.
Upon discovering the client's unpermitted wetland fill after the conclusion of the delineation engagement, Engineer A was required to follow a sequenced escalation path culminating in regulatory reporting if the client failed to remediate.
The prescribed sequential response: contact the client first, monitor remediation, and escalate to regulatory authorities only if adequate steps were not taken.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Disclosure Escalation Capability'
Engineer A's graduated response to the confirmed wetland fill violation required escalation to regulatory authorities as the final step if client-level remediation failed, given the confirmed nature of the violation and Engineer A's domain expertise.
If the client failed to take adequate remedial steps after being contacted, Engineer A was required to report the unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities, because the client's failure to remediate a confirmed environmental law violation left the public harm unaddressed.
Upon determination that the client had not taken adequate remedial steps within a reasonable period
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Escalation Constraint'
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation services, possessed expert knowledge of federal and state wetland regulations sufficient to assess that the observed fill activity was a substantial violation and to identify the appropriate reporting authorities.
Engineer A was retained specifically for wetland delineation, indicating specialized environmental engineering competency in wetland law and regulation.
Assessing that fill material placed on more than half an acre of wetlands without permits constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state laws and regulations.
Via class 'Wetland Regulatory Knowledge Capability': Domain Expertise covers professional domain-specific knowledge and competencies. Wetland regulatory knowledge is a specialized instance of domain expertise. The existing class is a reasonable parent match, but the wetland regulatory dimension is sufficiently specific and recurrent in environmental engineering ethics cases to warrant a distinct subclass capturing both the technical delineation competency and the regulatory compliance knowledge dimension.
Engineer A Wetland Remediation Monitoring
Engineer A possessed the capability to monitor the client's remedial actions following notification of the unpermitted wetland fill, to assess whether those actions were adequate and compliant with applicable federal and state wetland regulations, and to determine when the situation had been sufficiently remedied.
After discovering the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands following the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, Engineer A was required to contact the client, receive assurances of remediation, and then monitor follow-through before deciding whether regulatory escalation was necessary.
The obligation to monitor the client's actual remedial steps after contacting the client about the wetland fill violation and receiving assurances of remediation, continuing until Engineer A was satisfied the situation was resolved.
the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer
Engineer A completes wetland delineation services before Engineer A observes illegal fill material on client's property
Engineer A completes wetland delineation services
Engineer A observes illegal fill material on client's property
Engineer A notices defective wall condition during inspection after Police Officer B fatal accident
Engineer A notices defective wall condition during inspection
National Society of Professional Engineers
Provides the primary normative framework for determining Engineer A's professional obligations upon observing the client's unpermitted wetland fill activity, including duties to hold public safety paramount and to report violations of law
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Code'
Commissioned the bridge overhaul from VWX Architects and Engineers, received verbal notification of the defective wall condition through the consultant chain, and was identified as the party responsible for taking corrective action within a reasonable time.
organization_type: Government public agency
The public agency contacted VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A
a public agency retained the services of VWX Architects and Engineers
it was ethical for Engineer A not to report this information to any other public agency or authority as long as corrective action was taken by the public agency within a relatively short period of time
Via class 'Public Agency Client': Public Agency Client is a specialization of Client Role representing a government body commissioning infrastructure services. It is closely related to Municipal Client already extracted in prior cases but is referenced here in the context of bridge overhaul and is treated as the same general concept.
Retained by the public agency as the prime consultant for a bridge overhaul, sub-contracted Engineer A for inspection services, relayed safety-relevant observations from Engineer A to the public agency, and subsequently directed Engineer A not to include out-of-scope observations in the final report.
organization_type: Architecture and engineering firm
responsibility: Overall project responsibility for bridge overhaul
VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacted Engineer A and asked Engineer A not to include this additional information in his final report
the prime consultant, which has overall responsibility for the project, was in a far better position than Engineer A
Via class 'Prime Consultant Engineer': Prime Consultant Engineer is a specialization of Consultant Role with added coordination and integration responsibilities over sub-consultants. It is not identical to the generic Consultant Role but maps to it as a parent.
public agency contacts VWX and requests omission from final report after Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to client
public agency contacts VWX and requests omission from final report
Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to client
Following client failure to take corrective action within a reasonable period
Prior case, BER Case No. 97-13, referenced in the Discussion
Immediately following discovery of the illegal fill
Following client acknowledgment of the violation and commitment to remediate
Upon completion of the structural report in BER Case No. 89-7
End of BER Discussion and Conclusion section
Upon preparation of the final bridge inspection report in BER Case No. 97-13
Some months after Engineer A completed delineation services
Discussion phase of the current BER case analysis
Initial engagement period, before the illegal fill was installed
Following verbal report to client and receipt of instruction to exclude information from final report in BER Case No. 97-13
Prior case, BER Case No. 89-7, referenced in the Discussion
A few months after completion of delineation services
A few months after completion of wetland delineation services
Initial project period, before the illegal fill occurred
Precedent Case Referenced → Ethical Conclusion Reached
Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case.
Precedent Case Referenced -- BER Cases 89-7 and 97-13 invoked for ethical principles
Cases Distinguished -- Board distinguishes present clear violation from prior speculative facts
Ethical Conclusion Reached -- Board concludes Engineer A must contact client, demand remediation, monitor, and report if needed
Without distinguishing the precedents, the Board could not have reached its more decisive conclusion requiring direct action.
Distinguishing the present case's clear legal violation from prior speculative facts
Invocation of BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 as precedent
The Board's analytical framework balancing client loyalty and public safety
The Board distinguishing prior precedents and applying the public-safety-paramount principle to a clear legal violation
Engineer A contacts client about wetland violation before Engineer A reports violation to appropriate authorities
Engineer A contacts client about wetland violation
Engineer A reports violation to appropriate authorities
Engineer A monitors remediation compliance after client indicates remedial steps will be taken
Engineer A monitors remediation compliance
client indicates remedial steps will be taken
Engineer A monitors remediation compliance before Engineer A reports violation to appropriate authorities
Engineer A verbally reports defective condition to client after Engineer A notices defective wall condition during inspection
Ethical precedent from prior cases became part of the reasoning framework applied to Engineer A's situation.
Analogous Obligation Context Established
BER Case No. 89-7 and BER Case No. 97-13 were invoked in the Discussion section to supply ethical precedent for Engineer A's obligations, establishing that prior analogous cases support a duty to act on known violations.
client installs fill material without permits after Engineer A completes wetland delineation services
client installs fill material without permits
Illegal Wetland Fill → Violation Observation Decision
Illegal Wetland Fill -- Client installs fill in violation of law
Violation Observation Decision -- Engineer A observes and recognizes the unauthorized fill as a violation
Without the illegal fill, there would be no violation for Engineer A to observe and evaluate.
Client's unauthorized installation of fill material
Engineer A's awareness/observation of the condition
The fill constituting a substantial legal violation
An observable legal violation on the client's property witnessed by Engineer A
Professional Service Completion → Wetland Delineation Completed
Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client’s wetland site.
Professional Service Completion -- Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's site
Wetland Delineation Completed -- Engineer A finishes the services, establishing a professional relationship and knowledge of the wetlands
Without Engineer A performing the services, no professional relationship establishing his knowledge of the wetland boundaries would exist.
Client retention of Engineer A for wetland delineation
Engineer A's environmental engineering expertise
Engineer A performing and completing the delineation services on the client's site
Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found → Field Notes Retention Decision
Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found -- Engineer A notices apparent pre-existing defective wall condition
Field Notes Retention Decision -- Engineer A retains information in notes but excludes it from final report
Without finding the defect, there would be nothing to retain in the notes.
Engineer A noticing the apparent pre-existing defective wall condition
Engineer A's commitment to never alter field notes
VWX's request to exclude the information from the final report
Discovery of defect plus client request leading Engineer A to retain notes but exclude from report
Client Contact Decision → Compliance Monitoring Decision
Client Contact Decision -- Engineer A contacts client and points out violations
Client agrees to remediate -- Client indicates remedial steps will be taken
Compliance Monitoring Decision -- Engineer A monitors the situation until satisfied it is remedied
Without contacting the client and obtaining agreement to remediate, there would be no remediation to monitor.
Client indicating steps will be taken to remedy
Engineer A's ongoing professional obligation to verify remediation
Client agreement to remediate following Engineer A's contact, triggering the duty to monitor
Illegal Wetland Fill → Violation Discovery
he drives by his client’s property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
Illegal Wetland Fill -- Client fills over half an acre of wetlands without permits
Violation Discovery -- Engineer A, driving by, visually observes the illegal fill
Without the client installing the fill, there would be nothing for Engineer A to discover; without Engineer A driving by, the discovery would not have occurred.
Client's installation of fill material on the wetlands
Visibility of the fill material from the road
Engineer A driving by and visually observing the substantial fill material on the wetlands
Client Contact Decision → Authority Reporting Decision
Client Contact Decision -- Engineer A contacts client and demands remediation
Client fails to remediate -- Client does not take appropriate corrective steps
Authority Reporting Decision -- Engineer A reports the violation to appropriate authorities
If the client took appropriate corrective steps, Engineer A would have no obligation to report to authorities.
Client's failure to take appropriate corrective steps
Engineer A having contacted the client about the violation
Engineer A's paramount obligation to public health and safety
Client's failure to remediate after being contacted, triggering Engineer A's duty to report to authorities
Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found → Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision
Finally, the Board concluded that for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
Bridge Inspection Deficiency Found -- Engineer A notices defect via visual inspection
Information reported to public agency via client -- Engineer A verbally reports to client who reports to public agency
Public Authority Non-Reporting Decision -- Engineer A does not report to any other public authority pending corrective action
Had the defect been confirmed by competent structural testing, reporting to public authorities might have been warranted.
Engineer A's lack of structural engineering expertise
The deficiency being based on mere visual surmise and speculation
The information already being conveyed to the public agency through the client
Speculative basis plus lack of expertise plus agency awareness leading to non-reporting to other authorities
Violation Discovery → Client Contact Decision
Engineer A’s actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
Violation Discovery -- Engineer A observes the illegal fill
Client Contact Decision -- Engineer A contacts the client to inquire and point out the violations
Without discovering the violation, Engineer A would have no basis to contact the client about it.
Engineer A's environmental engineering expertise to recognize it
The clear and unambiguous nature of the legal violation
Discovery of an obvious legal violation by a competent environmental engineer triggering the duty to contact the client
Structural Deficiency Identified → Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision
However, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party.
Structural Deficiency Identified -- Engineer A learns of electrical/mechanical code deficiencies from client
Confidential Non-Disclosure Decision -- Engineer A does not report violations to third parties given confidentiality terms
Without the confidentiality agreement, Engineer A might have reported the deficiencies to third parties.
Confidentiality terms of the client agreement
Engineer A's lack of expertise in electrical/mechanical engineering
Identification of electrical and mechanical deficiencies
Confidentiality agreement combined with identified deficiencies leading Engineer A to withhold disclosure
Engineer A Apartment Building Confidentiality Conflict
In BER Case 89-7, Engineer A's contractual confidentiality obligation to the client was invoked as a basis for not reporting electrical and mechanical code violations to public authorities, but the Board held that the public safety obligation overrode the confidentiality duty.
Confidentiality obligations to clients are genuine professional duties but are not absolute; they yield to public welfare obligations when the client's conduct poses a risk to persons who cannot protect themselves.
The Board held in Case 89-7 that the public safety obligation overrode confidentiality, and the current case applies the same reasoning to environmental law violations.
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.
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.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Principle'
Engineer A Bridge Competence Recognition
The Board's reasoning that Engineer A should not include structural observations in a formal report rested in part on the absence of any indication that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering, illustrating that recognition of competence limits shapes the appropriate scope of professional assertions.
An engineer who observes a condition outside their area of competence should communicate the observation informally and defer formal analysis to a competent party, rather than either ignoring the observation or making formal assertions beyond their expertise.
Competence limits justified scope-limited formal reporting while the obligation to communicate the observation was preserved through verbal reporting and field notes.
the facts did not indicate that Engineer A had expertise in structural engineering.
the prime consultant, which has overall responsibility for the project, was in a far better position than Engineer A to understand the interrelationships between various elements of the projects
to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Recognition Principle'
In the bridge inspection case, Engineer A appropriately refrained from including speculative structural observations in a formal report and from reporting to public authorities before the prime consultant and public agency had opportunity to take corrective action, because the basis for concern was visual surmise rather than established fact.
When an engineer's concern is based on speculation rather than expert analysis, a graduated response beginning with verbal notification to the client is appropriate, and immediate escalation to public authorities would be disproportionate.
Graduated Response Proportionality Principle
The Board held that verbal reporting to the client, combined with an obligation to follow through on corrective action, appropriately balanced public welfare against the risk of jeopardizing professional reputations on the basis of unverified speculation.
Engineer A had an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency.
for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
Engineer A Post-Engagement Reporting Constraint
Engineer A completed wetland delineation services for a client. Several months after completion, Engineer A independently observes while driving past the property that the client has placed more than half an acre of unpermitted fill on the wetland site in violation of federal and state law. The engagement is over, but the violation is ongoing and confirmed.
Engineer A is constrained to report the observed unpermitted wetland fill to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities despite the fact that the wetland delineation engagement has concluded and no active professional relationship with the client exists at the time of the observation.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 (paramount duty to public safety, health, and welfare); applicable federal and state environmental statutes
From the moment Engineer A observes the unpermitted fill and confirms it constitutes a violation of federal and state law
Engineer A Wetland Expertise Calibrated Disclosure
Engineer A's specialized knowledge of wetland regulations distinguished the wetland fill case from the bridge wall and apartment building cases, where the engineers lacked expertise in the relevant disciplines and were therefore entitled to take a more measured approach.
Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Obligation
Because Engineer A had domain expertise in wetland delineation and environmental law, Engineer A was obligated to disclose the observed wetland fill violation with directness and specificity, rather than the more cautious approach appropriate for engineers lacking expertise in the relevant discipline.
Upon discovery of the unpermitted fill, given Engineer A's domain expertise
In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation.
Via class 'Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Obligation': This obligation overlaps substantially with the Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation, which addresses the distinction between preliminary concerns and established facts as the trigger for mandatory disclosure. The expertise-calibration dimension adds a further nuance not fully captured by that class, but the core concept of calibrating disclosure to the evidentiary and competence basis is closely related, warranting a medium-confidence match.
Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation
The ethical framework for Engineer A's required conduct was formally established, specifying a sequential set of required responses to the known violation.
The BER analysis concluded that Engineer A must contact the client, demand remediation, monitor compliance, and report to authorities if the client fails to act, establishing a binding ethical outcome for the case.
unpermitted wetland fill exceeding half an acre
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, recognizes that the observed fill constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws and must determine what action that recognition requires.
An environmental engineer's domain expertise in wetland delineation creates a heightened capacity to recognize illegal fill activity. That specialized knowledge, combined with the substantial and ongoing nature of the violation, triggers domain-specific obligations that go beyond those of a layperson who might observe the same scene.
The domain-specific obligation to act on knowledge of substantial environmental law violations is not overridden by the prior service relationship, because the violation was not disclosed to the engineer by the client in confidence but was instead observed independently in the field after the engagement concluded.
The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
Engineer A is an environmental engineer. Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
Engineer A Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold
Engineer A directly observes the unpermitted fill on the wetland site, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion or preliminary concern. This observation by a qualified environmental engineer who performed the original delineation crosses the threshold at which disclosure becomes a professional obligation rather than a discretionary act.
The engineer who performed the original delineation is uniquely positioned to confirm that the fill has been placed on wetland areas and that no permits were obtained. This direct, expert observation constitutes established technical fact, not mere suspicion, and triggers the disclosure obligation.
Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle
Because the violation is an observed fact rather than a preliminary concern, the disclosure obligation is affirmative rather than discretionary. The engineer's specialized knowledge and direct observation remove any ambiguity about whether the threshold has been crossed.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle'
Engineer A Post-Engagement Disclosure Duty
unpermitted fill discovered months after engagement conclusion
Engineer A's professional obligations to the public do not terminate upon completion of the wetland delineation engagement. The discovery of the unpermitted fill months after service completion raises the question of whether those obligations require reporting to regulatory authorities despite the absence of an active client relationship.
The temporal gap between the conclusion of services and the discovery of the violation does not extinguish the engineer's professional responsibility. The violation is substantial, ongoing, and involves resources protected by federal and state law, which are precisely the conditions under which post-engagement disclosure obligations arise.
Post-Engagement Client Conduct Disclosure Principle
Because the violation is substantial and ongoing rather than a completed past act, and because it involves federally and state-protected resources rather than purely private interests, the post-engagement disclosure obligation is more likely to be characterized as a duty than as a matter of personal conscience.
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Disclosure
Regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over wetland violations
Engineer A's disclosure and reporting obligations to regulatory authorities are not extinguished by the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, and the client's ongoing unpermitted fill violation may require Engineer A to report to appropriate authorities if the client does not remediate.
The engineer discovered the violation after the contracted services had concluded, yet the public welfare obligation persists because the harm to public environmental resources is ongoing.
The ongoing nature of the violation and its harm to public resources triggers the post-engagement disclosure obligation, which overrides residual confidentiality duties.
the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
Engineer A Wetland Client Conduct Monitoring
After contacting the client about the wetland fill violation and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A must monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been corrected in full compliance with applicable environmental laws.
A client's promise to remediate is not a discharge of the engineer's public welfare obligation; the engineer must verify actual compliance before treating the matter as resolved.
The monitoring obligation is framed as a continuation of the public welfare duty, not as an adversarial posture toward the client, and is discharged once actual compliance is verified.
the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
Engineer A held information about the client's wetland site from the prior engagement. The Board distinguished this case from BER Case 89-7 in part because the present violation was a matter of established fact and implicated federal and state law.
Confidentiality Limits Public Law Obligation
Engineer A's confidentiality obligations arising from the wetland delineation engagement did not extend to concealing the client's substantial violations of federal and state wetland laws, and the duty to report those violations to appropriate authorities overrode any residual confidentiality interest.
Upon discovery of the unpermitted fill and throughout any subsequent reporting process
The Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case.
Engineer A Wetland Environmental Law Compliance
Unpermitted wetland fill on delineated site
Engineer A, having performed wetland delineation services and then discovered the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetland, is required to recognize that the client's conduct constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws and to take appropriate action.
The engineer's domain expertise in wetland delineation makes the legal significance of the fill immediately apparent, removing any basis for the measured caution appropriate when an engineer lacks expertise in the relevant technical area.
Because the violation is clear and the engineer is competent in the relevant domain, the environmental law compliance obligation is unambiguous and requires affirmative action.
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious--contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
Engineer A Environmental Compliance Reporting
Engineer A is an environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation services and therefore possesses specialized knowledge of the regulatory framework governing wetland fill, enabling recognition that the observed fill constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state law.
Environmental Compliance Reporting Obligation
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, is obligated to report the observed unpermitted fill to the appropriate federal and state environmental authority, applying that specialized knowledge to recognize the legal significance and severity of the violation.
Upon observation of the unpermitted fill, drawing on specialized environmental engineering knowledge to assess the legal significance of the conduct.
he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
Via class 'Environmental Compliance Reporting Obligation': The existing Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation is the closest match, covering the duty to report environmental risks to a pollution-control authority after termination of the client relationship. This class adds the dimension of specialized environmental engineering knowledge as the basis for recognizing and reporting the violation, but the core reporting duty is the same. Treated as a variant of the existing class.
Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
Engineer A Wetland Environmental Compliance Reporting
Engineer A's specialized environmental engineering expertise made the observed fill a matter of established professional judgment rather than speculation, and that expertise supported a direct and specific reporting obligation.
Engineer A, drawing on specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to take adequate remedial steps.
Upon determination that the client had not remediated the violation within a reasonable period
Engineer A, as an environmental engineer with specialized knowledge of wetland regulations, recognizes that the observed fill constitutes a substantial violation.
During bridge inspection services limited to pavement damage, Engineer A observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition. The client asked Engineer A not to include this in the final report. Engineer A agreed to retain the information in notes only.
Engineer A was obligated to retain the observations about the defective bridge wall condition in engineering notes without alteration, even after agreeing not to include that information in the final written report.
From the time of observation through the conclusion of the engagement and beyond
Engineer A Bridge Scope Limitation Disclosure
Engineer A's scope of work was limited to pavement damage, and the Board held it was appropriate not to include speculative structural observations outside that scope in the formal report, while still documenting the observation in field notes for possible future reference.
The Board accepted scope-limited formal reporting because the observation was speculative and the prime consultant was better positioned to evaluate it, but required field note preservation and verbal communication to ensure the information was not lost.
Engineer A's scope of work was solely to identify any pavement damage on the bridge and report the damage to VWX for further review and repair.
it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Scope Limitation Disclosure Principle'
Engineer A Bridge Speculative Finding Exclusion
Engineer A observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition during a bridge inspection scoped only to pavement damage. The observation was speculative and outside Engineer A's demonstrated area of expertise.
Speculative Finding Exclusion Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to exclude from the final written bridge inspection report the observation about the defective wall condition, because that observation was based solely on visual inspection without supporting analysis and Engineer A lacked structural engineering expertise.
At the time of preparing and submitting the final written inspection report
Under the circumstances, the Board concluded that it would have been improper for Engineer A to include reference to the information in his final report, particularly since it would have been based upon mere speculation and not careful testing or evaluation by a competent individual or firm.
Via class 'Speculative Finding Exclusion Obligation': This is a partial inverse of Complete Technical Reporting Obligation: where that class requires inclusion of all relevant findings, this class addresses the competing duty to exclude findings that are not professionally substantiated. It is a variant that qualifies the completeness duty by competence limits, warranting a medium-confidence match to the parent concept rather than a new independent class, but the specific exclusion framing is not captured by any existing class.
Retained as a sub-consultant to perform bridge inspection services limited to pavement damage, but observed an apparent pre-existing defective wall condition potentially related to a fatal accident, reported it verbally to his client, and was then asked not to include it in the final report.
Engineer A noticed an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall
Engineer A stated that he would retain the information from his engineering notes but not include it in the final report
Engineer A verbally reported this information to his client
Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its sub-consultant to perform bridge inspection services on the bridge
Via class 'Structural Inspection Engineer': The bridge inspection sub-consultant role is a specialization of Civil Engineer Role, focused on structural inspection and out-of-scope safety observation reporting. It is distinct enough in its obligation structure to warrant a separate extracted class, but maps to Civil Engineer Role as its parent.
Engineer A Wetland Fact-Based Disclosure
Because Engineer A personally performed the wetland delineation and then observed the fill with domain expertise, the concern had reached the level of established technical and legal fact, triggering an affirmative disclosure and remediation obligation rather than merely a prudential one.
The contrast with the bridge case illustrates the threshold: speculation does not trigger the obligation, but an observable violation within the engineer's area of competence does.
The Board distinguished the wetland case from the bridge case precisely on this threshold, holding that the clarity of the legal violation removed the basis for a more measured approach.
In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations. Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious.
In the wetland fill case, because the violation is established by observable fact and the engineer has domain expertise, the appropriate first step is direct client contact to demand remediation, with escalation to regulatory authorities reserved for the event that the client fails to act.
The graduated response here begins at a more assertive level than in the bridge case because the evidentiary basis is clear and the legal violation is unambiguous, but escalation to authorities is still conditional on client non-compliance rather than immediate.
The Board concluded that direct client contact is the obvious first step, with regulatory reporting as the necessary escalation if the client does not remediate, reflecting a calibrated rather than immediate public disclosure.
Engineer A discovered the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws after the conclusion of the delineation engagement. The graduated response required escalation to authorities if the client did not remediate.
Via class 'Regulatory Escalation Obligation': This obligation is a close variant of the Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation and the Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation. It differs in that it is triggered not by client override of a recommendation but by client failure to remediate after being contacted, and it follows a graduated response sequence. The conditional trigger and the graduated-response framing distinguish it sufficiently to warrant a medium-confidence match rather than a full identity match.
Engineer A performed wetland delineation services and later drove past the property, observing that the client had installed substantial fill on more than half an acre of wetlands in violation of federal and state law.
Upon discovery of the unpermitted fill on the wetland site
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
Engineer A Client Confidentiality Limits
Engineer A holds information about the client's wetland site from the prior engagement, but the question is whether confidentiality obligations extend to shielding the client from accountability for independently observed illegal conduct that was not disclosed to the engineer in confidence.
Confidentiality protects information disclosed by a client in the course of a professional engagement. It does not protect a client from the consequences of illegal conduct that the engineer observes independently in a public or semi-public setting after the engagement has concluded. The fill was not a confidential communication but an observable physical act.
Confidentiality does not bar disclosure of independently observed statutory violations, particularly when those violations are substantial and ongoing. The engineer did not learn of the fill through a confidential communication but by driving past the property.
he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material
without any permits, variances, or permissions
From Engineer A's discovery of the violation through resolution of the reporting decision
Engineer A's prior service relationship with the client creates residual faithful agent obligations, but those obligations conflict with the paramount duty to protect public welfare and comply with environmental law when the client has committed a substantial regulatory violation.
Transforms the abstract tension between faithful agency and public safety into a concrete sequential duty: notify client first, monitor response, then escalate to authorities if remediation is not taken.
Engineer A's competing obligations to the former client and to regulatory authorities and the public
Engineer A's decision to report or not report, or client's voluntary remediation
Engineer A observes the client's substantial unpermitted fill, creating a direct tension between residual client loyalty and the duty to report a known environmental law violation
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Duty Conflict State'
Following direct client contact about the unpermitted wetland fill, Engineer A could not simply accept the client's promise to remediate. Active monitoring was required to verify that remediation actually occurred and met regulatory requirements.
Client Remediation Monitoring Constraint
After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was required to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until Engineer A was sufficiently satisfied that the unpermitted fill violation had been corrected in full compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.
From receipt of client assurances of remediation until confirmed compliance
Present Case Unpermitted Wetland Alteration
From the client's commission of the unpermitted environmental alteration through completion of compliant remediation or regulatory intervention
Transforms general environmental stewardship principles and post-engagement duties into concrete obligations to evaluate mandatory disclosure to regulatory authorities when a client has committed a substantial unpermitted alteration of a regulated environmental feature.
Unpermitted Environmental Alteration State
Client's unpermitted actions on the wetland mitigation site constituting violations of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
Full remediation in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, confirmed by Engineer A or regulatory authority
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has not addressed the issue in the context of a client's apparent violation of environmental laws and regulations relating to wetland mitigation efforts.
The facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
Client's physical alteration of the environmentally regulated site without required permits or regulatory approvals
No specific outcome intended, as the observation was made informally while driving by
Knowledge of federal and state environmental laws and regulations
While driving by the client's property, Engineer A observed that the client had installed substantial fill material across more than half an acre of wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a clear violation of federal and state law.
Bridge deficiencies were documented by the sub-consultant, creating a safety-relevant record while the engineer remained in a subordinate contractual position relative to reporting authority.
In BER Case No. 97-13, a civil engineer acting as a bridge inspection sub-consultant discovered deficiencies during inspection, creating a record of findings that the engineer retained while declining to report to public authorities.
Engineer A Post-Engagement Wetland Violation Reporting
Engineer A completed wetland delineation services for a client and subsequently observed, while driving past the property, that the client had installed substantial fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions, in violation of federal and state law.
Engineer A is obligated to report the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands to the appropriate federal and state regulatory authority, because the violation is a substantial breach of law that implicates public welfare and environmental protection, and because Engineer A's engagement has concluded, removing any faithful agent constraint on disclosure.
Upon direct observation of the unpermitted fill, after completion of the wetland delineation engagement.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation'
Engineer A discovered the unpermitted fill after the wetland delineation engagement had concluded. The Board held that post-engagement discovery of a substantial environmental law violation triggers a reporting obligation to appropriate authorities.
Post-Engagement Violation Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to report the client's substantial violation of federal and state wetland laws to the appropriate regulatory authority if the client failed to remediate, notwithstanding the conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement.
After conclusion of the wetland delineation engagement, upon discovery of the violation
civil engineer, bridge inspection sub-consultant
Observation remains undocumented in official records, potentially limiting accountability if corrective action is not taken
Obligation to Document Professional Observations
Preserve a record of the observation for possible future reference while complying with the client's instruction to exclude it from the formal report
Judgment to distinguish scope of retained services from broader safety obligations
In BER Case No. 97-13, Engineer A decided to retain observations about a potentially defective bridge wall condition in his engineering field notes but excluded the information from the final written report as requested by the prime consultant and public agency.
Engineer Familiarity with Site Conditions
Fulfill contracted scope of wetland delineation services for the client
Engineer A performed and completed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site, establishing a professional relationship and familiarity with the property.
Risk that corrective action might not be taken, leaving a potential public safety hazard unaddressed
Conditional Deferral of Authority Reporting
Reliance on Prime Consultant for Follow-Through
Avoid overreacting to speculative observations outside his scope and expertise, and allow the responsible parties to evaluate and address the condition
Judgment to assess causation of bridge wall failure
In BER Case No. 97-13, Engineer A decided not to report the potentially defective bridge wall condition to any public authority beyond verbal notification to his client, deferring to the prime consultant and public agency to take corrective action.
A structural safety concern became known to the engineer in that case, creating tension between confidentiality and public safety duties.
In BER Case No. 89-7, a structural deficiency or safety-related concern was identified in a project, placing Engineer A in that case in possession of information bearing on public safety while under a confidentiality constraint.
Extended professional involvement beyond original scope
Potential conflict if client fails to remediate adequately
Ensure that the client actually follows through on promised corrective action and that the remediation meets all applicable legal requirements
Judgment to assess adequacy of remediation
If the client agrees to remediate, Engineer A must decide to monitor the situation until sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been fully remedied in compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, including review by a licensed engineer where appropriate.
Engineer A Environmental Hazard Observation
From the time of fill installation through remediation or regulatory resolution
The unpermitted filling of more than half an acre of wetlands constitutes an environmental hazard by destroying regulated wetland features, with potential downstream hydrological and ecological consequences.
Transforms the general duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete sequential protocol: direct client notification, monitored remediation, and escalation to regulatory authorities upon client inaction.
Client's wetland property following unpermitted fill installation
the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than 1/2 an acre across a portion of the wetlands
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Environmental Hazard Present'
Engineer A Present Case Environmental Violation
From Engineer A's discovery of the environmental law violation through the point at which the client either completes adequate remediation or Engineer A reports to authorities
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
Engineer A's identification of the client's confirmed violation of federal and state environmental laws and regulations relating to wetland mitigation, with no remediation in place
Client's completion of full remediation in compliance with applicable environmental laws, or Engineer A's report to appropriate regulatory authorities
Engineer A's discovery that the client has taken actions constituting a violation of applicable federal and state environmental laws and regulations
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State'
Upon discovering the client's unpermitted fill violation of federal and state wetland laws, Engineer A bears a public responsibility obligation that may override client confidentiality duties, requiring consideration of disclosure to the appropriate regulatory authority.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Responsibility Role'
Continued risk of injury to future occupants of the building from unaddressed electrical and mechanical deficiencies
Non-Disclosure of Confidential Client Information
Honor the confidentiality agreement with the client and avoid disclosing the client's business affairs to third parties
Judgment to assess severity of safety hazards outside scope
In BER Case No. 89-7, Engineer A decided not to report known electrical and mechanical safety deficiencies in an occupied apartment building to any third party or public authority, citing the confidentiality terms of the client agreement, despite acknowledging the deficiencies in his structural report.
Engineer A Client Relationship Post-Completion
Relationship was active during delineation services; now concluded but residual obligations persist
The prior client relationship creates residual confidentiality and loyalty obligations that must be weighed against Engineer A's public safety and regulatory reporting duties when evaluating whether to report the violation.
Engineer A's prior professional relationship with the client following completion of wetland delineation
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Relationship Established'
Engineer A Confidentiality Limits Wetland Violation
Engineer A holds information about the client's wetland site from the prior delineation engagement, but the client's subsequent unpermitted fill is a new, independently observed act that constitutes a substantial violation of law, not information confided during the engagement.
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that any confidentiality duty arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not shield the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law from disclosure to regulatory authorities, and that the duty to report overrides any residual confidentiality interest.
Upon recognition that the observed violation is a matter of public law rather than confidential client information.
Via class 'Confidentiality Limits Public Law Obligation': The existing Client Instruction Limits Obligation addresses the duty to decline client instructions that would require violating professional ethics. The present class addresses the analogous situation where a confidentiality obligation, rather than a client instruction, is invoked to shield a statutory violation. The concept is related but distinct enough to warrant a separate class. The existing Confidentiality Obligation class in the ontology is too general. The closest match is Client Instruction Limits Obligation as a structural analog, but confidence is moderate because the mechanism differs.
Engineer A Observed Violation Disclosure
Engineer A directly observed the client's unpermitted fill of wetlands while driving past the property, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion, and the violation is a substantial breach of federal and state environmental law.
Observed Violation Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose the directly observed wetland fill violation to the appropriate regulatory authority because the observation constitutes an established fact rather than a preliminary concern, triggering the mandatory disclosure duty under the public welfare paramount principle.
Immediately upon direct observation of the fill material on the wetland site.
Via class 'Observed Violation Disclosure Obligation': The existing Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Threshold Obligation addresses the distinction between a preliminary concern and an established technical fact as the trigger for mandatory disclosure under Code section II.3.b. This case presents the fact-level side of that threshold: Engineer A directly observes the violation, placing it at the level of established fact. The present class is a variant that focuses on the affirmative disclosure duty once the fact threshold is crossed, rather than the threshold determination itself. The existing class is the closest match but this obligation emphasizes the resulting duty rather than the threshold analysis.
Following direct contact with the client about the unpermitted wetland fill, Engineer A was required to follow through to confirm that promised remedial actions were actually completed and legally compliant.
After contacting the client and receiving assurances of remediation, Engineer A was obligated to monitor the client's actual remedial actions until sufficiently satisfied that the wetland violation had been fully corrected in compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.
From the time the client provided assurances of remediation until full compliance was confirmed
In this connection, the engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
Wetland delineation work concluded; Engineer A's active service engagement ended; a documented record of wetland boundaries existed.
Engineer A finishes providing wetland delineation services for the client, establishing the professional relationship and the documented baseline condition of the wetland area.
Engineer A Present Case Remediation Monitoring
From Engineer A's notification to the client of the violation through the client's completion of adequate remediation or Engineer A's escalation to authorities
Transforms the general duty to protect public safety into a time-bounded monitoring obligation that conditions the escalation duty on the client's response, while preserving the professional's ultimate obligation to report if the client does not act.
Engineer A's obligation to monitor the client's remediation of the environmental law violation after notifying the client, with reporting to authorities held in conditional abeyance
Engineer A's satisfaction that remediation is complete and compliant, or Engineer A's report to appropriate authorities upon client inaction
The engineer should advise that the all remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer.
Engineer A's direct notification to the client of the environmental law violation and demand for immediate remedial steps
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Disclosure State'
Engineer A's duty of loyalty to VWX and the public agency was genuine and supported the decision not to include speculative structural observations in the formal report, but that duty did not authorize Engineer A to abandon follow-through on corrective action entirely.
Faithful agency to the client supports scope-limited reporting and deference to the prime consultant's broader project knowledge, but does not permit the engineer to ignore a potential public safety issue indefinitely.
The Board resolved the tension by requiring Engineer A to follow through on corrective action while permitting scope-limited formal reporting, treating faithful agency as subordinate to but not wholly displaced by public welfare.
Engineer A acted reasonably under the circumstances by properly balancing the obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose what might be considered by the client to be 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.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Duty Principle'
Engineer A Wetland Fill Violation Discovery
From the time Engineer A observes the fill installation onward, persisting until the violation is remedied or regulatory action is taken
Public and environment affected by wetland destruction
Engineer A completed wetland delineation services and subsequently observed the client had installed fill on more than half an acre of wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a substantial violation of federal and state law.
Client's wetland site following Engineer A's completed delineation services
Not yet terminated; violation remains active as of the scenario
Engineer A Confidentiality Violation Limit
Engineer A performed wetland delineation for the client under a professional services engagement that created a confidential professional relationship. After the engagement concluded, Engineer A observed the client committing a substantial unpermitted fill of the delineated wetland. The question arises whether the prior confidential relationship constrains Engineer A from reporting the violation.
Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
Any confidentiality obligation Engineer A owes to the client arising from the prior wetland delineation engagement does not extend to concealing the client's confirmed violation of federal and state environmental law, and that confidentiality obligation is overridden by Engineer A's duty to report the violation to regulatory authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional ethics principle that confidentiality does not shield client illegality
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint'
Engineer A Post-Engagement Violation Awareness
From the moment Engineer A observes the fill installation, after the engagement has concluded, through resolution of reporting obligations
Engineer A's professional engagement had concluded months before the discovery. The observation was incidental rather than part of any ongoing professional duty, raising the question of whether post-engagement obligations require Engineer A to report the violation to authorities.
Transforms the general principle that professional obligations do not automatically terminate with a contract into a concrete duty to evaluate reporting and disclosure obligations when a post-engagement discovery reveals client misconduct related to the prior engagement.
Post-Engagement Violation Discovery State
Engineer A's epistemic and professional situation after completing wetland delineation services
Engineer A's decision to report or not report to regulatory authorities, or client's remediation of the violation
Engineer A incidentally observes the client's unpermitted fill activity while driving by the property months after completing services
Engineer A Wetland Public Welfare Obligation
Upon discovering that the client had installed substantial fill on a wetland site in violation of federal and state law, Engineer A bears a paramount obligation to the public that overrides any residual duty of loyalty to the former client.
The public welfare obligation is not limited to physical safety threats; it extends to substantial violations of environmental law that harm public natural resources, and it persists after the contractual engagement has concluded.
The Board concluded that the clarity of the legal violation and the harm to public environmental resources triggered the public welfare obligation, displacing the more measured approach appropriate in cases of mere speculation.
Engineering practice sometimes places the engineer in the position where the interests of a client and the interests of the public are in open and serious conflict.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle'
From Engineer A's observation of the fill through regulatory resolution
The fill installation constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state law. No permits, variances, or permissions were obtained. Engineer A has confirmed the risk through direct observation, and no safeguards or corrective measures are known to be in place.
Wetland ecosystem and regulatory compliance status of the client's property
Regulatory enforcement action, client remediation, or permit authorization
Engineer A owes a duty of loyalty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement, but that duty does not extend to remaining silent about a substantial ongoing violation of federal and state environmental law that threatens protected public resources.
The faithful agent duty does not authorize an engineer to suppress knowledge of a substantial statutory violation. The client's interest in avoiding regulatory consequences for illegal conduct is not a legitimate interest that the faithful agent duty protects.
Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill
The client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands implicates public welfare through degradation of protected environmental resources, triggering Engineer A's paramount duty under NSPE Code Section I.1.
Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by taking action in response to the observed unpermitted wetland fill, which constitutes a substantial violation of federal and state environmental law with consequences for public welfare and environmental resources.
Upon observation of the unpermitted fill and recognition of its public welfare implications.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Safety Obligation'
Performed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site, then discovered upon driving past the property that the client had installed substantial fill material without permits in violation of federal and state law.
Environmental engineering, wetland delineation
Via class 'Wetland Delineation Engineer': Wetland delineation is a specialization of environmental engineering practice. The existing Environmental Engineer class covers environmental analysis and technical reports bearing licensure-based accountability, which encompasses this role. Matching as a specialization at medium confidence.
Engineer A Wetland Violation Public Welfare
Engineer A, upon discovering that the client has placed unpermitted fill on more than half an acre of wetlands in violation of federal and state law, faces an obligation to hold the welfare of the public and the protected environment paramount over any residual loyalty to the former client.
Public welfare in this context encompasses not only direct human safety but also the protection of federally and state-regulated wetland resources that serve ecological and public functions. The substantial and ongoing nature of the violation elevates this from a matter of personal conscience to a professional obligation.
The paramountcy of public welfare over client loyalty means that Engineer A cannot remain silent about a substantial statutory violation simply because the client was a former service recipient. The violation is ongoing and substantial, placing it above the threshold where client loyalty could justify non-disclosure.
Damage to the professional relationship with the client
Potential reputational risk to Engineer A
Serious legal and financial consequences for the client
Protect the public interest and the integrity of environmental laws by ensuring the violation is addressed through regulatory enforcement
Judgment to determine when escalation is required
If the client fails to take appropriate corrective steps, Engineer A must decide to report the violation of federal and state environmental laws to the appropriate regulatory authorities rather than allow the illegal fill to remain unremediated.
Engineer A gained direct personal knowledge of the illegal fill; the violation became known to a licensed professional with prior involvement on the property.
Engineer A, while driving past the property by chance, visually observed that the client had illegally filled more than half an acre of wetlands, bringing the violation to Engineer A's knowledge.
Possible legal and financial consequences for the client
Potential damage to the professional relationship with the client
Inform the client of the legal violations and prompt the client to take immediate corrective action
Engineer A must decide to contact the client directly, inquire about the unauthorized fill material, and point out that the installation constitutes a violation of federal and state environmental laws requiring immediate remediation.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland
Engineer A owes a duty of loyalty to the client from the prior engagement, but the client's unpermitted fill of more than half an acre of wetlands is a substantial violation of law that rises to a public welfare concern, defeating the faithful agent duty under the defeasibility condition recognized in the NSPE Code.
Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the client arising from the wetland delineation engagement does not extend to remaining silent about the client's subsequent, independently observed violation of federal and state wetland law, and that duty is defeated by the paramount obligation to public welfare.
Upon discovery of the violation, at the point where the faithful agent duty conflicts with the public welfare paramount obligation.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Faithful Agent Obligation'
More than half an acre of previously delineated wetlands was physically destroyed by fill material without regulatory authorization.
The client filled over half an acre of wetlands without obtaining the required permits, constituting a violation of environmental regulations and federal wetland protection law.
Engineer A Wetland Observed Violation Disclosure
Engineer A had performed the original wetland delineation and then personally observed the fill, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion or speculation, distinguishing this case from the bridge wall and apartment building cases.
Because Engineer A personally observed the unpermitted wetland fill with domain expertise, the concern rose to the level of established fact, triggering a mandatory disclosure obligation to the appropriate authority if the client failed to remediate.
From the time of personal observation of the fill, given Engineer A's domain expertise
Engineer A's fact-based disclosure threshold was met because Engineer A directly observes the unpermitted fill on the wetland site, placing the violation at the level of established fact rather than suspicion.