Active Insistence Non-Substitution by Silent Notification Engineer A Safety Staffing
Engineer A satisfied Section III.1.b by notifying the client of the safety need, but violated Section II.1.a by treating that notification as sufficient and proceeding without further insistence or withdrawal after the client refused.
Active Insistence Non-Substitution by Silent Notification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that notifying the client of the need for a full-time on-site representative — while satisfying Section III.1.b — did not discharge the Section II.1.a paramount public welfare obligation, which required active insistence on compliance or project withdrawal, not merely initial notification followed by silent acquiescence.
It is clear from the facts that Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the construction phase of the project. Therefore, Engineer A did act in accordance with Section III.1.b.
After the initial notification to the client and the client's subsequent refusal
Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment.
Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
This case is the source case for BER Case 84-5. The going-along principle originated here: Engineer A identified a dangerous construction phase, recommended a full-time on-site representative, received a cost-driven refusal, and proceeded without dissent — establishing the precedent that such passive continuation is an independent ethical violation.
BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Precedent Cross-Domain Safety Application Constraint
The BER Case 84-5 going-along principle directly governed Engineer A's conduct: Engineer A's silent continuation of project services after the client's refusal to fund the required on-site safety representative — without insistence or withdrawal — constituted the paradigm 'going-along' ethical violation that the Case 84-5 principle prohibits.
BER Case 84-5; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a
Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project.
From the client's refusal through Engineer A's continued project work
Engineer A proceeds with his work on the project.
the client indicates to Engineer A that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired.
CausalLink_Proceed Without Safety Represe
CausalLink_Recommend On-Site Representati
The client reviewed completed project plans and costs and determined the project would be too costly with a full-time on-site representative — creating a budget-driven resource constraint that Engineer A impermissibly treated as a justification for proceeding without the safety measure.
The client's budget constraint — expressed as unwillingness to fund a full-time on-site project representative — created a resource limitation that restricted the implementation of the safety measure Engineer A had professionally determined was required; this defeasible constraint could not override the inviolable public safety obligation and therefore could not justify Engineer A's continuation of services.
Client's cost-driven refusal; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a
After reviewing the completed project plans and costs, the client indicates to Engineer A that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired.
From the client's refusal through project completion
Engineer A recommended a full-time on-site project representative due to the dangerous nature of the construction phase. The client refused on cost grounds. Engineer A proceeded with work without further insistence, escalation, or withdrawal.
Client Cost-Refusal Withdrawal Trigger Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from continuing to provide professional engineering services on the project after the client definitively refused — on cost grounds — to hire the full-time on-site project representative that Engineer A had professionally determined was necessary for the dangerous construction phase; withdrawal became ethically mandatory once persistent persuasion was exhausted and the client's refusal was definitive.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a; BER Case 84-5
From the point of the client's definitive cost-driven refusal to hire the on-site representative through project completion
The client's cost-driven refusal created a direct conflict between client loyalty (proceeding with the project as the client wished) and public safety (insisting on or withdrawing over the absence of required safety oversight). The priority constraint required public safety to prevail.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
When Engineer A's obligation to serve the client's cost preferences conflicted with the obligation to protect public safety during the dangerous construction phase, the public safety obligation took precedence — constraining Engineer A from fulfilling the client's directive to proceed without the on-site safety representative.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a; Priority Constraint hierarchy
Because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired.
From the point of conflict between client cost preference and safety requirement through project completion
Client Cost-Based Rejection of On-Site Safety Representative
From client's cost objection through Engineer A's decision to proceed without the representative
When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work
Client Cost-Driven Safety Oversight Rejection State
Client's refusal to fund full-time on-site project representative on cost grounds
Engineer A's acquiescence — state persists unresolved through project continuation
Client indicated the project would be too costly if a full-time on-site project representative were hired
Client Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
{'concern': 'Project cost', 'decision': 'Refused to hire full-time on-site project representative', 'project_nature': 'Dangerous construction project'}
The client retained Engineer A for engineering services on a dangerous construction project, was advised that a full-time on-site project representative was required for safety, and refused to authorize the measure on cost grounds — thereby pressuring Engineer A to abandon the safety recommendation.
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer'}
Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
when the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired
Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the construction phase of the project
Client Economic Interest Displacing Engineer Primary Safety Obligation
From client's cost objection through Engineer A's acquiescence and project continuation
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests that the primary obligation was not the public but the client's economic concerns
Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Open Conflict State
Tension between client's cost-reduction interest and Engineer A's paramount obligation to protect public health and safety
Not resolved — the conflict persisted and Engineer A resolved it incorrectly in favor of client economic interests
Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project
Section II.1.a. admonishes engineers to recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the public safety, health, property, and welfare
Client's cost concerns caused Engineer A to subordinate the primary public safety obligation to client economic preferences
Client Engagement Established → Project Hazard Recognized
Client Rejection of On-Site Safety Representative on Cost Grounds
From client's cost-based refusal through Engineer A's decision to proceed without the safeguard
After reviewing the completed project plans and costs, the client indicates to Engineer A that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
Client's refusal to fund a full-time on-site project representative recommended by Engineer A
Client reversal of decision, Engineer A disassociation, or project completion
Client indicates the project would be too costly if a full-time on-site representative were hired
Client Relationship with Full Engineering Services Scope
From initial hiring through project completion
The client plans a project and hires Engineer A to furnish complete engineering services for the project
Engineer A's professional engagement with the client for complete engineering services
Client hires Engineer A to furnish complete engineering services for the project
Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Engineer A Construction Phase Representative
The client refused to hire the on-site representative on cost grounds; Engineer A was required to either force the issue and insist on compliance or refuse to continue working on the project, as proceeding without the safety measure constituted a violation of the paramount public welfare obligation.
Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, upon the client's refusal to hire the full-time on-site project representative that Engineer A had determined was necessary for the dangerous construction phase, to either insist that the client hire the representative or withdraw from the project — rather than proceeding with the work absent the required safety measure.
If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
Upon the client's refusal to hire the full-time on-site project representative
While this might appear to be a harsh result, we think that such an approach is the only one that would be consistent with the Code of Ethics.
It was unethical for Engineer A to proceed with work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time, on-site project representative.
Beyond the Board's finding that proceeding was unethical, Engineer A committed a compounded violation by failing to formally document the client's refusal in writing and failing to notify the client in writing that the project carried unacceptable risk without the on-site representative. Silent acquiescence is not merely a failure to withdraw — it is an independent ethical failure distinct from the withdrawal obligation itself. Even if one were to argue that withdrawal was not yet required at the moment of the client's first refusal, Engineer A's complete absence of written dissent, formal risk notification, or documented objection stripped the client of the opportunity to make an informed decision and stripped any subsequent record of Engineer A's professional judgment. The ethical duty to notify the client of project-threatening conditions — including safety-threatening conditions — is a freestanding obligation under the Code, not merely a precursor to withdrawal. Engineer A violated this obligation independently of, and in addition to, the violation identified by the Board.
The Board's conclusion implicitly establishes that the client's cost-based refusal does not shift moral responsibility away from Engineer A in any degree sufficient to alter Engineer A's ethical obligations. While a client's informed, documented refusal of a safety recommendation may partially shift moral culpability for resulting harm toward the client, such a shift is ethically irrelevant to the threshold question of whether Engineer A was permitted to continue. The public welfare paramount principle does not operate on a shared-responsibility model: it does not permit an engineer to proceed with a known danger simply because the client has accepted — or caused — that danger. Engineer A's obligation runs not only to the client but to construction workers and the general public who are not parties to the cost negotiation and who bear the consequences of the client's refusal without having consented to the risk. The presence of a third-party risk population — workers and the public — means that the client's acceptance of risk on cost grounds cannot function as a waiver that releases Engineer A from the public safety obligation. Moral responsibility transfer between engineer and client is therefore legally and ethically incomplete as a justification for continuation.
The Board's conclusion, while framed as a binary — proceed or not proceed — leaves unresolved whether Engineer A was required to exhaust graduated intermediate steps before withdrawal became the only defensible option. A more complete analysis reveals a graduated escalation framework: Engineer A was first obligated to formally document the safety recommendation and the client's refusal; second, to propose cost-reduced alternative safeguards such as a part-time representative or scheduled periodic inspections; third, to insist in writing that continuation without any mitigation measure was professionally untenable; and only upon exhaustion of these steps — or upon the client's categorical rejection of all alternatives — was withdrawal the required response. This graduated framework does not diminish the Board's conclusion but refines it: Engineer A's ethical failure began not at the moment of withdrawal-or-not, but at the moment of silent acquiescence following the client's first refusal, when Engineer A neither documented the objection, proposed alternatives, nor escalated insistence. The ethical violation is therefore earlier and broader than the Board's framing suggests, encompassing the failure to engage the graduated escalation process at all, not merely the failure to ultimately withdraw.
The Board's conclusion leaves unresolved whether written documentation of the safety objection — such as a formal letter to the client stating that the project cannot be safely executed without the on-site representative — would have constituted a meaningful ethical distinction from silent acquiescence, or whether it would still represent an independent ethical failure. The better analysis is that written documentation, while necessary and ethically required under the notification obligation, is not sufficient to discharge the paramount safety duty when the engineer nonetheless proceeds with the dangerous project. Documentation satisfies the notification obligation under the code provision requiring engineers to advise clients when a project will not be successful, but it does not satisfy the separate and stronger obligation to refuse to participate in a project that endangers life or property when the engineer's safety judgment has been overruled. Written objection followed by continued participation is ethically superior to silent acquiescence, but it remains an ethical violation because the dangerous condition persists and Engineer A's professional authority is being used to advance a project Engineer A has identified as inadequately safeguarded.
The Board's conclusion, when read alongside the NSPE Code's distinction between its voluntary higher standard and the minimum standards imposed by state engineering registration boards, reveals a structural tension that Engineer A might theoretically invoke but cannot ethically sustain. Engineer A could argue that state board rules of professional conduct, which may not explicitly require withdrawal in this circumstance, set the legally enforceable floor of conduct, and that the NSPE Code's stricter demands are aspirational obligations accepted only through voluntary membership. However, this argument fails for two reasons. First, voluntary NSPE membership constitutes an affirmative professional commitment to the higher standard, and invoking the lower state board floor as a defense is inconsistent with that commitment. Second, and more fundamentally, the obligation to protect public safety from foreseeable danger is not merely an NSPE aspiration — it reflects the foundational purpose of professional engineering licensure itself, such that even state board standards, properly interpreted, would likely reach the same result. Engineer A cannot use the gap between voluntary and mandatory standards as ethical cover for a decision that compromises public safety.
The counterfactual scenario in which Engineer A withdraws and is replaced by a less safety-conscious engineer does not alter the ethical calculus and cannot serve as a justification for proceeding. While consequentialist reasoning might suggest that a safety-aware engineer remaining on the project produces better expected outcomes than withdrawal followed by replacement with an indifferent engineer, this reasoning is ethically defective in the present context for several reasons. First, it would effectively allow any engineer to justify participation in any unsafe project by speculating that a worse engineer might take their place — a logic that would hollow out the withdrawal obligation entirely. Second, it improperly transfers moral responsibility for the client's subsequent choices onto Engineer A, when the client's decision to hire a less safety-conscious replacement is the client's own ethical failure, not Engineer A's. Third, the NSPE Code's paramount safety obligation is structured as a duty-based constraint, not a consequentialist optimization problem, and Engineer A's obligation to refuse participation in a project that endangers life is not contingent on predicting what the client will do next. The possibility of a worse replacement is a morally irrelevant consideration when the engineer's own participation in an inadequately safeguarded dangerous project is itself the violation.
In response to Q101: Engineer A's initial oral recommendation of a full-time on-site project representative was necessary but not sufficient to discharge his safety obligation. The ethical duty imposed by the NSPE Code—particularly the requirement under Section II.1.a that engineers whose judgment is overruled under life-endangering circumstances must notify proper authorities—demands more than a single, unrecorded suggestion. Engineer A was obligated to escalate through graduated steps: formally documenting the recommendation and its safety rationale in writing, reiterating the recommendation after the client's cost-based refusal, and explicitly notifying the client in writing that proceeding without the representative created unacceptable risk. Only after exhausting these escalating measures of persuasion would the client's continued refusal trigger the binary choice between insistence and withdrawal. A single verbal recommendation, followed by silent acquiescence, falls well short of the active, documented resistance the Code demands.
In response to Q102: The 'potentially dangerous nature' of the construction phase does not function as an absolute categorical prohibition that admits no alternative mitigation measures. Rather, it establishes a graduated risk threshold that requires Engineer A to assess whether any alternative safeguard—such as periodic inspections, a part-time representative, or enhanced contractor self-supervision protocols—could adequately substitute for the full-time on-site representative. However, this graduated assessment does not license passive acceptance of the client's bare cost refusal. If Engineer A concluded, based on professional judgment, that no lesser measure could adequately address the identified danger, then the risk threshold effectively becomes categorical for that project, and proceeding without any substitute measure is ethically indefensible. The critical failure in this case is that Engineer A neither proposed intermediate alternatives nor made a documented professional determination that the danger was irreducible without the full-time representative—he simply acquiesced.
In response to Q103: Once the client refused the safety recommendation and Engineer A chose to continue work, Engineer A acquired an affirmative obligation under Section II.1.a to notify proper authorities—which may include the state engineering registration board, relevant construction safety regulators, or other bodies with jurisdiction over the dangerous condition. This obligation is not contingent on harm having occurred; it is triggered by the combination of an identified life-endangering condition and an overruled professional judgment. Engineer A's silence after the client's refusal compounded the initial ethical failure of proceeding: not only did he acquiesce to a dangerous arrangement, he also failed to activate the external oversight mechanisms that the Code specifically designates as the remedy when client authority overrides engineering safety judgment. Construction workers and the general public, who bear the physical risk of the unmitigated danger, had a legitimate claim to the protection that such notification would have provided.
In response to Q104: The client's cost-based refusal does shift a meaningful portion of moral responsibility for any resulting harm toward the client, because the client made an autonomous, informed decision to reject a professionally identified safety measure. However, this shift is partial and does not relieve Engineer A of ethical culpability. Under the NSPE Code's hierarchy of obligations, Engineer A's paramount duty runs to public safety—not to client satisfaction—and that duty is not dischargeable by transferring blame. The ethical calculus is not altered by the client's partial assumption of responsibility: Engineer A possessed the professional knowledge, the contractual leverage, and the Code-mandated authority to refuse continuation. By proceeding despite that knowledge and authority, Engineer A remained a proximate moral cause of the unsafe condition, regardless of the client's independent contribution to it. Shared responsibility does not dissolve Engineer A's independent obligation to withdraw.
In response to Q201: The Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle are not co-equal duties that must be balanced case by case. The NSPE Code establishes an explicit normative hierarchy in which public safety is paramount and client loyalty is bounded by that paramountcy. When a client's cost-driven decision directly undermines a safety measure that Engineer A has already identified as necessary for a potentially dangerous construction phase, the Faithful Agent Obligation must yield entirely. The client's interest in cost management is a legitimate interest that Engineer A must respect in ordinary circumstances, but it ceases to be a 'legitimate' interest—in the Code's sense—the moment it requires Engineer A to expose workers and the public to foreseeable, identified danger. At that point, continued service to the client's cost preference is not faithful agency; it is complicity in a safety violation.
In response to Q202: The Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse principle and the Insistence on Client Remedial Action principle are not mutually exclusive but sequentially ordered. Engineer A was not ethically permitted to leap immediately to withdrawal without first exhausting reasonable means of persuasion—including written documentation of the risk, formal reiteration of the recommendation, and proposal of intermediate alternatives. However, this sequential requirement has a limit: once Engineer A had genuinely exhausted those escalating steps and the client remained unwilling to fund any adequate safety measure, withdrawal became not merely permissible but obligatory. The severity of the identified danger does not compress this sequence into an immediate withdrawal trigger, but it does shorten the tolerance for client delay and sharply narrows the range of acceptable client responses. In this case, Engineer A bypassed the entire sequence and proceeded directly to acquiescence—violating both principles simultaneously.
In response to Q203: Engineer A cannot credibly invoke the Engineer Pressure Resistance principle to characterize his silent continuation as active resistance. The Going-Along Prohibition condemns precisely the conduct Engineer A exhibited: receiving a client override of a safety recommendation and proceeding without documented objection, formal escalation, or withdrawal. Active resistance, in the Code's framework, requires affirmative conduct—written notification, repeated insistence, formal documentation of the overruled judgment, or withdrawal. Mere internal disagreement that produces no external action is indistinguishable from passive acquiescence in its practical effect on public safety. The distinction between active and passive resistance is not a matter of subjective intent but of observable professional conduct. Engineer A's conduct, measured against that standard, was passive acquiescence and therefore an independent ethical violation separate from the decision to proceed.
In response to Q204: The gap between state registration board rules—which may permit continuation after documented objection—and the NSPE Code's demand for withdrawal or insistence is real and ethically significant. Engineer A, as a voluntary NSPE member, accepted the Code as a higher standard than the legal minimum, and that acceptance is not conditional on convenience. Where state rules would permit documented-objection continuation, the NSPE Code imposes the additional obligation to either secure client compliance or withdraw. Engineer A cannot navigate this gap by defaulting to the lower state standard while holding NSPE membership, because voluntary membership in a professional society that adopts a higher ethical standard constitutes a binding commitment to that standard. The existence of the gap does not create ambiguity about which standard governs Engineer A's conduct—it confirms that Engineer A's obligations exceed the legal floor.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A violated a categorical duty to protect public safety by continuing work after the client refused the on-site safety representative, regardless of whether harm ultimately resulted. Deontological ethics evaluates the moral quality of an action by reference to the duty it expresses or violates, not by its consequences. Engineer A possessed a professional duty—codified in the NSPE Code and grounded in the engineer's special relationship to public safety—that required him to refuse participation in a project he had identified as dangerously under-supervised. The client's refusal of the recommended safeguard did not dissolve that duty; it activated it. By proceeding, Engineer A treated the client's cost preference as a sufficient reason to override a categorical safety obligation, which is precisely the kind of reasoning deontological ethics rejects. The absence of actual harm is irrelevant to the deontological verdict: the duty was violated at the moment Engineer A chose to proceed.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's decision to proceed without the on-site representative produced a net expected harm even if no accident ultimately occurred. Consequentialist analysis evaluates decisions by the probability-weighted outcomes foreseeable at the time of the decision, not by the outcomes that happened to materialize. At the moment Engineer A chose to proceed, he possessed professional knowledge that the construction phase was potentially dangerous and that the recommended safeguard had been removed. The expected harm—the product of the probability of an accident and the severity of potential injury to workers and the public—was therefore elevated above the baseline by Engineer A's acquiescence. A decision that knowingly increases the probability of serious harm to identifiable third parties produces net expected harm in the consequentialist calculus, regardless of whether the harm is ultimately realized. The cost savings to the client do not offset this expected harm, because the beneficiaries of the cost savings and the bearers of the elevated risk are different parties.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage that the role of a competent engineer demands. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct by reference to the character traits that a person of practical wisdom and professional excellence would exhibit. A virtuous engineer, confronted with a client's cost-driven rejection of a safety measure the engineer has identified as necessary, would exhibit the courage to insist, the integrity to document the objection formally, and the professional self-respect to withdraw rather than lend technical credibility to a project the engineer has already judged to be dangerously under-supervised. Engineer A's acquiescence reflects instead the vices of moral timidity and professional deference to economic pressure—character traits that are incompatible with the engineer's foundational role as a guardian of public safety. The virtue ethics verdict is not merely that Engineer A made a wrong decision, but that the decision revealed a deficiency of professional character.
In response to Q401: Engineer A's ethical standing would have been partially—but not fully—preserved by formally documenting the client's refusal, issuing a written warning of unacceptable risk, and conditioning continued involvement on the client's written acceptance of that documented risk. Such steps would have satisfied the going-along prohibition and the written documentation obligation, and they would have created a formal record demonstrating that Engineer A did not passively acquiesce. However, this approach would not fully discharge Engineer A's ethical obligations if the documented risk remained at a level that Engineer A's professional judgment identified as genuinely dangerous to workers and the public. The NSPE Code does not permit an engineer to launder an unsafe project into an ethical one by documenting the danger and then proceeding anyway. If the risk was truly unacceptable without the on-site representative, then written documentation of that unacceptability, followed by continued participation, would still constitute a violation of the public welfare paramount obligation—though a less severe one than silent acquiescence.
In response to Q402: Immediate withdrawal upon the client's cost-based rejection would have discharged Engineer A's primary ethical obligation not to proceed with a dangerously under-supervised project. However, withdrawal alone would not have fully discharged all of Engineer A's ethical obligations. Section II.1.a of the NSPE Code requires engineers whose judgment is overruled under life-endangering circumstances to notify proper authorities—an obligation that survives and is independent of the withdrawal decision. After withdrawing, Engineer A would have retained an obligation to notify the relevant state engineering registration board or other appropriate authority that the project was proceeding without the safety oversight he had identified as necessary. This notification obligation exists to protect the workers and public who remain at risk even after Engineer A's departure from the project, and it cannot be satisfied by withdrawal alone.
In response to Q403: The ethical outcome would have differed meaningfully if Engineer A had proposed cost-reduced intermediate alternatives—such as a part-time representative, periodic scheduled inspections, or enhanced contractor safety protocols—before accepting the client's outright refusal. Proposing intermediate options would have fulfilled the obligation to exhaust reasonable means of persuasion and would have demonstrated that Engineer A was actively seeking a workable safety solution rather than passively accepting the client's veto. If the client had then rejected all intermediate alternatives, Engineer A's subsequent withdrawal or insistence would have rested on a much stronger ethical foundation, because the record would show that no adequate substitute was available or acceptable to the client. Conversely, if the client had accepted a reasonable intermediate measure, the ethical violation might have been avoided entirely, provided Engineer A's professional judgment confirmed that the alternative adequately addressed the identified danger. The binary framing of 'full-time representative or nothing' that Engineer A implicitly accepted was itself an ethical failure of professional problem-solving.
In response to Q404: If Engineer A had not been an NSPE member, the ethical analysis would be somewhat different in form but not fundamentally different in substance. State engineering registration board rules of professional conduct typically incorporate the same core obligation to protect public health and safety, and most state rules include provisions analogous to the requirement to notify authorities when professional judgment is overruled under dangerous conditions. Under state rules alone, Engineer A's silent acquiescence would likely still constitute a violation of the public safety obligation, though the specific procedural requirements—documentation, notification, withdrawal triggers—might be less precisely defined than under the NSPE Code. The meaningful distinction created by NSPE membership is not that it imposes entirely different substantive obligations, but that it provides a more detailed, more demanding, and more explicitly articulated framework for discharging those obligations. NSPE membership raises the floor of required conduct above the state minimum and removes any ambiguity about what the safety obligation demands in practice.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved decisively in favor of public safety, but the case reveals that this resolution is not simply a matter of one principle overriding the other in all circumstances. Rather, the Faithful Agent Obligation retains full force up to the precise moment when the client's instruction or refusal crosses into territory that Engineer A has already identified as creating a dangerous condition. Once Engineer A made the professional determination that a full-time on-site representative was necessary because of the 'potentially dangerous nature' of the construction phase, the client's cost-based refusal did not merely create a conflict between two co-equal principles—it triggered a categorical ceiling on client loyalty. The Faithful Agent Obligation, properly understood, never extended to executing or facilitating a project configuration that Engineer A himself had flagged as inadequately safeguarded. The case therefore teaches that these two principles do not exist in permanent tension requiring case-by-case balancing; instead, the Public Welfare Paramount principle defines a hard boundary within which the Faithful Agent Obligation operates, and client cost preferences cannot move that boundary.
The case exposes an unresolved tension between the Insistence on Client Remedial Action principle and the Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse principle, and the Board's conclusion does not fully settle which sequencing is required. The Board found that Engineer A acted unethically by proceeding without further escalation, but it did not specify whether Engineer A was obligated to exhaust graduated persuasion steps—written documentation, repeated insistence, formal notification of risk—before withdrawal became the only defensible option, or whether the severity of the identified danger made immediate withdrawal the only permissible response. What the case does establish clearly is that passive acquiescence—simply proceeding after a single oral recommendation was refused—satisfies neither principle. The Going-Along Prohibition operates as an independent ethical constraint that condemns inaction regardless of which of the two active responses Engineer A should have chosen. The practical teaching is that the ethical floor in this situation required at minimum a formal, documented insistence accompanied by a clear statement that continuation without the safeguard was unacceptable, and that absent client compliance, withdrawal was the only remaining ethical option. Whether intermediate steps were required before reaching that binary choice is left open, but the case forecloses the path Engineer A actually took.
The Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum principle interacts with the Faithful Agent Obligation in a way that creates a meaningful normative gap between what state registration board rules may permit and what the NSPE Code demands. State board rules might allow an engineer to continue work after documenting a safety objection, treating written dissent as sufficient discharge of the safety obligation. The NSPE Code, as interpreted through this case, rejects that position: documentation and notification are necessary but not sufficient steps. The Faithful Agent Notification Obligation—requiring Engineer A to advise the client that the project will not be successful under the refused conditions—is a floor, not a ceiling. Above that floor, the NSPE Code's Public Welfare Paramount principle and Going-Along Prohibition together require that Engineer A either secure compliance with the safety recommendation or disengage from the project. Engineer A's voluntary membership in NSPE means he accepted this higher standard as binding on his conduct, and he cannot invoke the lower state board threshold as a defense. The case therefore teaches that voluntary professional association with a code that sets standards above the legal minimum is not merely aspirational—it is a binding commitment that narrows the range of permissible conduct available to the engineer when safety and client cost preferences collide.
Engineer A received the client's cost-driven refusal and proceeded directly with work, without evidence of exhausting graduated engagement steps or pursuing intermediate options before the withdrawal trigger was reached.
Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to exhaust all graduated engagement steps — including substantive discussion with the client about the technical basis for the safety determination and proposal of intermediate measures — before withdrawal became mandatory; however, once the client definitively refused all available options, withdrawal was ethically required and Engineer A could not continue services.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.1.a, III.1.b; BER Case 84-5
From the client's initial refusal through the point of definitive refusal of all intermediate options
Confirmed Construction Risk Without Adequate Safeguards
From client's refusal of the safety representative through project construction
Because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
Active construction-phase danger identified by Engineer A, with client having refused the recommended protective measure
Client reversal, Engineer A disassociation, or alternative safeguard implementation
the client indicates to Engineer A that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
Client refuses to hire on-site representative despite Engineer A's documented safety recommendation
Professional engineering standards bodies
Because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project
Engineer A in identifying and communicating the dangerous nature of implementing the design during construction
Establishes the professional baseline for what Engineer A is expected to know and communicate regarding construction-phase safety risks, including the recognized need for on-site oversight when a design involves potentially dangerous implementation conditions.
The client's sole objection was cost. Engineer A had made a professional determination that the construction phase was dangerous and required on-site oversight. The safety determination could not be overridden by cost considerations.
Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Non-Subordination Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from subordinating the professionally grounded safety determination — that a full-time on-site representative was required for the dangerous construction phase — to the client's cost-reduction interest; the magnitude of the identified risk to life and welfare was the controlling factor, not the client's economic preference.
Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Engineer A On-Site Representative
Engineer A determined that a full-time on-site representative was necessary due to the dangerous nature of the construction phase, but when the client indicated the project would be too costly with such a representative, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work.
Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from abandoning the professionally grounded safety recommendation that a full-time on-site project representative was necessary, and from proceeding with the project when the client objected to this requirement on cost grounds.
When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous.
When the client raised cost objections to hiring the full-time on-site representative
Engineer A, using best professional judgment, made a recommendation based upon what was believed to be consistent with that obligation. However, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project.
Should Engineer A proceed with the project after the client's cost-based refusal, insist on the safety staffing requirement, or withdraw from the project?
Engineer A has professionally determined that the dangerous nature of the construction phase requires a full-time on-site project representative. The client refuses this recommendation solely on cost grounds. Engineer A must decide whether to proceed with the project anyway, insist on the safety measure, or withdraw from the project entirely.
Continue work on the project after the client's refusal without further escalation, documentation, or insistence—effectively acquiescing to the client's cost-driven decision and abandoning the safety recommendation.
Refuse to proceed unless the client agrees to hire the full-time on-site representative, presenting the technical basis for the safety determination in writing and making clear that the project cannot safely continue without this safeguard.
Terminate the professional engagement upon the client's refusal, on the grounds that proceeding without the identified safety measure would violate Engineer A's paramount obligation to protect public safety, health, and welfare.
Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
After the client refused on cost grounds to hire a full-time on-site project representative for a foreseeably dangerous construction phase, should Engineer A proceed with the work, persist with graduated escalation before withdrawing, or withdraw immediately from the engagement?
Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Staffing: Insistence, Escalation, or Withdrawal After Client Refusal
Continue work on the project after making a single recommendation for an on-site representative, treating the client's cost-based refusal as a final client decision within the client's authority, without further escalation or withdrawal.
Reiterate the safety necessity in explicit written terms, formally notify the client that the project cannot be safely executed without the on-site representative, issue a conditional ultimatum making continued participation contingent on client agreement, and withdraw from the engagement only after exhausting that graduated escalation sequence and confirming the client's refusal remains firm.
Treat the client's first cost-based refusal of the safety recommendation as a firm and final rejection, withdraw from the engagement immediately without further escalation, and decline to advance the construction phase under any circumstances without the required on-site representative.
Should Engineer A formally document the client's refusal and provide written notice of unacceptable risk, or proceed without creating a written record of the safety objection?
After the client refuses the full-time on-site representative on cost grounds, Engineer A has made only an oral recommendation. Before deciding whether to proceed or withdraw, Engineer A must decide whether to formally document the refusal in writing, notify the client in writing of the unacceptable risk, and create a record of professional objection—or simply continue without such documentation.
Prepare and deliver a formal written record of the client's cost-based refusal, Engineer A's professional determination that the project carries unacceptable risk without the on-site representative, and the specific safety consequences of proceeding without this safeguard.
Continue work on the project relying only on the prior oral recommendation, without creating any written record of the client's refusal or Engineer A's safety objection—leaving no formal documentation of the professional disagreement.
Formally document the client's refusal in writing and additionally notify proper authorities—such as the state engineering registration board or relevant regulatory bodies—of the safety risk created by the client's decision to reject the recommended safeguard.
Should Engineer A propose cost-reduced intermediate safety alternatives to the client before treating withdrawal as the only remaining ethical option?
Before reaching the binary choice of insisting on the full-time representative or withdrawing entirely, Engineer A must decide whether to first propose graduated intermediate alternatives—such as a part-time representative, periodic scheduled inspections, or enhanced contractor safety protocols—that might address the construction-phase safety risk while accommodating the client's cost constraints.
Present the client with a structured set of cost-reduced alternatives—such as a part-time on-site representative, scheduled periodic inspections, or enhanced contractor safety oversight protocols—that meaningfully reduce construction-phase risk while addressing the client's cost objection.
Decline to offer reduced alternatives on the grounds that the professional safety determination identified a full-time representative as necessary, and that proposing lesser measures would compromise the integrity of that determination and potentially expose the public to foreseeable harm.
Treat the client's cost-based refusal as a final impasse and withdraw from the project immediately, without exploring whether intermediate measures could adequately address the identified safety risk.
Should Engineer A hold himself to the higher NSPE Code standard requiring withdrawal or active insistence, or rely on the state registration board's rules that may permit continuation after documented objection?
Engineer A is a voluntary member of NSPE and is also subject to state engineering registration board rules. The state board's rules may permit continuation of work after a safety objection is documented, while the NSPE Code may demand withdrawal or active insistence. Engineer A must decide which standard governs his conduct when the two conflict.
As a voluntary NSPE member, treat the NSPE Code's demand for active insistence or withdrawal as the binding ethical standard, recognizing that voluntary membership in a professional society carries an obligation to uphold that society's ethics code even when it exceeds state board minimums.
Treat compliance with state engineering registration board rules—which may permit continuation after a documented safety objection—as sufficient to discharge professional obligations, on the grounds that state licensure requirements define the legal and professional floor for conduct.
Structure the response to the client's refusal so that it satisfies both the state board's documentation requirements and the NSPE Code's demand for active insistence, by formally documenting the objection in writing while simultaneously insisting on remedial action or initiating withdrawal.
Should Engineer A treat the client's informed cost-based refusal as shifting sufficient moral responsibility to alter his own obligation to insist or withdraw, or maintain his full ethical obligation regardless of the client's autonomous choice?
The client has made an autonomous, informed decision to reject the professionally identified safety measure on cost grounds. Engineer A must assess whether this client decision shifts sufficient moral responsibility to the client to alter Engineer A's own ethical obligations—specifically, whether partial responsibility transfer permits Engineer A to proceed with reduced ethical culpability.
Treat the client's autonomous refusal as irrelevant to Engineer A's own ethical obligations, on the grounds that the NSPE Code's paramount duty to protect public safety is not diminished by a client's informed decision to accept risk, and that third parties—workers and the public—did not consent to the increased danger.
Acknowledge that the client's informed, documented refusal shifts a meaningful portion of moral responsibility toward the client, and treat this partial shift as a factor that, combined with formal written documentation of the objection, may permit Engineer A to continue work with reduced ethical culpability.
Condition any continuation of work on the client formally assuming documented responsibility for the safety risk in writing, while Engineer A simultaneously notifies proper authorities of the unresolved safety concern—treating the responsibility shift as real but insufficient on its own to discharge Engineer A's public welfare obligation.
Should Engineer A treat formal written documentation of the client's safety refusal as satisfying the full ethical obligation under the NSPE Code, or recognize that documentation satisfies only the notification component while the separate duty to insist or withdraw remains independently required?
Engineer A's decision about whether written documentation of the client's safety refusal — formally stating the project cannot be safely executed without the on-site representative — satisfies the full ethical obligation or merely the notification component, leaving the conduct violation intact
Formally document in writing that the project cannot be safely executed without the on-site representative, deliver that notice to the client, and treat the documentation as satisfying the notification obligation under Section III.1.b while recognizing that the separate and stronger duty under Section II.1.a still requires active insistence or withdrawal before proceeding.
Formally document the client's refusal and the safety risk in the project record, then proceed with project work on the grounds that the written notification satisfies the full scope of Engineer A's ethical obligation — shifting moral responsibility for the safety decision to the client who received and rejected the documented warning.
Proceed with project work after the client's verbal refusal without creating a formal written record of the safety objection, treating the initial recommendation as sufficient advisory notice and relying on the client's authority over staffing decisions as the basis for continued participation.
After the client refused to fund a full-time on-site safety representative on cost grounds, should Engineer A withdraw from the project, pursue graduated escalation before withdrawing, or proceed while documenting the objection?
Engineer A's Response After Client Refuses On-Site Safety Representative on Cost Grounds: Escalate, Document, or Proceed
Reiterate the safety necessity in explicit written terms, formally notify the client that the project cannot be safely executed without the on-site representative, issue a final ultimatum conditioning continued participation on the client's agreement, and withdraw from the engagement if the client's refusal remains firm after that escalation sequence.
Continue project work while formally documenting in writing that the client has refused the on-site representative recommendation and that Engineer A regards this as a safety risk, treating the written record as satisfying the notification obligation under Section III.1.b and preserving professional integrity through transparent rather than silent acquiescence.
Treat the initial recommendation of a full-time on-site representative as a sufficient discharge of the advisory obligation, defer to the client's authority over staffing and cost decisions within the contractual scope, and continue furnishing complete engineering services without further escalation or withdrawal.
Should Engineer A have conditioned acceptance of the engagement on a non-negotiable commitment to construction-phase safety oversight, or was it permissible to accept the engagement and raise the on-site representative requirement as a subsequent recommendation subject to client approval?
Engineer A's Scope of Engagement for a Foreseeably Dangerous Project: Whether Construction-Phase Safety Oversight Was a Non-Negotiable Precondition
Before accepting the engagement, explicitly establish construction-phase safety oversight — including a full-time on-site project representative — as a non-negotiable professional precondition, declining the commission if the client will not agree to that baseline requirement given the foreseeably dangerous nature of the construction phase.
Accept the engagement to furnish complete engineering services and raise the on-site representative requirement as a professional recommendation during the design phase, treating it as a strong advisory obligation while preserving the client's authority to make the final staffing and cost decision.
Accept the engagement but include an explicit contractual clause stating that construction-phase services are conditioned on agreement to adequate safety staffing to be determined during design, preserving the ability to revisit the requirement once the specific hazards are fully characterized rather than imposing a blanket precondition before the scope of danger is known.
Should Engineer A treat the obligation to protect public safety as a risk-based duty requiring withdrawal once a foreseeable danger is identified and the client refuses the recommended safeguard, or as an outcome-contingent obligation that permits proceeding so long as harm has not yet materialized and the lower state board standard is satisfied?
Engineer A's Ethical Standard Governing the Decision to Proceed: Risk-Based Duty vs. Outcome-Based Harm, and the Role of NSPE Membership in Foreclosing Lower-Standard Defenses
Treat the identification of a foreseeable, non-speculative danger as the trigger for the paramount safety obligation, recognize that the ethical violation is complete at the moment of proceeding with a known unmitigated risk regardless of whether harm materializes, and withdraw from the project as required by the NSPE Code's higher standard to which voluntary membership commits Engineer A.
Treat the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct as the operative floor of obligation, proceed with the project on the basis that the NSPE Code's stricter withdrawal requirement is an aspirational standard not binding as a matter of professional discipline, and satisfy the lower mandatory standard by having made and documented the safety recommendation.
Proceed with the project while applying heightened professional vigilance during the construction phase — including increased periodic site visits and written safety advisories — on the theory that the danger is foreseeable but not near-certain, and that remaining engaged as the safety-aware engineer of record produces better expected outcomes than withdrawal and replacement with a less safety-conscious successor.
Dangerous Construction Phase Risk Identified
From Engineer A's identification of the dangerous nature of implementation through project construction
Construction phase implementation of the design, posing danger to workers and/or public
Adequate safety oversight measures implemented, or project completion
Engineer A identifies the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase
The client's cost-driven refusal created economic pressure on Engineer A to continue services without the required safety measure. Engineer A's paramount safety obligation prohibited acquiescence to this pressure.
Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from bowing to the client's economic pressure and proceeding with the dangerous construction project without the required safety oversight; the client relationship and associated financial pressures could not justify abrogation of Engineer A's paramount obligation to public safety.
Throughout the period of client pressure and subsequent project continuation
Professional engineering ethics review bodies
Engineer A proceeds with his work on the project
Engineer A in deciding whether to continue or withdraw from the project after the client's refusal
Provides the analytical framework for evaluating whether Engineer A is ethically obligated to refuse to continue the project (obligatory dissent) or may permissibly proceed after the client's cost-based rejection of the safety recommendation.
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A in determining continuing obligations after client rejection of on-site representative recommendation
Governs whether Engineer A's obligation to protect public safety requires escalation beyond the client relationship after the client rejects the safety recommendation, and whether proceeding with the project without the recommended safeguard is ethically permissible.
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Engineer A when client declines safety-protective recommendation on cost grounds
Governs Engineer A's professional obligations after the client refuses to hire an on-site project representative despite the engineer's documented safety recommendation, including whether Engineer A may ethically continue the engagement and what further steps are required.
Engineer A Acquiescence Without Dissent or Withdrawal
From Engineer A's decision to proceed without the representative through project continuation
Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment
Engineer Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal State
Engineer A's conduct after client rejected the safety recommendation
Not terminated — constitutes the ethical violation under analysis
Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous
Engineer A proceeded with project work after client refused to hire on-site representative, without insisting, dissenting, or withdrawing
Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Precedent Construction Phase Application
This case is the source case for the BER Case 84-5 going-along principle; Engineer A's conduct of proceeding without dissent or comment is the paradigmatic violation
The BER Case 84-5 principle — that an engineer who 'goes along' with a client's rejection of a safety-protective measure without insistence or withdrawal commits an independent ethical violation — applies directly to Engineer A's conduct in proceeding with the dangerous construction project after the client refused the on-site representative recommendation.
Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment
Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired
Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Principle Source Case Recognition
BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Principle Cross-Context Analogical Application Capability
Engineer A's case is the source case from which the BER 84-5 going-along principle derives — the capability to recognize and apply this principle was absent in Engineer A's conduct, as Engineer A exemplified the paradigm going-along violation.
This is the originating case for the BER 84-5 principle; Engineer A's failure to recognize the going-along prohibition is the ethical violation the principle is designed to address.
Engineer A's conduct — recommending safety staffing, receiving cost-driven refusal, and proceeding without dissent — is the factual basis for the BER 84-5 going-along principle that is subsequently applied analogically to other cases.
Engineer A Business Pressure Technical Safety Recommendation Separation Construction Phase
Engineer A reversed a technically grounded safety determination in response to client cost pressure rather than maintaining the technical recommendation and allowing the client to make an informed decision
Business Pressure Technical Recommendation Separation Constraint
Engineer A was required to formulate and maintain the technical safety recommendation — that a full-time on-site project representative was necessary — based solely on technical findings, treating the client's cost concerns as a separate business factor that the client must weigh, rather than as an input that modifies or reverses the technical safety determination.
Engineer A, using best professional judgment, made a recommendation based upon what was believed to be consistent with that obligation. However, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty
From the point of the client's cost objection
When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired, Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes
Engineer A Client Cost-Driven Safety Refusal Non-Acquiescence Failure
Client Cost-Driven Safety Refusal Non-Acquiescence Capability
Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the client's cost-driven refusal of the safety staffing recommendation did not extinguish the professional safety obligation, and instead proceeded with the project as if the refusal constituted an acceptable resolution.
The client's cost objection was treated by Engineer A as sufficient grounds to abandon the safety recommendation and continue work — the core ethical failure of the case.
Engineer A's decision to proceed with the project after the client refused the full-time on-site representative recommendation on cost grounds, without insistence, escalation, or withdrawal.
Engineer A Client Cost-Refusal Withdrawal Trigger Construction Representative
Client refused to fund full-time on-site project representative on cost grounds; Engineer A proceeded without withdrawal
Engineer A was required to withdraw from the project after the client's cost-driven refusal to hire the full-time on-site project representative, once persistent persuasion efforts were exhausted, because continuing to provide professional services facilitated construction to a standard Engineer A had determined to be inadequate for public safety.
After client's definitive refusal to hire on-site representative
While this might appear to be a harsh result, we think that such an approach is the only one that would be consistent with the Code of Ethics
Engineer A Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Failure
Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to either insist that the client hire the full-time on-site project representative or withdraw from the project — instead proceeding without dissent after the client's cost-driven refusal.
The insistence-or-withdrawal obligation is the core ethical requirement that Engineer A failed to fulfill — this is the paradigm case from which the BER principle derives.
Engineer A's decision to proceed with the project after the client refused the safety staffing recommendation, without insisting on compliance or withdrawing from the engagement.
Engineer A Client Loyalty vs Public Safety Priority Construction Representative
Client's economic interest in avoiding cost of on-site representative conflicted with Engineer A's safety determination; Engineer A incorrectly prioritized client economic interest
When Engineer A's obligation to accommodate the client's cost concerns conflicted with the obligation to protect public safety through adequate construction oversight, the public safety obligation took precedence, constraining Engineer A from fulfilling the client's cost-reduction directive at the expense of the required safety measure.
It appears that Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests that the primary obligation was not the public but the client's economic concerns
From the point of conflict between client cost interest and safety requirement
Engineer A Client Override Written Documentation Obligation
The client overrode Engineer A's safety staffing recommendation on cost grounds; Engineer A had a duty to document this override and the professional objection before proceeding.
Client Override of Safety Analysis Written Documentation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to document in writing the client's cost-driven refusal to hire the full-time on-site representative and Engineer A's professional objection to proceeding without that safety measure, so that the record preserved evidence of Engineer A's professional judgment and the client's assumption of responsibility for the decision.
Upon the client's refusal and before proceeding with the project
Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A determined a full-time on-site representative was necessary due to the dangerous construction phase; the client refused on cost grounds; Engineer A neither persisted in insistence nor withdrew, but instead proceeded with the project.
Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client hire the full-time on-site project representative identified as necessary for the dangerous construction phase, or, if the client continued to refuse, to withdraw from the project rather than proceeding without the required safety oversight.
Because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project.
Upon the client's refusal to hire the on-site representative
Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion On-Site Representative Refusal
Client definitively refused the safety recommendation on cost grounds; Engineer A's withdrawal obligation was triggered but not exercised
Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the project became ethically mandatory once the client definitively refused to hire the full-time on-site project representative after Engineer A had exhausted available engagement steps, prohibiting indefinite continuation after all intermediate options were refused.
After client's definitive refusal following exhaustion of engagement steps
Engineer A Construction Phase Dangerous Condition On-Site Supervision Need Recognition
Construction Phase Dangerous Condition On-Site Supervision Need Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the construction phase of the project was potentially dangerous and required a full-time, on-site project representative for adequate safety oversight, and communicated this determination to the client as a professional recommendation.
Engineer A was retained to provide complete engineering services and identified the construction phase hazard level as requiring dedicated on-site supervision.
Engineer A's recommendation to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired due to the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Complete engineering services', 'safety_recommendation_made': True, 'recommendation_abandoned': True}
Engineer A is retained to provide complete engineering services, identifies the dangerous nature of the construction phase and recommends a full-time on-site project representative, but proceeds with the project after the client refuses on cost grounds — abandoning the safety recommendation in subordination to the client's economic concerns.
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'General Public / Construction Workers'}
{'type': 'serves_client', 'target': 'Project Client Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client'}
Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project
Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Staffing Insistence or Withdrawal
Engineer A identified the construction phase as potentially dangerous and recommended a full-time on-site representative; the client refused citing cost; Engineer A proceeded without the required safety staffing.
Construction Phase Safety Staffing Insistence or Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase, and upon the client's cost-driven refusal, to either persist in persuasion or withdraw from the project rather than proceeding without the safety staffing Engineer A's own professional judgment identified as necessary.
Upon the client's refusal to hire the on-site representative and throughout the project
Engineer A Construction Safety Staffing Determination Written Documentation Failure
Construction Safety Staffing Determination Written Documentation Capability
Engineer A failed to document in writing the professional basis for the safety staffing determination, the client's cost-driven refusal, and the engineer's professional position that the refusal created unacceptable safety risk.
Written documentation of the client override would have been required to fulfill the accountability obligation and to support any subsequent escalation or withdrawal decision.
No written documentation of the safety recommendation, the client's refusal, or Engineer A's professional disagreement is indicated in the case facts — Engineer A simply proceeded.
Engineer A Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination and Communication
Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination and Communication Capability
Engineer A possessed — but failed to fully exercise — the capability to determine and communicate to the client that the cost savings from not hiring a full-time on-site representative must yield to the safety risk created by the dangerous construction phase.
After the client refused the safety staffing recommendation on cost grounds, Engineer A did not communicate that the safety consideration must take precedence over cost savings.
Engineer A made the initial safety recommendation but failed to maintain and communicate the safety primacy determination after the client's cost objection, instead proceeding with the project.
Engineer A Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Non-Subordination On-Site Representative
Engineer A made a careful cost-benefit determination that the on-site representative was necessary, then reversed that determination under client cost pressure
Engineer A was prohibited from subordinating the professionally grounded safety determination — that a full-time on-site project representative was necessary for the dangerous construction phase — to the client's cost-reduction interest, because the magnitude of the identified risk to life and welfare was the controlling factor in the cost-benefit determination.
This was presumably a determination which was made after a careful and thorough weighing of the costs of the full-time, on-site project representative versus the benefits of having such a representative
From the client's cost objection through project completion
when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project
Engineer A Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Failure
Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Engineer A failed to apply the capability to recognize that client cost-driven objection does not justify abandoning a professionally grounded safety recommendation, proceeding with the project despite believing it to be potentially dangerous
Engineer A's capitulation to client cost pressure after making a professional safety determination constituted the core ethical violation in this case
Engineer A abandoned the safety recommendation for a full-time on-site representative after the client raised cost concerns, proceeding without dissent — a violation of Section II.1.a
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests that the primary obligation was not the public but the client's economic concerns. For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Section II.1.a.
Engineer A Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Violation
Engineer A identified the construction phase as potentially dangerous and recommended a full-time on-site representative; the client refused citing cost; Engineer A proceeded with the project without the recommended safety measure.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from abandoning the safety recommendation for a full-time on-site project representative and proceeding with the project after the client refused on cost grounds, as doing so subordinated the paramount public welfare obligation to the client's economic concerns.
Upon the client's cost-driven refusal to hire the full-time on-site representative, and continuing throughout the project
Engineer A Dangerous Project Full-Time Representative Recommendation
From Engineer A's professional determination through client refusal and Engineer A's acquiescence to proceed
Engineer A made a professional judgment based upon education, expertise, and experience that a full-time, on-site project representative would be necessary during the construction phase of the project because of the dangerous nature of the project
Construction project requiring full-time on-site project representative due to dangerous nature
Not resolved — Engineer A proceeded without the safeguard remaining in place
Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous
Engineer A's professional judgment that the dangerous nature of the project necessitated a full-time on-site project representative during construction
Engineer A Engineer Public Safety Stick to Guns Construction Representative Refusal
Engineer A had a professionally grounded safety belief but abandoned it under client economic pressure rather than maintaining the position
Engineer Public Safety Stick to Guns Representation Constraint
Engineer A was required to maintain and advocate for the professionally grounded safety determination that a full-time on-site project representative was necessary, prohibiting capitulation to the client's cost pressure when Engineer A held a professionally grounded belief that proceeding without the representative would be potentially dangerous.
If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted
Engineer A Ethics Code Higher Standard Than State Board Rules Construction Safety
State board rules may not have specifically required Engineer A's safety determination; NSPE Code imposes higher standard through voluntary membership commitment
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Competence Constraint
Engineer A was constrained to recognize that even if the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct did not specifically require the determination about on-site representation, the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes a higher standard of conduct that does require it, prohibiting Engineer A from invoking the state board's potentially lower standard as a defense to the NSPE Code obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Registration Board Rules of Professional Conduct
It may very well be that the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct may not specifically require Engineer A to make the determination that was made; however, it appears that the NSPE Code of Ethics does contain provisions which address this point
It is for that reason that the NSPE Code of Ethics was developed and continues to develop as a force in engineering ethics
engineers have the desire and commitment to 'go the extra mile,' and voluntarily commit themselves to a higher standard of conduct
Engineer A Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Pressure-Abrogation Recognition Failure
Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Pressure-Abrogation Recognition and Resistance Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that bowing to the client's cost-driven pressure — by proceeding with the project after the safety staffing refusal — constituted an abrogation of the most fundamental professional responsibility when great dangers to public health and safety were present.
The client's cost pressure is the specific form of pressure that Engineer A failed to resist, resulting in the abrogation of the fundamental safety responsibility.
Engineer A's acquiescence to the client's cost objection and continuation of work on the dangerous construction project without the recommended safety oversight.
Engineer A Going-Along Prohibition Post-Client-Cost-Refusal
Engineer A proceeded with project work after client refused safety recommendation, without further escalation, insistence, or disassociation
Going-Along Without Dissent Safety Violation Independent Ethical Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from 'going along' — proceeding with the construction project without dissent, comment, insistence, or withdrawal — after the client refused to hire the full-time on-site project representative that Engineer A had determined was necessary for the dangerous construction phase.
From the client's cost-driven refusal through the construction phase
Engineer A Going-Along Prohibition Violation After Client Cost Refusal
After the client refused the safety staffing recommendation on cost grounds, Engineer A proceeded with the project without further insistence, escalation, or withdrawal, constituting passive acquiescence to a known safety risk.
Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from going along — silently proceeding with the project without dissent, escalation, or withdrawal — after the client refused to hire the full-time on-site representative that Engineer A had identified as necessary for the dangerous construction phase.
Immediately upon the client's refusal and throughout the continuation of the project
Engineer A Going-Along Without Dissent Independent Ethical Violation Self-Recognition Failure
Going-Along Without Dissent Independent Ethical Violation Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that proceeding with the project after the client's cost-driven refusal of the safety staffing recommendation — without dissent, escalation, or withdrawal — constituted an independent ethical violation separate from any failure to report to public authorities.
This is the source case for the BER 84-5 'going-along' principle — Engineer A's passive acquiescence after client cost refusal is the paradigm case of the ethical violation.
Engineer A's silent continuation of work on the project after the client refused the full-time on-site representative recommendation, without any recorded dissent, escalation, or withdrawal.
Engineer A Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Construction Safety
Engineer A proceeded without pursuing graduated engagement steps after the client's initial cost-driven refusal
Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Constraint
Engineer A was required to pursue a graduated sequence of engagement steps — including persistent substantive discussion with the client about the technical basis for the safety requirement and the consequences of proceeding without it — before the withdrawal obligation was triggered, prohibiting both premature withdrawal and indefinite continuation without escalation.
Between the client's initial refusal and Engineer A's decision to proceed
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal
Engineer A identified a material public safety risk (dangerous construction phase without on-site oversight), the client refused the recommended remedy on cost grounds, and Engineer A proceeded without pursuing graduated escalation steps.
Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps — engaging the client in substantive discussion about the construction-phase safety risk, proposing to document the concern formally, and only withdrawing if the client refused all courses of action — rather than silently proceeding after the client's initial cost-driven refusal.
Upon the client's refusal and prior to any decision to proceed with the project
Engineer A Law-Bounded Obligation Non-Limitation Recognition
Law-Bounded Obligation Non-Limitation Recognition Capability
Engineer A needed to recognize that the NSPE Code's safety obligations are not bounded by what state board rules specifically require, and that legal compliance with state board minimum rules does not discharge NSPE Code obligations
The BER explicitly distinguished between state board minimum requirements and NSPE Code higher standards in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
The BER's finding that state board rules may not have specifically required Engineer A's determination, but the NSPE Code did — establishing that Engineer A's obligation was not limited to what state law required
it may very well be that the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct may not specifically require Engineer A to make the determination that was made; however, it appears that the NSPE Code of Ethics does contain provisions which address this point
a code of ethics is of course a statement of commitment from a particular profession to assist its members in the protection of the public health and safety
Engineer A NSPE Section III.1.b Safety-Inclusive Project Success Notification
Engineer A notified the client of the need for the on-site representative (satisfying Section III.1.b notification), but this notification alone was insufficient to discharge the broader safety obligation under Section II.1.a
NSPE Code Section III.1.b Safety-Inclusive Project Success Notification Constraint
Engineer A was required under NSPE Code Section III.1.b to inform the client that the project would not be 'successful' — in the safety sense — if the full-time on-site project representative was not hired, with 'success' interpreted to include not merely structural and economic success but also safety success; Engineer A partially satisfied this constraint by notifying the client of the need for the representative.
Section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful
At the time of and following the client's cost-driven refusal
The term 'successful' includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint
Engineer A NSPE Voluntary Higher Standard Commitment Self-Application
NSPE Voluntary Higher Standard Commitment Self-Application Capability
Engineer A, as an NSPE member, possessed the capability to recognize that voluntary commitment to the NSPE Code imposes a higher standard than state board rules — but failed to apply it when capitulating to client cost pressure
Engineer A's obligation to insist on the on-site representative derived from NSPE Code provisions that exceeded state board minimum requirements
The BER's analysis that state board rules may not have specifically required Engineer A's safety determination, but the NSPE Code did — establishing that Engineer A's obligation derived from voluntary NSPE membership
Engineer A Obligation to Insist or Withdraw
From client's cost-based refusal onward — the decision point Engineer A failed to act upon
Professional Disassociation Decision State
Engineer A's unexercised obligation to either insist on the safety measure or refuse to continue work
Would have been terminated by Engineer A insisting on the representative or withdrawing from the project; instead Engineer A proceeded
Client's rejection of safety recommendation combined with Engineer A's genuine belief that proceeding without the representative was potentially dangerous
Engineer A Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Supremacy Application Failure
Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Supremacy Application Capability
Engineer A failed to apply the normative hierarchy that places public safety paramount over client economic interests, allowing client cost concerns to displace the paramount safety obligation
The BER's analysis of Section II.1.a establishes that the paramount safety obligation supersedes client economic interests in this context
Engineer A's capitulation to client cost pressure, which the BER characterized as treating client economic concerns as primary rather than public safety
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Failure
Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that going along without dissent or comment after the client's cost-driven refusal did not satisfy the professional ethical obligation, and that passive acquiescence to the known safety risk constituted an independent ethical failure.
Engineer A's conduct — making the recommendation once and then proceeding without further action when refused — is the paradigm case of passive acquiescence that the BER identified as ethically insufficient.
Engineer A proceeded with the project without any affirmative insistence on corrective action or withdrawal from the engagement after the client refused the safety staffing recommendation.
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
Engineer A notified the client of the need for a full-time on-site representative, but after the client refused on cost grounds, Engineer A treated that notification as a discharged obligation and proceeded, which constitutes passive acquiescence as an independent ethical violation.
Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that proceeding with the project after the client's cost-driven refusal — without further insistence, escalation, or withdrawal — constituted an independent ethical failure of passive acquiescence, separate from any failure to formally report, because the paramount public welfare obligation required active insistence rather than silent compliance.
From the moment Engineer A proceeded with the project after the client's refusal
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Construction Phase
Engineer A continued project work after client refused on-site representative, treating silence as an acceptable response to a known safety deficiency
Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
Engineer A's passive acquiescence — proceeding with the project without dissent or comment after the client refused the safety recommendation — constituted an independent ethical violation distinct from any failure to report to external authorities, prohibiting silent continuation as an ethically neutral response.
Throughout the construction phase following client's refusal
Engineer A did not recognize this primary obligation
Engineer A Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal
After the client refused the safety staffing recommendation on cost grounds, Engineer A had a duty to persist in persuasion efforts before treating the matter as resolved and proceeding with the project.
Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to continue pursuing substantive discussions with the client — presenting the technical basis for the safety determination, the nature and magnitude of the construction-phase risk, and the consequences of proceeding without a full-time on-site representative — before either withdrawing from the project or proceeding without the recommended safety measure.
Between the client's cost-driven refusal and any decision to proceed or withdraw
Engineer A Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Failure
Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to continue pursuing substantive discussions with the client about the danger to future residents and the general public before either achieving client compliance or withdrawing from the project.
The case presents a single recommendation followed by immediate acquiescence — no evidence of persistent persuasion efforts before proceeding.
Engineer A made a single recommendation and, upon client refusal, simply proceeded with the project without further persuasion efforts or withdrawal.
Engineer A Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to continue pursuing substantive discussions with the client about the safety determination before withdrawing, but instead immediately capitulated without further persuasion effort
The BER's analysis implies that Engineer A should have pursued further discussion before either insisting or withdrawing — the graduated escalation approach
Engineer A proceeded without dissent after the client's cost objection, forgoing the graduated persuasion process that should precede withdrawal
If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
Engineer A Proceeds Without Objection After Safety Refusal
From Engineer A's decision to proceed through project completion
Engineer A continuing project work after client refuses the recommended on-site safety representative, without further escalation or disassociation
Engineer A escalates, disassociates, or project concludes
Engineer A proceeds with his work on the project after the client rejects the safety representative recommendation
Engineer A Professional Withdrawal Decision Failure
Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to recognize that continued work on the project — after the client's cost-driven refusal of the safety staffing recommendation — constituted ethical acquiescence to unsafe conditions, and to act on that recognition by withdrawing from the project.
Withdrawal was the appropriate last resort after the client's refusal and after persistent persuasion efforts — Engineer A exercised neither.
Engineer A proceeded with the project rather than withdrawing after the client refused the full-time on-site representative recommendation.
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Cost-Override Prohibition
Engineer A determined a full-time on-site project representative was necessary for a dangerous construction phase; client refused on cost grounds; Engineer A proceeded without insistence or withdrawal
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from abandoning the professionally grounded safety recommendation for a full-time on-site project representative when the client raised cost objections, because the primary obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.a is to public safety, not to the client's economic concerns.
From the moment the client refused the on-site representative recommendation through project completion
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Obligation Construction Phase
Engineer A's primary obligation under Section II.1.a was to public safety; client's cost concerns displaced this obligation in Engineer A's conduct
Engineer A was constrained by the foundational engineering canon to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount over the client's economic interests, prohibiting Engineer A from proceeding with a construction project that Engineer A had determined posed danger to workers and the public without adequate safety oversight.
Throughout the project, particularly after client's cost-driven refusal
Under the facts of this case, it appears that Engineer A did not recognize this primary obligation
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Failure
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer A failed to recognize that the primary obligation to protect public safety must override client economic concerns, allowing cost pressure to displace the paramount safety obligation
The BER found that Engineer A acted as though the primary obligation was to the client's economic concerns rather than to public safety — a violation of Section II.1.a
Engineer A's capitulation to client cost concerns after making a professional safety determination, which the BER found to indicate that Engineer A treated client economic concerns as primary rather than public safety
it appears that Engineer A did not recognize this primary obligation
Engineer A Resource Constraint Client Budget Limitation On-Site Representative
Client refused to fund on-site representative on cost grounds; this resource constraint was improperly treated by Engineer A as overriding the safety obligation
The client's budget limitation — unwillingness to fund a full-time on-site project representative — constituted a resource constraint on the project, but this resource constraint did not override Engineer A's ethical obligation to insist on the safety measure or withdraw; resource constraints cannot justify abandonment of paramount safety obligations.
Client cost-driven refusal; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a
When the client indicated that the project would be too costly if a full-time, on-site project representative were hired
Throughout the construction phase planning and execution
Engineer A Safety-Inclusive Project Success Interpretation
Safety-Inclusive Project Success Interpretation Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to interpret 'project success' under Section III.1.b to include safety success, and partially exercised it by notifying the client of the need for an on-site representative
Engineer A's notification to the client about the on-site representative need was found to satisfy Section III.1.b, but the subsequent capitulation violated Section II.1.a
Engineer A notified the client of the need for a full-time on-site project representative, satisfying the Section III.1.b notification duty — but did not follow through with insistence or withdrawal when the client refused
it is clear from the facts that Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the construction phase of the project. Therefore, Engineer A did act in accordance with Section III.1.b.
Engineer A Voluntary Membership Full Code Acceptance NSPE Safety Standard
Engineer A as NSPE member voluntarily committed to higher standard than state board minimum; this commitment is unconditional
Voluntary Membership Full Code Acceptance Non-Selective Compliance Constraint
As a voluntary NSPE member, Engineer A accepted the full NSPE Code of Ethics without selective application, including the higher safety standard under Section II.1.a that goes beyond what the state board's rules may specifically require, prohibiting Engineer A from invoking the voluntary nature of NSPE membership as a basis for applying only the lower state board standard.
NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE Membership Commitment
it appears that the NSPE Code of Ethics does contain provisions which address this point
Engineer A Whistleblower Employment Loss Acceptance Construction Safety Staffing
Engineer A's decision to proceed rather than insist or withdraw may have been influenced by the prospect of losing the client relationship; this economic self-interest cannot override the safety obligation
Whistleblower Employment Loss Acceptance Mandatory Cost Constraint
Engineer A was required to accept the potential loss of the client relationship and project revenue as a mandatory cost of fulfilling the obligation to insist on the safety measure or withdraw from the project, prohibiting Engineer A from treating the prospect of losing the client as a sufficient justification for abandoning the safety determination.
Engineer A hired for complete engineering services before Engineer A recommends on-site project representative
Engineer A proceeds with work before construction phase
Engineer A recommends on-site project representative before client reviews completed project plans and costs
Engineer A recommends on-site project representative before construction phase
Engineer A's initial recommendation before Engineer A abandons ethical duty
Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked Against Client Cost-Based Override of Safety Judgment
Engineer A's response to client cost objection to full-time on-site representative
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Client cost concerns — however legitimate from a business standpoint — do not constitute an ethical justification for Engineer A to abandon a professionally determined safety requirement; the existence of client economic pressure does not subordinate Engineer A's professional safety obligations
Client economic pressure is analogous to organizational pressure in that neither type of pressure provides ethical justification for abandoning a safety determination; the engineer's professional obligations are not subordinated by client convenience or cost concerns
Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project.
Pressure resistance obligation prevails; Engineer A's capitulation to client cost pressure was found to be a violation of the primary public safety obligation
Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked Against Engineer A Yielding to Client Cost Objection
Engineer A's response to client's cost-based refusal of safety staffing recommendation
The client's cost objection to hiring a full-time on-site representative constitutes financial pressure that Engineer A was ethically required to resist; proceeding after this cost-based refusal represents impermissible subordination of professional safety judgment to client economic preferences
Client cost concerns, however legitimate from a business perspective, do not constitute an ethical justification for abandoning a safety recommendation that Engineer A determined was necessary due to the dangerous construction phase
Financial pressure from client does not override professional safety obligations; Engineer A was required to maintain the safety recommendation despite cost objections
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than State Board Rules Engineer A Construction Project
The state board's rules may not have specifically required Engineer A's safety staffing determination, but the NSPE Code of Ethics contains provisions — particularly Section II.1.a — that address and require it.
Ethics Code Supersession of Legal Minimum Safety Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that even if the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct did not specifically require the determination that a full-time on-site representative was necessary, the NSPE Code of Ethics establishes a higher standard of conduct that does impose this obligation.
It may very well be that the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct may not specifically require Engineer A to make the determination that was made; however, it appears that the NSPE Code of Ethics does contain provisions which address this point.
At the time Engineer A made the professional judgment that a full-time on-site representative was necessary
engineers have the desire and commitment to 'go the extra mile,' and voluntarily commit themselves to a higher standard of conduct.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Invoked for NSPE vs State Board Distinction
Distinction between state board rules and NSPE Code obligations for Engineer A's conduct
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
The state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct may not specifically require Engineer A's determination that a full-time on-site representative was necessary, but the NSPE Code of Ethics contains provisions that do address this obligation — demonstrating that the ethics code sets a higher standard than the regulatory minimum
Compliance with state registration board rules is necessary but not sufficient to discharge NSPE Code obligations; the ethics code represents a voluntary commitment to a higher standard reflecting the profession's aspirational commitment to public protection
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
it may very well be that the state engineering registration board's rules of professional conduct may not specifically require Engineer A to make the determination that was made; however, it appears that the NSPE Code of Ethics does contain provisions which address this point.
NSPE Code obligations prevail as the higher standard; state board compliance does not discharge NSPE Code duties
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked for Project Success Risk Communication
Engineer A's initial notification to client about on-site representative need
Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent notification obligation by informing the client that a full-time on-site project representative would be necessary for the dangerous construction project — this notification was compliant with Section III.1.b. requiring engineers to inform clients when a project will not be successful
The faithful agent notification obligation was satisfied by Engineer A's initial communication — the ethical violation arose not from failure to notify but from subsequent passive acquiescence after the client rejected the recommendation
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
Notification was compliant but insufficient — the faithful agent obligation to notify was met, but the public safety obligation required further insistence beyond mere notification
It is clear from the facts that Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the construction phase of the project
Therefore, Engineer A did act in accordance with Section III.1.b.
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked to Define Boundary of Engineer A's Client Loyalty
Engineer A's contractual obligation to provide complete engineering services versus the public safety obligation to not proceed under dangerous conditions
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
Engineer A was retained to provide complete engineering services and had a faithful agent obligation to the client, but this obligation was bounded by the non-waivable public safety duty — the faithful agent role did not require or permit Engineer A to proceed under conditions Engineer A had identified as dangerous simply because the client objected to the cost of adequate safety measures
The faithful agent role defines the normal scope of Engineer A's client obligations but does not extend to executing work under conditions the engineer has determined to be dangerous; the ethical limits of the faithful agent role are reached when client instructions conflict with public safety
The client plans a project and hires Engineer A to furnish complete engineering services for the project.
Faithful agent obligations are bounded by public safety obligations; Engineer A's duty to complete the project does not override the duty to refuse proceeding under dangerous conditions
After the client refused to fund the on-site representative, Engineer A proceeded with work on the project without further comment, insistence, or disassociation — constituting the 'going-along' violation identified in BER Case 84-5.
Engineer A was prohibited from silently proceeding with the project — without dissent, insistence, escalation, or withdrawal — after the client refused the safety-protective measure (full-time on-site representative); such passive continuation constituted an independent ethical violation distinct from any failure to report to external authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a; BER Case 84-5 (going-along principle)
From the moment Engineer A received the client's cost-driven refusal and chose to proceed without objection
Going-Along Prohibition Engineer A Post-Client-Cost-Refusal Construction Phase
After the client refused to hire the on-site representative on cost grounds, Engineer A proceeded with the work without forcing the issue, insisting on compliance, or withdrawing — constituting a 'going along' in violation of the paramount public welfare obligation.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from 'going along' — proceeding with the construction project without dissent or comment — after the client refused to hire the full-time on-site project representative that Engineer A had identified as necessary for the dangerous construction phase.
Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired.
After the client's refusal to hire the full-time on-site representative and Engineer A's decision to proceed with the project
Instead, Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment.
Going-Along Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A After Client Cost Refusal
Engineer A's silent continuation of project work after client rejected safety staffing recommendation on cost grounds
After identifying the dangerous nature of the construction phase and recommending a full-time on-site representative, Engineer A accepted the client's cost-based refusal and proceeded without further dissent, insistence, or escalation — the paradigmatic 'going along' prohibited when safety concerns are genuine
Engineer A's verbal recommendation, once refused, required continued advocacy, formal documentation, or withdrawal — not silent compliance with the client's cost-driven decision to forgo safety measures
Going-Along Prohibition When Safety Concerns Are Real
Going-along is prohibited regardless of client economic pressure; Engineer A was required to persist in advocacy or withdraw
Going-Along Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A Post-Client-Refusal
Engineer A's continuation of project work after client refused on-site representative recommendation
Engineer A's genuine safety concern — that the dangerous construction project required a full-time on-site representative — was rejected by the client on cost grounds, and Engineer A then proceeded without dissent or comment, which constitutes the ethically prohibited 'going along' behavior
The Board's finding that Engineer A 'went along without dissent or comment' is the paradigm case of the going-along prohibition — the engineer's safety concerns were real, the client rejected them, and the engineer proceeded as if the concerns did not exist
Engineer A 'went along' without dissent or comment. If Engineer A's ethical concerns were real, which we presume they were, Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
Going-along prohibition prevails; the engineer cannot treat client economic rejection of a safety recommendation as ethically equivalent to the safety concern being resolved
Insistence on Client Remedial Action Invoked for On-Site Representative Requirement
Engineer A's post-notification obligation regarding on-site project representative
After notifying the client that a full-time on-site project representative was necessary, Engineer A was obligated to insist that the client act on that recommendation — not merely note it and proceed — and upon client refusal, to refuse to continue work on the project
The insistence obligation is triggered by the combination of: (1) a professionally determined safety requirement, (2) client notification, and (3) client refusal — at that point, mere notification is insufficient and the engineer must actively insist or withdraw
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
Insistence obligation prevails; the faithful agent role does not require the engineer to proceed with work believed to be dangerous
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A in evaluating professional obligations after client rejection of safety recommendation
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations when the client declines the on-site project representative recommendation due to cost, and Engineer A proceeds with the project despite the identified safety risk during construction.
NSPE Code Section II.1.a - Public Safety Primary Obligation
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.1.a
Engineer A was in violation of Section II.1.a
Establishes the engineer's primary obligation to protect public safety, health, property, and welfare; used to find Engineer A in violation for abandoning safety recommendation under client cost pressure
NSPE Code Section III.1.b - Notification of Unsuccessful Project
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.1.b
Engineer A did act in accordance with Section III.1.b
Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative
Requires engineers to inform clients when a project will not be successful, interpreted broadly to include safety success; used to find Engineer A compliant in initially notifying the client of the need for an on-site representative
it is for that reason that the NSPE Code of Ethics was developed and continues to develop as a force in engineering ethics
such an approach is the only one that would be consistent with the Code of Ethics
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's conduct
Primary normative authority for evaluating Engineer A's obligation to insist on a full-time on-site project representative or withdraw from the project when the client refused; Sections II.1.a and III.1.b are specifically cited
The client refused to fund the on-site representative solely on cost grounds. Engineer A's obligation to public safety prohibited acquiescence to this economic override of a professionally required safety measure.
Engineer A was prohibited from abandoning the professionally grounded safety recommendation for a full-time on-site project representative and continuing work on the project simply because the client determined the cost was too high; the client's economic objection could not override Engineer A's paramount duty to public safety.
From the client's cost-driven refusal through project completion
Engineer A identified a dangerous construction phase requiring a full-time on-site representative, the client refused on cost grounds, and Engineer A proceeded without active insistence or withdrawal — the paradigm case of passive acquiescence as an independent ethical violation.
Engineer A was prohibited from passively acquiescing — going along without dissent or active insistence — after identifying the dangerous construction-phase condition and receiving the client's refusal to fund the required safety oversight; passive non-objection in the face of a known safety deficiency constituted an independent ethical failure.
Throughout the period Engineer A continued project work after the client's refusal
Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification Invoked Against Engineer A
Engineer A's decision to proceed with project after client refused on-site safety representative recommendation
Engineer A notified the client of the need for a full-time on-site representative due to the dangerous construction phase, but after the client refused on cost grounds, Engineer A simply proceeded with the project — constituting passive acquiescence that is an independent ethical violation beyond the initial notification
The single verbal recommendation, once refused, did not discharge Engineer A's public safety obligation; proceeding without further insistence or withdrawal constitutes an independent ethical failure
Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure
Passive acquiescence is not ethically permissible after a safety recommendation is refused; the engineer must insist or withdraw
Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure Engineer A On-Site Representative Refusal
Engineer A notified the client of the safety need but then passively acquiesced to the client's cost-driven refusal, proceeding with the work without further insistence or withdrawal, thereby treating notification as a discharged obligation when active insistence was required.
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that proceeding with the project without dissent or comment after the client refused to hire the on-site representative — despite Engineer A's belief that proceeding without one would be potentially dangerous — constituted an independent ethical failure beyond mere failure to report, requiring active insistence rather than silent compliance.
From the moment Engineer A proceeded with the project after the client's refusal without further insistence or withdrawal
Engineer A acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that Engineer A believed that to proceed, without an on-site project representative, would be potentially dangerous.
Proceed Without Safety Representative → Public Safety Obligation Violated
Professional Judgment Abandonment Under Cost Pressure Invoked Against Engineer A
Engineer A's abandonment of on-site representative recommendation after client cost objection
Engineer A formed a professional judgment — based on education, expertise, and experience — that a full-time on-site representative was necessary due to the dangerous nature of the project, communicated that judgment to the client, and then abandoned it when the client raised cost concerns, proceeding as though the safety determination had been resolved rather than merely overridden by economic preference
The abandonment of a completed, communicated professional safety judgment in response to client economic pressure — rather than new technical information — constitutes an independent ethical violation because it converts the engineer's primary obligation from public safety to client cost management
Professional Judgment Abandonment Under Client Economic Pressure Prohibition
Engineer A made a professional judgment based upon education, expertise, and experience that a full-time, on-site project representative would be necessary during the construction phase of the project because of the dangerous nature of the project. However, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project.
The prohibition on abandoning professional safety judgment prevails; client economic concerns cannot serve as a basis for reversing a professionally determined safety requirement
Project Client Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
{'cost_objection': True, 'safety_staffing_refused': True, 'project_type': 'unspecified construction project'}
The client hires Engineer A for complete engineering services, is advised that a full-time on-site project representative is needed due to the dangerous construction phase, and refuses to authorize this safety measure on grounds of cost, thereby pressuring Engineer A to abandon the safety recommendation.
the client plans a project and hires Engineer A to furnish complete engineering services
Project Client Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client Faithful Agent Boundary
Faithful Agent Public Safety Paramount Classical Dilemma Recognition Capability
Engineer A faced the classical dilemma between faithful agent duty to the cost-objecting client and the paramount public safety obligation, and failed to correctly resolve it in favor of public safety
The case presents the classical tension between client loyalty and public safety paramountcy, resolved by the BER in favor of public safety
Engineer A's capitulation to the client's cost-driven refusal, treating client economic interests as primary rather than recognizing that the paramount safety obligation supersedes faithful agent duties in this context
Project Hazard Recognized → Recommend On-Site Representative
Project Success Safety-Inclusive Notification Engineer A Client Refusal
Engineer A notified the client of the need for a full-time on-site project representative for the dangerous construction phase; this notification satisfied Section III.1.b's requirement to advise the client when the project will not be successful.
Engineer A was obligated under NSPE Code Section III.1.b to inform the client that the project would not be 'successful' — in the safety sense — if a full-time on-site project representative was not hired, recognizing that success encompasses safety outcomes, not merely structural and economic completion.
Section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful.
When Engineer A determined that the construction phase was dangerous and required a full-time on-site representative
It is clear from the facts that Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the construction phase of the project.
The term 'successful' includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint.
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse Invoked as Engineer A's Required Response
Engineer A's available ethical options after client refused on-site safety representative on cost grounds
Complete Design Delivery Obligation in Full-Service Engineering Contracts
When the client refused to hire a full-time on-site representative that Engineer A had determined was necessary due to the dangerous construction phase, Engineer A's ethically required recourse was to withdraw from the project rather than proceed under conditions Engineer A had identified as dangerous
Engineer A cannot lend professional credibility to a project conducted under conditions Engineer A has determined to be dangerous; withdrawal was the required ethical response to the client's refusal
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse When Safety Standards Rejected
Project withdrawal is the ethically required response when safety standards are irreconcilably rejected; contractual completion obligations do not override this duty
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse Invoked for Engineer A Dangerous Project
Engineer A's options upon client refusal to hire on-site project representative
When the client refused to hire the full-time on-site project representative that Engineer A had professionally determined was necessary for the dangerous construction project, Engineer A's ethical recourse was to insist on the safety measure or refuse to continue work — not to proceed under the inadequate safety arrangement
The Board explicitly states that Engineer A 'should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project' — establishing project withdrawal as the appropriate ethical response when client refuses a professionally determined safety requirement
Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project. While this might appear to be a harsh result, we think that such an approach is the only one that would be consistent with the Code of Ethics.
Project withdrawal obligation prevails over continuation of client service when the client refuses a safety measure the engineer has professionally determined to be necessary
The construction phase was identified as potentially dangerous, requiring a full-time on-site representative. The client's cost-driven refusal did not extinguish Engineer A's paramount obligation to public safety.
Engineer A was constrained by the foundational engineering canon that public safety, health, and welfare must be held paramount — prohibiting Engineer A from proceeding with a construction project that posed danger to workers and the public without the safety oversight measure Engineer A had professionally determined was necessary.
Throughout the construction phase of the project
Public Safety at Risk from Dangerous Construction Without Oversight
From commencement of construction phase without on-site representative through project completion
a full-time, on-site project representative would be necessary during the construction phase of the project because of the dangerous nature of the project
General public and construction workers exposed to danger from project proceeding without required safety oversight
Project completion or implementation of adequate safety oversight
Construction commenced on a project Engineer A characterized as dangerous without the professionally recommended full-time on-site safety representative
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked Against Engineer A Cost-Capitulation
Engineer A's decision to proceed with dangerous construction project after client refused on-site representative
Engineer A's primary obligation was to protect the public safety, health, property, and welfare — an obligation that was violated when Engineer A abandoned the professionally determined safety recommendation (full-time on-site project representative) in response to client cost objections and proceeded with the dangerous project without insisting on the safety measure
The paramount nature of public safety means that when an engineer has determined a safety measure is necessary, client economic objections cannot override that determination — the engineer's primary obligation runs to the public, not to client cost management
Section II.1.a. admonishes engineers to recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the public safety, health, property, and welfare. Under the facts of this case, it appears that Engineer A did not recognize this primary obligation.
Public welfare obligation was deemed to override client economic concerns; Engineer A's capitulation to cost pressure constituted a violation of Section II.1.a. because it subordinated public safety to client convenience
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked Against Engineer A Proceeding After Safety Recommendation Refused
Decision to proceed with dangerous construction phase project after client refused safety staffing recommendation
Engineer A identified the construction phase as potentially dangerous and recommended a full-time on-site representative, but proceeded with the project after the client refused on cost grounds — directly subordinating the public safety obligation to client economic preferences
The paramount public safety obligation requires Engineer A to hold the safety of construction workers and the public above the client's cost concerns; proceeding after the safety recommendation was refused constitutes a violation of this paramount duty
Public welfare obligation is paramount and cannot be overridden by client cost objections; Engineer A was required to insist or withdraw, not proceed
Public Welfare Paramount Obligation Engineer A Cost-Capitulation Violation
Engineer A made a professional judgment that a full-time on-site representative was necessary due to the dangerous nature of the construction phase, but abandoned this judgment when the client raised cost concerns, thereby subordinating the paramount public welfare obligation to the client's economic concerns.
Engineer A was obligated under NSPE Code Section II.1.a to hold paramount the protection of the public safety, health, property, and welfare — an obligation violated when Engineer A abandoned the professional safety recommendation and proceeded with the project after the client refused to hire a full-time on-site representative on cost grounds.
Section II.1.a. admonishes engineers to recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the public safety, health, property, and welfare.
When the client refused to hire the on-site representative and Engineer A proceeded with the project without insistence or withdrawal
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests that the primary obligation was not the public but the client's economic concerns.
For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Section II.1.a.
Under the facts of this case, it appears that Engineer A did not recognize this primary obligation.
Was it ethical for Engineer A to proceed with his work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time project representative?
Was Engineer A's initial recommendation of a full-time on-site project representative sufficient to discharge his safety obligation, or did the ethical duty require him to take further escalating steps—such as written documentation, repeated insistence, or formal notification to authorities—before the client's refusal could trigger a withdrawal decision?
Does the 'potentially dangerous nature' of the construction phase create an absolute threshold—one that categorically prohibits proceeding without the recommended safeguard—or is it a graduated risk assessment that might permit continuation under alternative mitigation measures short of a full-time on-site representative?
What obligation, if any, did Engineer A have to notify third parties—such as the state engineering registration board, construction workers, or the general public—once the client refused the safety recommendation and Engineer A chose to continue work?
To what extent does the client's cost-based refusal shift moral responsibility for any resulting harm from Engineer A to the client, and does such a shift—even if partial—alter the ethical calculus of whether Engineer A was obligated to withdraw?
Does the Faithful Agent Obligation—requiring Engineer A to serve the client's legitimate interests, including cost management—conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when the client's cost-driven decision directly undermines a safety measure Engineer A identified as necessary, and if so, which principle must yield and under what conditions?
Does the Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse principle conflict with the Insistence on Client Remedial Action principle—that is, is Engineer A required first to exhaust all means of persuading the client before withdrawal becomes ethically permissible, or does the severity of the identified danger make immediate withdrawal the only defensible response?
Does the Going-Along Prohibition—which condemns passive acquiescence after a safety recommendation is refused—conflict with the Engineer Pressure Resistance principle in cases where Engineer A might argue that continuing work while documenting objections constitutes active, rather than passive, resistance to the client's override?
Does the Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum principle create a tension with the Faithful Agent Obligation when state registration board rules may permit an engineer to continue work after documenting a safety objection, while the NSPE Code demands withdrawal—and how should Engineer A navigate the gap between these two normative frameworks?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a categorical duty to protect public safety by continuing work after the client refused the on-site safety representative, regardless of whether harm ultimately resulted?
From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's decision to proceed without the on-site representative produce a net harm by exposing workers and the public to foreseeable danger, even if no accident ultimately occurred, given that the probability and severity of harm were known at the time of the decision?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a competent engineer by acquiescing to the client's cost-driven refusal rather than insisting on the safety measure or withdrawing from the project?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to the client have a hard ethical ceiling defined by public safety obligations, such that client loyalty cannot justify proceeding with a project the engineer has already identified as dangerously under-supervised?
Would Engineer A's ethical standing have been preserved if, instead of simply proceeding, he had formally documented the client's refusal in writing, notified the client in writing that the project carried unacceptable risk without the on-site representative, and conditioned continued involvement on the client's acceptance of that documented risk?
What if Engineer A had refused to continue work immediately upon the client's cost-based rejection of the on-site representative — would that withdrawal have fully discharged his ethical obligations, or would he have had additional duties to notify relevant authorities about the dangerous project?
Would the ethical outcome have differed if Engineer A had proposed a cost-reduced alternative safety measure — such as a part-time representative or periodic inspections — rather than accepting the client's outright refusal, thereby exhausting intermediate options before facing the binary choice of insistence or withdrawal?
What if Engineer A had not been a member of NSPE — would the ethical analysis change under the minimum standards of state engineering registration board rules alone, and does the existence of a higher voluntary standard under the NSPE Code create a meaningful distinction in how Engineer A's conduct should be judged?
Recommendation Rejected by Client → Proceed Without Safety Representative
State Engineering Registration Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in distinguishing regulatory minimum from professional ethical standard
Referenced as a comparator to the NSPE Code; noted as potentially not specifically requiring Engineer A's determination about on-site representation, contrasting with the higher voluntary standard of the NSPE Code
Voluntary Ethics Code Higher Standard Commitment Engineer A NSPE Member
The NSPE Code was developed because engineers voluntarily commit to a higher standard of conduct beyond legal minimums; Engineer A's obligation under the Code exceeded what the state board's rules of professional conduct may have specifically required.
As an NSPE member, Engineer A was obligated to recognize that voluntary commitment to the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes a higher standard of conduct than the legal minimum established by state engineering registration board rules, and that this higher standard required active insistence on safety staffing or project withdrawal beyond what the state board rules may have required.
Throughout Engineer A's engagement on the project as an NSPE member
It is for that reason that the NSPE Code of Ethics was developed and continues to develop as a force in engineering ethics.
client rejects recommendation meets Engineer A proceeds with work
client reviews completed project plans and costs meets client rejects recommendation
planning/design phase before construction phase