ProEthica Case 93 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.010665
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Accept Engagement Without Certificate
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Owner, XYZ Engineering, State Q
foreseen unintended effects: Competitive disadvantage if violation is reported and project is disrupted
foreseen unintended effects: Potential inability to collect payment for services rendered
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of being unable to enforce contracts or seek court redress in State P
foreseen unintended effects: Risk of exposure to state licensure board sanctions
fulfills obligation text: Pursuit of professional engagement within claimed area of competence
fulfills obligation text: Responsiveness to client need
guided by principle text: Honest and lawful conduct in professional business dealings
guided by principle text: Legal compliance as prerequisite to professional practice
guided by principle text: Public protection through licensure systems
has agent: Engineer X
has mental state: deliberate regarding acceptance of engagement; potentially inadvertent regarding the certificate of authority requirement
intended outcome: Secure and service a new client in State P, generating revenue for XYZ Engineering
requires capability text: Administrative capability to apply for and obtain out-of-state certificates of authority
requires capability text: Due diligence in verifying legal authorization to practice in a new jurisdiction
requires capability text: Knowledge of multi-state licensure and certificate of authority requirements
temporal marker: Prior to project commencement, at time of engagement acceptance
temporal sequence: 2
violates obligation text: Compliance with state engineering licensure laws and regulations of State P
violates obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to perform services only in areas of competence and within legal authorization
violates obligation text: Obligation to hold valid certificate of authority before practicing engineering in a jurisdiction
violates obligation text: Professional obligation to protect public interest through proper licensure identification
within competence: true
comment: Engineer X accepted a commission to provide engineering services for Client L in State P without first obtaining a certificate of authority to practice engineering in that state. This constitutes a deliberate business decision to proceed with a project across state lines without fulfilling the prerequisite licensure requirement.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Accept Engagement Without Certificate (Action 1) → Licensure Violation Occurs (Event 1)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer X accepted a commission to provide engineering services for Client L in State P without first obtaining the required certificate of authority, thereby initiating unlicensed practice
cause: Accept Engagement Without Certificate (Action 1)
counterfactual: Had Engineer X obtained the certificate of authority prior to accepting the commission, or declined the engagement until properly licensed, no violation would have occurred
effect: Licensure Violation Occurs (Event 1)
necessary factors: Absence of a valid certificate of authority in State P at time of engagement
necessary factors: Engineer X's volitional decision to accept the commission
necessary factors: State P's legal requirement for a certificate of authority to practice engineering
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer X (XYZ Engineering)
sufficient factors: Combination of accepting commission + lack of certificate + existence of state licensure law = violation occurs automatically upon commencement of services
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

BER 96-8 Peer Review Confidentiality vs. Safety Reporting Tension
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityAgreementBoundState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Review Engineer A's signing of the confidentiality agreement through the Board's determination that safety reporting supersedes confidentiality
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Peer review program
affectedparties: Review Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Review Engineer A was asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreement' whereby he agreed not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
stateclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Bound State
subject: Review Engineer A's confidentiality obligation under the peer review program agreement
terminatedby: Board determination that public safety violation reporting obligation supersedes confidentiality when genuine danger exists
textreferences: Review Engineer A was asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreement' whereby he agreed not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
textreferences: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
triggeringevent: Review Engineer A signing the confidentiality agreement as a condition of peer reviewer appointment
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.016425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

BER Case 96-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 96-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: A good instructive example of the intersection between these sometimes competing ethical concerns is BER Case 96-8
textreferences: A good instructive example of the intersection between these sometimes competing ethical concerns is BER Case 96-8
textreferences: As illustrated in BER Case 96-8, when an engineer becomes aware of a violation of the state engineering licensure law, the engineer's first ethical obligation may be to refrain from jumping to conclusions
textreferences: Said the Board in Case 96-8, 'assuming from the facts that Review Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements...a more appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B'
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in the present case analysis
usedincontext: Cited as the primary instructive precedent for how an engineer should handle discovery of a potential safety or licensure violation by a professional colleague during peer review — establishing the obligation to first discuss with the offending engineer before escalating to authorities, and addressing the subordination of confidentiality to public safety
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.012272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Case 93 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
type: TemporalEntity
action count: 5
event count: 5
total elements: 10
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Engagement Without Cert
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

CausalLink_Contact Engineer X Directly
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115500
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

CausalLink_Decide Response to Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

CausalLink_Obtain Certificate of Authorit
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115616
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

CausalLink_Report Violation to Authoritie
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Certificate of Authority Obtained
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
causes state change: The licensure violation is resolved; Engineer X is now legally authorized to practice in State P; Client L's engagement is legitimized; Engineer A's reporting obligation is discharged; the regulatory system's protective function is restored
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_X_Must_Comply_with_State_P_Practice_Standards
creates obligation: Engineer_X_Must_Maintain_Certificate_Renewal
emergency status: routine
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A contacts Engineer X directly and Engineer X takes corrective action; before or concurrent with continued project work
temporal sequence: 9
urgency level: low
comment: Engineer X successfully obtains the required certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, resolving the active licensure violation and legitimizing the ongoing engagement with Client L.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011975
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Client L Former Client Now Retaining Competitor
type: FormerClientNowRetainingCompetitorStakeholder
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'location': 'State P', 'prior_relationship': 'Former client of ABC Engineering (Engineer A)'}
caseinvolvement: Client L, located in State P, is a former client of ABC Engineering who has retained XYZ Engineering for a project in State P, unknowingly engaging a firm without a certificate of authority to practice in the state.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:45.292690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:45.292690+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'current_client_of', 'target': 'Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Former Client Now Retaining Competitor Stakeholder
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.014368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Client L's relationship with Engineer A before Client L retaining Engineer X
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm...Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L
from entity text: Client L's relationship with Engineer A
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Client L retaining Engineer X
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Client L retaining Engineer X
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Client Relationship Transferred
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Client_Confidentiality_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Courtesy_Constraint
causes state change: Client L moves from active client of Engineer A to former client; Engineer A's ongoing professional duties to Client L cease; Engineer X assumes the client relationship and associated professional responsibilities
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Improperly_Solicit_Return_of_Client
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Respect_Client_Autonomy
emergency status: low
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: Prior to or concurrent with Engineer X's engagement, before the violation is discovered
temporal sequence: 1
urgency level: low
comment: Client L, previously served by Engineer A of ABC Engineering in State P, transitions to retaining Engineer X of XYZ Engineering in State Q, severing the prior professional relationship.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Client Relationship Transferred (Event 2) → Violation Discovered by Engineer A (Event 3)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Client L's transition from ABC Engineering to XYZ Engineering places Engineer A in a position of awareness regarding the successor firm's activities, creating the conditions under which Engineer A discovers the certificate of authority deficiency
cause: Client Relationship Transferred (Event 2)
counterfactual: Had Engineer X obtained the certificate of authority before beginning services, Engineer A would have discovered no violation even upon learning of the client transfer
effect: Violation Discovered by Engineer A (Event 3)
necessary factors: Client L's prior relationship with Engineer A and ABC Engineering
necessary factors: Engineer A's access to information about XYZ Engineering's practice in State P
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional familiarity with State P's licensure requirements
necessary factors: XYZ Engineering's failure to obtain the certificate of authority before practicing
responsibility type: indirect
responsible agent: Engineer X (XYZ Engineering) as root cause; Engineer A as discovering party
sufficient factors: Combination of Engineer A's prior client relationship + knowledge of state requirements + XYZ Engineering's visible unlicensed practice = discovery of violation
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026185
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard — Present Case Application
type: CollegialNotificationBeforeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER Case 96-8 and professional practice norms)
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Professional Norm of Collegial Direct Communication Prior to Regulatory Reporting
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard
sourcetext: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
textreferences: Assuming Engineer X is a reasonable and prudent individual, we believe Engineer A's counsel to Engineer X would be all that would be necessary to convince Engineer X to take all appropriate steps to obtain the certificate of authority
textreferences: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
textreferences: potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in guiding Engineer A's response to Engineer X's potential violation
usedincontext: Applied by the Board to conclude that Engineer A's first obligation upon discovering Engineer X's failure to obtain a certificate of authority is to communicate directly with Engineer X to explain the requirement and seek voluntary compliance, rather than immediately reporting to the state board
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.012819
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board's first formal determination is that Engineer A must first engage Engineer X directly and collegially to seek clarification before taking any formal reporting action, reflecting the collegial pre-reporting sequencing norm.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 8 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 304
answers question4: 404
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Before initiating collegial contact with Engineer X, Engineer A bears an affirmative epistemic duty to independently verify XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority status through available public records maintained by the State P licensure board. The Board's recommendation to communicate with Engineer X presupposes that Engineer A's belief in the violation is reasonably grounded, not merely speculative or competitively motivated. If Engineer A proceeds to collegial contact — or worse, to formal reporting — on the basis of unverified suspicion, and it subsequently emerges that XYZ Engineering did in fact hold a valid certificate of authority, Engineer A would face serious exposure under Code provision III.7, which prohibits malicious or false injury to a competitor's professional reputation. The verification step is therefore not merely procedurally courteous; it is a threshold ethical obligation that protects Engineer X's rights, preserves Engineer A's own integrity, and ensures that the reporting mechanism is not weaponized through competitive animus. The standard of certainty required is not absolute proof, but it must be sufficient to constitute a reasonable professional judgment — meaning Engineer A should have consulted publicly accessible licensure records and found no certificate of authority on file before treating the matter as a confirmed violation warranting any further action.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.113125
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 201
answers question3: 204
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's graduated sequence — collegial contact first, formal report only if Engineer A remains unsatisfied — implicitly assumes that Engineer A can engage in collegial outreach with motivational integrity despite being a direct competitor who previously served Client L. This assumption deserves explicit scrutiny that the Board did not provide. Engineer A's structural position creates a dual-motivation problem: the same act of reporting simultaneously advances Engineer A's legitimate professional duty and Engineer A's competitive business interest in recovering or retaining Client L's business. Because these motivations are inseparable in outcome, Engineer A cannot resolve the conflict simply by asserting good faith. Instead, Engineer A should apply heightened self-scrutiny at each decision point — asking not only whether a violation appears to exist, but whether the urgency, framing, and sequencing of Engineer A's response would be identical if Engineer X were not a competitor for Client L's work. If Engineer A cannot honestly answer that question affirmatively, the collegial contact should be conducted with particular care to avoid any language that could be construed as leveraging the regulatory situation for competitive advantage, and Engineer A should document the basis for each step taken to demonstrate that the reporting process was driven by professional duty rather than business interest. The Board's framework is sound, but its application requires Engineer A to exercise a degree of self-monitoring that the Board left unstated.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111773
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's recommendation that Engineer A 'may be required' to report to the State P licensure board if unsatisfied with Engineer X's explanation understates the conditionality and clarifies too little about what 'sufficiently satisfied' means in practice. The Board's language implies that formal reporting remains discretionary even after collegial contact fails to resolve the matter, but this reading is difficult to reconcile with Code provision II.1.f, which imposes a reporting obligation on engineers who have knowledge of alleged violations. Once Engineer A has verified the non-compliance and received an explanation from Engineer X that does not establish that XYZ Engineering has obtained or is imminently obtaining a certificate of authority, the violation is no longer merely alleged — it is confirmed and ongoing. At that point, Engineer A's obligation to report to the State P licensure board becomes substantially less discretionary and more mandatory. The word 'may' in the Board's conclusion should therefore be understood as reflecting the contingency of the factual predicate — i.e., whether Engineer X's explanation resolves the matter — rather than as granting Engineer A ongoing discretion to decline reporting once the violation is confirmed. Particularly where the unauthorized practice is willful or continues after collegial notice, the professional reciprocity norm cannot be stretched to justify indefinite forbearance, because doing so would allow ongoing unlicensed practice to harm the public and undermine the licensure system that protects it.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's analysis is silent on Engineer A's obligations toward Client L, yet the facts present a distinct ethical dimension that the Board's two conclusions do not address. Client L is currently receiving engineering services from a firm that lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P, which means Client L may be exposed to legal, contractual, and safety risks arising from that non-compliance — including the possibility that engineering work product produced without proper authorization may be unenforceable, uninsured, or subject to regulatory challenge. While Engineer A's primary reporting obligation runs to the State P licensure board, Code provision I.4 — requiring engineers to act as faithful agents or trustees — and the broader public welfare mandate embedded in the Code suggest that Engineer A has at minimum a duty to consider whether Client L should be made aware of the situation. However, this consideration must be handled with extreme care: proactively contacting Client L to inform it of XYZ Engineering's non-compliance would be ethically permissible only if done in a manner that is factually accurate, professionally measured, and not designed to solicit Client L's business for ABC Engineering. If Engineer A's communication with Client L were framed or timed in a way that exploited the regulatory situation to recover a lost client, it would cross from professional duty into the kind of competitive conduct that Code provision III.7 is designed to prohibit. The Board's silence on this dimension leaves Engineer A without guidance on a genuinely difficult question, and the safest course is for Engineer A to focus on the collegial and regulatory channels the Board identified, rather than independently notifying Client L.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.113275
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's graduated reporting framework — collegial contact preceding formal regulatory report — draws implicit support from the analogous structure established in BER Case 96-8, where a reviewing engineer was directed to discuss safety findings with the engineer under review before escalating to authorities. However, the analogy has a critical limit that the Board did not articulate: in BER 96-8, the confidentiality agreement governing the peer review relationship created a genuine competing obligation that justified a deliberate, sequenced approach. In the present case, no such confidentiality obligation exists between Engineer A and Engineer X. The collegial-first sequence here is grounded not in a competing duty of confidentiality but in professional courtesy, the possibility of inadvertent non-compliance, and the risk that Engineer A's competitive interest might distort a premature formal report. These are legitimate but weaker justifications for delay than those present in BER 96-8. Consequently, the window for collegial resolution in the present case should be understood as narrower and less tolerant of prolonged forbearance than the BER 96-8 framework might suggest. If Engineer X does not respond promptly to collegial contact, or responds in a manner that confirms the violation without committing to immediate remediation, Engineer A's obligation to report to the State P board should be treated as triggered without further delay. The cross-case analogy is instructive but should not be read to import BER 96-8's more extended deliberative tolerance into a context where no confidentiality constraint justifies it.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.113360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 1
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: If Engineer A is not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X's explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: The Board's second formal determination establishes a conditional graduated reporting obligation: if Engineer X's explanation does not satisfy Engineer A, Engineer A may be required to escalate the matter to the state engineering licensure board, invoking the reporting obligation under II.1.f and the conformance with state registration laws under III.8.a.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 8 a
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101, Engineer A does bear an affirmative duty to verify XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority status before treating the matter as a confirmed violation warranting either collegial contact or formal reporting. The epistemic threshold required, however, is not absolute certainty but rather reasonable professional confidence — meaning Engineer A must make a good-faith inquiry into publicly available licensure records in State P, which are typically accessible through the state engineering licensure board's online registry. If those records confirm the absence of a certificate of authority, Engineer A has satisfied the verification obligation and may proceed to collegial contact. Engineer A is not required to conduct an exhaustive investigation or to give Engineer X advance notice before verifying the public record. The verification obligation exists primarily to protect Engineer X from a report grounded in error or assumption, and to protect Engineer A from the professional and ethical consequences of a false or malicious report under Code provision III.7. Once publicly available records confirm non-compliance, the epistemic threshold is met and Engineer A's subsequent obligations are triggered.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.113575
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102, Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of Engineer X — and specifically as the firm that previously served Client L — creates a structural conflict of interest that does not eliminate Engineer A's reporting obligations but does impose a heightened duty of self-scrutiny throughout the decision-making process. The conflict is structural rather than merely incidental because Engineer A stands to benefit materially if XYZ Engineering is removed from the State P market or loses the Client L engagement. This benefit is not hypothetical: it is the direct consequence of a successful report. The ethical framework does not permit Engineer A to suppress the reporting duty on account of competitive motivation, nor does it permit Engineer A to weaponize the reporting mechanism as a competitive tool. The resolution lies in procedural discipline: Engineer A must verify the violation through objective public records rather than assumption, must approach collegial contact with genuine corrective intent rather than as a performative step before an inevitable report, and must examine whether the urgency and framing of any formal report reflects the public interest rather than competitive advantage. The Board's graduated sequence — collegial contact first, formal report only if unsatisfied — is itself a structural safeguard against competitive misuse of the reporting mechanism, because it creates a record of good-faith corrective engagement before escalation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.113673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103, the distinction between inadvertent and willful non-compliance by XYZ Engineering is ethically significant and should affect both the sequencing and the urgency of Engineer A's reporting obligations, though it does not eliminate those obligations in either case. Where non-compliance appears inadvertent — for example, where Engineer X is unaware of State P's certificate of authority requirement or has simply failed to complete the administrative process — the collegial-first approach prescribed by the Board is not only appropriate but ethically required, because it gives Engineer X a meaningful opportunity to cure the violation before formal regulatory consequences attach. The public interest is adequately served by prompt correction, and the profession's interest in collegial self-regulation supports this approach. Where, however, Engineer A has reason to believe the non-compliance is willful — for example, where Engineer X has previously been informed of the requirement and has continued practice without compliance, or where Engineer X explicitly acknowledges the deficiency and refuses to remedy it — the collegial step either collapses into futility or has already been effectively completed. In that circumstance, Engineer A's obligation to report to the State P licensure board becomes more immediate and less discretionary, because the public welfare rationale for graduated response is undermined when the violating party has demonstrated deliberate disregard for jurisdictional licensure requirements. The inadvertent-versus-willful distinction therefore functions as a variable that calibrates the weight Engineer A should give to the collegial step relative to the formal reporting obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.113757
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
cites provision: I 4
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
cited provision3: III.7.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104, Engineer A's ethical obligations toward Client L are more constrained than they might initially appear. The NSPE Code's public welfare provisions create a general duty to protect the public from engineering practice that does not meet jurisdictional requirements, but this duty does not straightforwardly translate into an affirmative obligation for Engineer A to proactively contact Client L and inform them of XYZ Engineering's non-compliance. Several considerations counsel restraint: first, Client L is a former client, not a current one, so Engineer A's fiduciary duty as a faithful agent under Code provision I.4 does not directly apply to this relationship. Second, proactive disclosure to Client L — particularly given Engineer A's competitive interest in recovering that client relationship — risks crossing the line from public welfare protection into conduct that maliciously or falsely injures a competitor's professional reputation under Code provision III.7, especially if the violation is inadvertent and potentially curable. Third, the appropriate mechanism for protecting Client L and the public is the licensure board, not a direct communication from a competitor. Engineer A's obligation to Client L is therefore best discharged indirectly: by following the Board's graduated reporting sequence, which, if it results in a formal report to the State P licensure board, will trigger the regulatory process designed to protect clients and the public from unlicensed practice. Direct contact with Client L by Engineer A would be ethically problematic unless Engineer A had independent reason to believe that Client L faced imminent safety risk from the unlicensed engagement — a circumstance not established by the facts as presented.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.114318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201, the tension between the Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement principle and the Mandatory Reporting Obligation principle is real and is sharpened — though not resolved differently — by Engineer A's competitive interest. The risk that collegial outreach functions as a delay tactic rather than a genuine corrective mechanism is not merely theoretical: Engineer A could use the collegial contact phase to gather information about XYZ Engineering's client relationships, to signal to Client L that XYZ Engineering is non-compliant, or simply to extend the period during which XYZ Engineering is exposed to regulatory risk. The ethical resolution requires that Engineer A treat the collegial contact phase as time-bounded and purpose-specific. Its purpose is to give Engineer X a genuine opportunity to cure the violation or to provide information that changes Engineer A's assessment of whether a violation has occurred. It is not an open-ended deliberative period. If Engineer X responds promptly and demonstrates that corrective action is underway, Engineer A's obligation to report is substantially reduced. If Engineer X is unresponsive, dismissive, or continues practice without remediation, the collegial phase has served its purpose and Engineer A's reporting obligation becomes operative without further delay. The competitive interest does not change this sequencing but does require Engineer A to be especially vigilant that the collegial phase is not being unconsciously extended or instrumentalized in ways that serve competitive rather than corrective ends.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.114406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q301 and Q304 considered together from a deontological perspective, Engineer A does not have an unconditional duty to report immediately to the State P licensure board, but does have a categorical duty to ensure that the epistemic verification obligation does not become a procedural mechanism for indefinite delay. Deontological analysis under a Kantian framework would hold that Engineer A's duty to report unauthorized practice is grounded in the universalizability of the rule that engineers must uphold licensure integrity — a rule that cannot be suspended merely because the reporter has a competitive interest in the outcome. However, the same framework's requirement of fairness to Engineer X as a rational agent entitled to due consideration supports the verification obligation: Engineer A must not report on the basis of assumption or incomplete information, because doing so would treat Engineer X as a means to Engineer A's competitive ends rather than as a professional peer entitled to accurate treatment. The deontological resolution is therefore that the verification obligation is a genuine duty of fairness, not a loophole — but it must be discharged promptly and in good faith. Once verification is complete and collegial contact has been attempted without satisfactory resolution, the duty to report becomes categorical and is not diminished by Engineer A's competitive interest, because the duty's foundation is the integrity of the licensure system and the protection of the public, not the purity of Engineer A's motivation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.114492
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q302, the collegial-first approach prescribed by the Board does reflect the disposition of a professionally virtuous engineer when applied in good faith, but it carries a genuine virtue ethics risk that Engineer A's competitive self-interest masquerades as professional courtesy. Virtue ethics analysis focuses on the character of the agent and the integrity of the motivational structure behind the action, not merely on whether the action conforms to a prescribed sequence. An engineer of genuinely virtuous character would approach the collegial contact with Engineer X from a disposition of professional solidarity — a sincere desire to give a colleague the opportunity to correct an inadvertent error — rather than from a disposition of competitive calculation. The risk is that Engineer A, operating in a context of competitive motivation, performs the collegial contact as a procedural formality while internally treating it as a step toward a predetermined outcome of formal reporting that will benefit ABC Engineering. The virtue ethics framework would require Engineer A to engage in honest self-examination about the motivational structure of the collegial contact: Is Engineer A genuinely open to being persuaded that no violation has occurred, or that the violation is being remedied? Is Engineer A prepared to forgo formal reporting if Engineer X provides a satisfactory explanation? If the answer to these questions is no — if the collegial contact is a performance rather than a genuine engagement — then the Board's prescribed sequence, while procedurally followed, is not being executed with the virtuous character it presupposes.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.114673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 303
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q303, the Board's graduated reporting sequence — collegial contact first, formal report only if unsatisfied — produces better aggregate outcomes for public welfare, licensure system integrity, and professional trust than an immediate mandatory report would, for several interconnected reasons. From a consequentialist perspective, the relevant outcomes include not only the specific case of XYZ Engineering's compliance but also the systemic effects on how engineers across the profession respond to discovered violations. A regime of immediate mandatory reporting without collegial engagement would likely produce a higher rate of reports grounded in error or assumption, would damage professional relationships and trust, and would impose disproportionate regulatory burdens on licensure boards that must investigate every report regardless of whether the violation was inadvertent and self-correcting. The graduated sequence, by contrast, filters out cases where the violation is inadvertent and promptly remedied — which are likely the majority of certificate of authority cases — while preserving the formal reporting mechanism for cases where collegial engagement fails. The public welfare is served because the ultimate outcome in non-compliant cases is the same: either Engineer X obtains the certificate of authority, or the matter is reported to the licensure board. The licensure system's integrity is served because the board's investigative resources are directed toward cases that genuinely require regulatory intervention. Professional trust is served because the collegial mechanism demonstrates that the profession takes self-regulation seriously without treating every administrative deficiency as a matter requiring immediate formal sanction. The one consequentialist risk of the graduated sequence — that it allows ongoing unlicensed practice during the collegial engagement period — is real but is mitigated by the time-bounded nature of the collegial phase and by…
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.114777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q401, if Engineer A had no prior business relationship with Client L and no competitive stake in XYZ Engineering's engagement, the Board's ethical analysis and reporting sequence would likely remain structurally identical — the graduated approach of collegial contact followed by formal reporting if unsatisfied is grounded in the nature of the violation and the profession's self-regulatory norms, not in the reporter's competitive status. However, the presence of competitive motivation does not merely require heightened self-scrutiny as a procedural add-on; it structurally alters the ethical texture of Engineer A's obligations in at least two ways. First, it introduces a duty of motivational transparency that would not exist for a disinterested reporter: Engineer A must be prepared to examine and, if asked, to account for the fact that the report serves competitive as well as public interest ends. Second, it raises the threshold of care Engineer A must apply to the verification obligation, because the consequences of a mistaken or premature report fall not only on Engineer X but also on the integrity of Engineer A's own professional standing. A disinterested reporter who makes a good-faith error in verification faces primarily the consequence of having caused an unnecessary investigation; Engineer A, as a competitor, faces the additional consequence of having potentially violated Code provision III.7 by injuring a competitor's professional reputation through a false report. The competitive relationship therefore does not change the sequence of obligations but does increase the ethical stakes attached to each step in that sequence.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.114896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 203
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q402, if Engineer X, upon collegial contact by Engineer A, acknowledged the missing certificate of authority but continued providing engineering services in State P while claiming the application was pending, Engineer A's obligation to report to the State P licensure board would become substantially more immediate and considerably less discretionary, though the analysis requires nuance. The acknowledgment of the deficiency combined with continued practice eliminates the possibility that the violation is based on Engineer X's ignorance of the requirement — the inadvertence rationale for the collegial-first approach no longer applies. The claim that an application is pending is a mitigating factor but not a dispositive one: a pending application does not confer the legal authority to practice, and Engineer X's continuation of services during the pendency of the application means that the public and Client L remain exposed to the risks that the certificate of authority requirement is designed to prevent. In this circumstance, Engineer A should report to the State P licensure board, because the collegial engagement has run its course — Engineer X has been informed, has acknowledged the deficiency, and has chosen to continue practice rather than suspend it pending compliance. The report at this stage is not premature or competitive in character; it is the appropriate escalation that the Board's graduated framework contemplates when collegial engagement does not produce corrective action. Engineer A should document the collegial exchange to demonstrate that the reporting sequence was followed in good faith.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115005
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 404
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 202
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: II.1.f.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q404, if Engineer A had immediately reported XYZ Engineering to the State P licensure board without first contacting Engineer X, and it subsequently emerged that XYZ Engineering had in fact obtained a certificate of authority that Engineer A had simply failed to verify, Engineer A would face significant ethical exposure under Code provision III.7, which prohibits engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation of another engineer. The critical question would be whether Engineer A's failure to verify constituted a false report within the meaning of that provision. If Engineer A had access to publicly available licensure records and failed to consult them before reporting — particularly given Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome — the failure to verify would be difficult to characterize as a good-faith error. The competitive context transforms what might otherwise be an innocent oversight into conduct that at minimum raises the inference of reckless disregard for Engineer X's professional reputation. Engineer A could also face consequences under the state licensing board's rules of professional conduct, which in many jurisdictions treat false or misleading statements to regulatory authorities as independent grounds for disciplinary action. This counterfactual powerfully illustrates why the epistemic verification obligation is not merely a procedural nicety but a substantive ethical requirement: it is the mechanism by which Engineer A demonstrates that the report is grounded in fact and public interest rather than competitive motivation, and its omission — especially by a competitor — exposes Engineer A to the very type of professional misconduct charge that Code provision III.7 is designed to prevent.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 103
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The central principle tension in this case — between Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement and Mandatory Reporting Obligation — is resolved not by subordinating one to the other but by sequencing them. The Board treats collegial contact as a procedural precondition to formal reporting, not as an alternative to it. This sequencing reflects a broader principle prioritization logic: where a violation may be inadvertent and correctable without regulatory intervention, the profession's interest in self-governance through peer correction takes temporary precedence over the state's interest in immediate enforcement. However, this priority is strictly conditional and time-limited. Once collegial engagement fails to produce a satisfactory explanation or remediation, the Mandatory Reporting Obligation reasserts itself with full force and is not further defeatable by appeals to professional courtesy or competitive neutrality. The case thus teaches that Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement is a duty-modifying principle — it shapes how and when the reporting duty is discharged — but it cannot extinguish the underlying reporting obligation. The sequencing is not a loophole; it is a structured pathway that preserves both professional reciprocity and licensure integrity.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 8 a
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: III.7.
cited provision2: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The most structurally complex principle tension in this case is the conflict between Competitive Motivation Scrutiny and the Epistemic Verification Obligation. Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome — as the firm that previously served Client L and now stands to benefit if XYZ Engineering is removed from the State P market — creates a genuine risk that the threshold of certainty Engineer A applies before concluding a violation has occurred will be biased downward by self-interest. The Epistemic Verification Obligation principle demands that Engineer A confirm XYZ Engineering's non-compliance status before initiating either collegial contact or formal reporting, precisely because acting on unverified information against a competitor could constitute the kind of malicious or false injury to professional reputation prohibited under Code provision III.7. The resolution the Board implicitly adopts is that these two principles are mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting: the competitive motivation scrutiny obligation requires Engineer A to apply a higher standard of epistemic care, not a lower one, before acting. This means Engineer A must affirmatively verify the certificate of authority status through available public records or direct inquiry before treating the matter as a confirmed violation. The case teaches that when competitive interest is present, the verification threshold rises — competitive motivation does not license faster action; it demands more careful action.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
cites provision: III 7
cites provision: III 8 a
cites provision: II 1 f
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 301
answers question3: 102
cited provision1: II.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.
cited provision3: III.8.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The Engineering Business-Profession Duality principle — which acknowledges that Engineer A simultaneously holds legitimate competitive interests and professional regulatory obligations — cannot be resolved by cleanly separating self-interested from duty-driven motivation, because in this case both motivations point toward the same action: reporting XYZ Engineering's non-compliance. The Board's framework implicitly accepts this motivational entanglement as ethically tolerable provided that Engineer A's conduct satisfies the procedural and epistemic standards the Code imposes independently of motivation. This reflects a deontologically significant insight: the ethical validity of Engineer A's reporting obligation does not depend on the purity of Engineer A's motivation, but on whether the action is taken in conformity with the Code's prescribed sequence — verification, collegial contact, and formal report only if necessary. The Licensure Integrity principle and the Jurisdiction-Specific Compliance Violation principle together establish that the public interest in enforcing certificate of authority requirements is a sufficient independent justification for reporting, regardless of whether Engineer A also benefits competitively. The case therefore teaches that mixed-motive reporting is ethically permissible when the underlying duty is genuine, the procedural sequence is followed, and the epistemic standard is met — but that the presence of competitive motivation imposes a continuing self-scrutiny obligation on Engineer A throughout the process to ensure that competitive interest does not distort the timing, framing, or escalation of the report.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115400
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Contact Engineer X Directly
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Owner, ABC Engineering, State P
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer A's competitive interest in the former client could be perceived as tainting the motivation for contact
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer X may view the contact as competitive interference
foreseen unintended effects: Resolution at this stage avoids formal disciplinary proceedings against Engineer X
foreseen unintended effects: Successful resolution benefits Engineer X's ability to enforce contracts and collect fees in State P
fulfills obligation text: Collegial duty to inform a professional peer of a potential violation before escalating
fulfills obligation text: Duty to support the integrity of the licensure system
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to act in a manner that advances the profession
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to act in good faith and with honest intent toward a competitor
guided by principle text: Collegial and cooperative professional conduct
guided by principle text: Good faith engagement with professional peers
guided by principle text: Graduated and proportionate response to violations absent imminent public danger
guided by principle text: Transparency and honest communication
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and professionally motivated
intended outcome: Inform Engineer X of the certificate of authority requirement, explain its rationale and consequences of non-compliance, and give Engineer X the opportunity to rectify the oversight voluntarily without formal sanction
raises obligation text: No obligations violated if action is taken in good faith; however, if motivated by competitive self-interest, would violate obligation to treat competitors fairly and honestly
requires capability text: Ethical judgment to maintain appropriate boundaries and motivations during the contact
requires capability text: Professional communication skills to deliver counsel to a competitor constructively
requires capability text: Thorough knowledge of State P certificate of authority requirements and their legal consequences
temporal marker: First recommended action point, following discovery of the violation
temporal sequence: 6
within competence: true
comment: Engineer A chooses to contact Engineer X directly to inform him of the certificate of authority requirement and seek clarification and voluntary compliance before considering any formal report to state authorities. This collegial first step is the recommended action prescribed by the discussion.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Contact Engineer X Directly (Action 3) → Certificate of Authority Obtained (Event 5)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Upon being informed by Engineer A of the certificate of authority requirement, Engineer X must decide whether to obtain the certificate, and upon doing so, Engineer X successfully obtains the required certificate of authority, resolving the violation
cause: Contact Engineer X Directly (Action 3)
counterfactual: Without Engineer A's direct contact, Engineer X may have continued practicing without the certificate indefinitely; without Engineer X's decision to comply, notification alone would not produce the certificate
effect: Certificate of Authority Obtained (Event 5)
necessary factors: Engineer A's direct notification to Engineer X of the specific requirement and its violation
necessary factors: Engineer X's volitional decision to comply (Action 5)
necessary factors: State P licensing authority's processing and approval of XYZ Engineering's certificate application
necessary factors: XYZ Engineering meeting the substantive requirements for the certificate of authority
responsibility type: direct
responsible agent: Engineer X (XYZ Engineering) bears primary responsibility for obtaining the certificate; Engineer A's notification is the proximate trigger for the remedial action
sufficient factors: Notification of violation + Engineer X's decision to comply + meeting licensure requirements + authority approval = certificate obtained and violation resolved
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026284
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Must Engineer A independently verify XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority status through authoritative sources before taking any formal or informal action, and what level of epistemic certainty is required before treating the matter as a confirmed violation?
focus: Before taking any action regarding XYZ Engineering's apparent lack of a certificate of authority in State P, Engineer A must decide whether to independently verify XYZ Engineering's licensure status through authoritative public records — such as the State P licensing board's public database — or to proceed on the basis of his existing belief that the violation has occurred. This decision is complicated by Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome, which creates a structural risk that confirmation bias or self-interest could distort his epistemic assessment of the facts.
option1: Before contacting Engineer X or filing any report, Engineer A independently confirms XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority status by consulting the State P licensing board's publicly available records, ensuring that any subsequent action — collegial or formal — is grounded in verified fact rather than assumption or competitive inference.
option2: Engineer A treats his existing knowledge or belief that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority as sufficient and proceeds directly to collegial contact or board reporting without first consulting authoritative public records, risking action based on erroneous or incomplete information.
option3: Engineer A engages legal counsel to conduct the licensure status verification and advise on the threshold for reportable misconduct under State P's rules, adding a layer of professional objectivity that partially mitigates the structural conflict of interest arising from his competitive relationship with XYZ Engineering.
role label: Engineer A Epistemic Verification XYZ Certificate of Authority Status Before Report
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111233
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A first contact Engineer X directly to counsel him about the certificate of authority deficiency and afford an opportunity to remedy it, or should Engineer A proceed immediately to file a report with the State P licensing board?
focus: Having verified that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority in State P, Engineer A must decide how to respond to the discovered violation. The central tension is between the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm — which requires Engineer A to first contact Engineer X directly and afford an opportunity to remedy the apparent inadvertent violation — and the mandatory reporting obligation, which requires eventual escalation to the State P licensing board. Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of Engineer X, having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering, creates a structural conflict of interest that requires him to scrutinize his own motivations before acting.
option1: Engineer A reaches out directly to Engineer X to advise him of the certificate of authority deficiency, explain the substantive reasons for the requirement and its legal consequences, and afford Engineer X a reasonable opportunity to obtain the certificate before any formal report is filed — consistent with the graduated-duty framework and the professional reciprocity norm.
option2: Engineer A bypasses collegial contact and files a report directly with the State P licensing board upon confirming the violation, treating the mandatory reporting obligation as unconditional and immediate — but risking violation of the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm and potentially exposing the report to scrutiny as competitively motivated.
option3: Engineer A concludes that his competitive interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — is so substantial that he cannot act without the appearance of self-interest, and therefore takes no action, neither contacting Engineer X nor reporting to the board — but risks suppressing a legitimate reporting obligation through competitive self-interest, which itself constitutes an ethics violation.
role label: Engineer A Collegial Counsel to Engineer X Before Board Report
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: When contacting Engineer X, should Engineer A provide a full explanation of the certificate of authority requirement's purposes and legal consequences of non-compliance, or limit the communication to a bare notification of the apparent violation?
focus: When Engineer A contacts Engineer X as part of collegial counsel, Engineer A must decide the substantive content and scope of that communication. Specifically, Engineer A must determine whether to limit the contact to a bare notification of the potential violation, or to fulfill the fuller collegial duty by explaining the substantive reasons for the certificate of authority requirement — including its purposes of identifying licensed engineers in the state, their licensure status, office locations, and engineers in responsible charge — and the practical legal consequences of non-compliance, such as impaired ability to seek judicial redress, inability to enforce contracts, and inability to obtain payment for engineering services rendered in State P.
option1: Engineer A explains to Engineer X both the regulatory purpose of the certificate of authority requirement — identifying licensed engineers present in the state, their licensure status, office locations, and engineers in responsible charge — and the practical legal consequences of non-compliance, including impaired ability to seek judicial redress, inability to enforce contracts, and inability to obtain payment for services rendered in State P, enabling Engineer X to make a fully informed decision to remedy the violation.
option2: Engineer A limits his communication to informing Engineer X that XYZ Engineering appears to lack a required certificate of authority in State P and that Engineer A may be required to report this to the licensing board, without explaining the underlying regulatory purposes or legal consequences — fulfilling the bare notification duty but falling short of the full collegial counsel obligation.
role label: Engineer A Certificate of Authority Consequence Explanation to Engineer X
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: If Engineer X fails to remedy the certificate of authority deficiency after collegial contact, is Engineer A obligated to report XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice to the State P licensing board, and how should Engineer A ensure the report is professionally rather than competitively motivated?
focus: After Engineer A has contacted Engineer X collegially and afforded a reasonable opportunity to remedy the certificate of authority deficiency, Engineer A must decide whether to escalate to formal reporting with the State P licensing board if Engineer X fails to obtain the certificate or provides an unsatisfactory explanation. This decision requires Engineer A to assess whether the reporting threshold under State P's specific rules of professional conduct has been met, to confirm that his motivation remains grounded in professional duty rather than competitive self-interest, and to determine whether the competitive discomfort of reporting a firm that has taken a former client should suppress what may be a legitimate mandatory reporting obligation.
option1: After collegial contact fails to produce remedy and Engineer A has confirmed through self-examination that the report is motivated by professional duty to protect the public and the integrity of the licensure system — not by competitive self-interest in recovering Client L or eliminating XYZ Engineering as a competitor — Engineer A files a factually verified report with the State P licensing board, fulfilling the mandatory reporting obligation and preserving licensure system integrity.
option2: Engineer A declines to file a report with the State P licensing board on the grounds that his competitive interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — makes any report appear self-serving and potentially constitutes an ethics violation, thereby allowing the unauthorized practice to continue unchallenged — but this itself constitutes a failure of professional ethics by allowing competitive self-interest to suppress a legitimate reporting obligation.
option3: Engineer A, recognizing the structural conflict of interest created by his competitive relationship with XYZ Engineering, refers the matter to a neutral professional body — such as a state engineering society ethics committee — for an independent assessment of whether the facts warrant a board report, partially mitigating the appearance of competitive motivation while preserving the reporting obligation.
role label: Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: How should Engineer A structure his internal deliberation and external conduct to ensure that competitive self-interest does not corrupt his professional motivation at any stage of the response to XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority deficiency?
focus: Throughout the entire decision sequence — from discovery of the apparent violation through collegial contact and potential board reporting — Engineer A must continuously examine and ensure that his motivations are grounded in professional duty to protect the public and the integrity of the licensure system, rather than in the competitive desire to recover Client L or eliminate XYZ Engineering as a competitor. This motivational scrutiny obligation is not a one-time assessment but a continuous constraint that conditions the ethical permissibility of every action Engineer A takes in response to the discovered violation. The structural conflict of interest — Engineer A lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — creates a persistent risk that competitive self-interest could corrupt the professional motivation required for ethical action.
option1: Before each discrete action — verification, collegial contact, and any board report — Engineer A explicitly examines whether his motivation at that moment is grounded in professional duty to protect the public and the licensure system, documents that self-examination, and proceeds only when satisfied that competitive self-interest is not the primary driver, treating the motivational purity obligation as a continuous constraint rather than a one-time threshold.
option2: Engineer A proceeds through the response sequence — verification, collegial contact, and potential reporting — relying on a general good-faith belief that his actions are professionally motivated, without conducting explicit structured self-examination at each stage, risking that competitive self-interest subtly distorts his professional judgment in ways he does not consciously recognize.
option3: Engineer A consults with a state engineering society ethics advisor or trusted senior colleague — who has no competitive interest in the outcome — to obtain an external perspective on whether his proposed course of action appears professionally motivated or competitively driven, using external validation as a structural safeguard against the distorting effects of competitive self-interest on his professional judgment.
role label: Engineer A Reporting Motivation Purity Competitive Interest Scrutiny
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111016
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Decide Response to Discovered Violation
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Owner, ABC Engineering, State P
foreseen unintended effects: Any action taken could influence whether Client L remains with Engineer X or returns to Engineer A
foreseen unintended effects: Direct contact with Engineer X could resolve the matter without formal sanction but could also be perceived as interference
foreseen unintended effects: Failing to act at all could make Engineer A complicit in an ongoing licensure violation
foreseen unintended effects: Immediate reporting could damage Engineer X's business and appear self-serving given Engineer A's competitive interest
fulfills obligation text: Awareness and recognition of a professional licensure violation
fulfills obligation text: Obligation to consider public interest implications of the violation
guided by principle text: Collegial and cooperative engagement with fellow professionals
guided by principle text: Honest and ethical conduct in competitive business situations
guided by principle text: Independent professional judgment free from self-interest
guided by principle text: Obligation not to use knowledge of a violation as a competitive weapon
guided by principle text: Public protection through enforcement of licensure requirements
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: deliberate and reflective
intended outcome: Respond to the discovered violation in a manner that is ethically appropriate, professionally collegial, and compliant with any state reporting obligations
raises obligation text: Potential risk of violating duty of honest and fair dealing if self-interest influences chosen response
raises obligation text: Risk of failing reporting obligation if Engineer A takes no action whatsoever
requires capability text: Ability to communicate professionally and collegially with a competitor
requires capability text: Ethical judgment to separate professional duty from competitive self-interest
requires capability text: Knowledge of State P certificate of authority requirements
requires capability text: Understanding of state licensure board reporting obligations and procedures
temporal marker: At the time of discovery of XYZ Engineering's lack of certificate of authority
temporal sequence: 5
within competence: true
comment: Upon learning that XYZ Engineering lacks a current certificate of authority in State P, Engineer A must make a deliberate choice about how to respond to a competitor's apparent licensure violation. This is a pivotal decision point requiring Engineer A to weigh collegial duty, reporting obligations, and potential self-interest.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011687
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Decide Response to Discovered Violation (Action 2) → Contact Engineer X Directly (Action 3) → Direct Contact Outcome Determined (Event 4)
type: CausalChain
type: NamedIndividual
causal language: Engineer A chooses to contact Engineer X directly to inform him of the certificate of authority requirement, producing an outcome, either Engineer X takes corrective action or the violation persists, that determines the subsequent course of Engineer A's professional obligations
cause: Decide Response to Discovered Violation (Action 2) → Contact Engineer X Directly (Action 3)
counterfactual: Had Engineer A chosen not to contact Engineer X (e.g., immediately reporting to authorities or taking no action), the direct contact outcome event would not occur; had Engineer X already been compliant, contact would have produced no remedial outcome
effect: Direct Contact Outcome Determined (Event 4)
necessary factors: Engineer A's discovery of the violation (Event 3)
necessary factors: Engineer A's ethical obligation under professional codes to address observed violations
necessary factors: Engineer A's volitional choice to pursue direct communication as the first remedial step
necessary factors: Engineer X's receipt of and response to Engineer A's communication
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A (ABC Engineering) for initiating contact; Engineer X for determining the outcome through response
sufficient factors: Discovery of violation + ethical duty to act + choice of direct contact = direct contact outcome is produced, contingent on Engineer X's response
within agent control: true
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Direct Contact Outcome Determined
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Conditional_Reporting_Obligation_Constraint
activates constraint: Escalation_Trigger_Constraint
causes state change: The situation bifurcates: (1) Compliance path. Engineer X initiates certificate of authority process, violation moves toward resolution, Engineer A's reporting obligation may be discharged; (2) Non-compliance path, Engineer A's obligation to report to State P licensing authorities becomes active and mandatory
concept category: Event
creates obligation: If_Compliant_Engineer_A_Obligation_to_Report_May_Be_Satisfied
creates obligation: If_Non_Compliant_Engineer_A_Must_Report_to_Licensing_Board
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: After Engineer A contacts Engineer X directly, before any report to authorities
temporal sequence: 7
urgency level: medium
comment: Following Engineer A's direct communication with Engineer X, an outcome is produced, either Engineer X agrees to obtain the certificate of authority (compliance) or refuses/fails to act (non-compliance), which determines whether escalation to authorities becomes obligatory.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Direct Contact Outcome Determined Event 4 - Failure Outcome → Report Violation to Authorities Action 4
type: CausalChain
causal language: If Engineer A's direct communication with Engineer X fails to resolve the certificate of authority violation, Engineer A is ethically obligated to escalate by reporting the violation to the relevant licensing authorities
cause: Direct Contact Outcome Determined (Event 4). Failure Outcome
counterfactual: Had Engineer X complied upon direct contact and obtained the certificate, the reporting obligation would not arise; had Engineer A chosen to ignore the unresolved violation, reporting would not occur but Engineer A would bear ethical responsibility for inaction
effect: Report Violation to Authorities (Action 4)
necessary factors: Continued unlicensed practice by Engineer X following notification
necessary factors: Engineer A's prior direct contact with Engineer X (Action 3) having failed to produce compliance
necessary factors: Engineer A's professional ethical obligation to protect public welfare by reporting unresolved violations
necessary factors: Existence of a licensing authority with jurisdiction over the violation
responsibility type: shared
responsible agent: Engineer A bears responsibility for fulfilling the reporting obligation; Engineer X bears responsibility for creating the conditions that necessitate the report through non-compliance
sufficient factors: Failed direct contact outcome + continuing violation + ethical duty to escalate = obligation and action to report to authorities is triggered
within agent control: true

Direct Contact Outcome Determined (Event 4) — Failure Outcome → Report Violation to Authorities (Action 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026252
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A ABC Engineering Unlicensed Practice Recognition XYZ
type: UnlicensedPracticeRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that XYZ Engineering's performance of engineering services in State P without a current certificate of authority constitutes a form of unlicensed firm practice under State P's engineering licensure laws.
casecontext: Engineer A, as owner of ABC Engineering in State P, recognized that a competing firm was practicing without the required firm-level authorization.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's identification that XYZ Engineering lacks a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.020550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Authority Practical Consequence Articulation to Engineer X
type: CertificateofAuthorityPracticalConsequenceArticulationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Certificate of Authority Practical Consequence Articulation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to articulate to Engineer X the concrete legal and business consequences of XYZ Engineering's failure to obtain a certificate of authority in State P, including impaired court access, contract unenforceability, and payment collection risk.
casecontext: As part of collegial counsel to Engineer X, Engineer A was expected to explain not just the regulatory requirement but its practical business and legal consequences to motivate voluntary compliance.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Explaining to Engineer X that lack of certificate of authority would impair XYZ's ability to seek court redress in State P and might result in inability to enforce contracts and obtain payment
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P, and might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
textreferences: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P, and might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.024919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Authority Regulatory Framework Knowledge State P
type: CertificateofAuthorityRegulatoryFrameworkKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Certificate of Authority Regulatory Framework Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed knowledge of State P's certificate of authority requirements sufficient to recognize that XYZ Engineering's lack of such a certificate constituted a potential violation of State P's engineering practice laws.
casecontext: Engineer A's recognition of the certificate of authority deficiency demonstrates knowledge of the regulatory framework distinguishing firm-level authorization from individual PE licensure.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's ability to identify that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority and to understand the significance of this deficiency.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.020692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Clarification-First Reporting Sequencing XYZ Engineering
type: CollegialClarification-FirstReportingSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Clarification-First Reporting Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly sequence his response to XYZ Engineering's apparent certificate of authority violation by first seeking clarification and providing collegial counsel to Engineer X, reserving formal board reporting for the contingency that collegial resolution failed.
casecontext: Engineer A's discovery of XYZ Engineering's potential licensure violation required application of the clarification-first sequencing norm — contacting Engineer X before escalating to formal reporting — consistent with the principle applied in BER Case 96-8.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Refraining from immediately filing a report with the State P licensing board upon discovering XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority deficiency, instead pursuing collegial clarification first
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
textreferences: this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
textreferences: when an engineer becomes aware of a violation of the state engineering licensure law, the engineer's first ethical obligation may be to refrain from jumping to conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011601
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Counsel Priority Before Board Report XYZ Engineering
type: CollegialNotificationPriorityBeforeFormalCompetitorRegulatoryReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, a competitor of XYZ Engineering who lost Client L to XYZ, discovered that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P. The constraint requires Engineer A to first counsel Engineer X before filing a formal board complaint.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Collegial Notification Priority Before Formal Competitor Regulatory Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained from immediately filing a formal complaint with the State P licensing board upon discovering XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority; Engineer A must first communicate directly with Engineer X to seek clarification and afford an opportunity for voluntary correction before escalating to formal regulatory reporting.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 96-8 precedent; professional collegial norms
sourcetext: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
temporalscope: Upon discovery of XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority non-compliance, prior to any formal board filing
textreferences: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction
textreferences: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.023659
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Interest Neutrality XYZ Engineering Board Report
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingCompetitiveInterestNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A, creating a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of any report that might disqualify XYZ Engineering from the State P engagement.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's decision to report XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority to the State P licensing board must be grounded in genuine public interest and professional ethics — not in competitive self-interest arising from the fact that Client L is a former client of Engineer A — and Engineer A must not allow competitive discomfort or the appearance of self-interest to deter reporting of a genuine violation, nor weaponize the reporting obligation as a mechanism for competitive harassment.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.6, III.7; Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
temporalscope: Throughout the decision-making process regarding whether and how to report XYZ Engineering's non-compliance
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.019812
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Subordination Reporting Duty Self-Monitoring
type: CompetitiveInterestNon-SubordinationofReportingDutySelf-MonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty Self-Monitoring Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must exercise the capability to examine and monitor their own motivations when considering reporting XYZ Engineering — specifically ensuring that the competitive discomfort of reporting a firm that took a former client does not suppress a legitimate reporting obligation, and that the appearance of self-interest does not cause Engineer A to withhold a report that professional ethics require.
casecontext: Engineer A faces a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of any report against XYZ Engineering, as XYZ has taken a former client. This creates a risk that competitive discomfort or appearance of self-interest could suppress a legitimate reporting duty.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to ensure reporting motivation purity given that Client L is a former client of ABC Engineering now retained by XYZ Engineering.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.021059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Subordination Reporting Duty Self-Monitoring XYZ
type: CompetitiveInterestNon-SubordinationofReportingDutySelf-MonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty Self-Monitoring Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to continuously monitor his own motivations when considering whether to report XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority deficiency, ensuring that his competitive financial interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ — did not suppress a legitimate reporting duty.
casecontext: Engineer A's competitive financial interest in the outcome of reporting XYZ Engineering — having lost Client L to that firm — created a risk that competitive motivations could distort his professional reporting judgment in either direction.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Critically examining whether the decision to report or not report XYZ Engineering was driven by genuine professional obligation rather than competitive advantage-seeking or competitive discomfort
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A must examine and ensure that any report filed with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is motivated by genuine professional obligation and public interest rather than competitive advantage-seeking
textreferences: Engineer A must examine and ensure that any report filed with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is motivated by genuine professional obligation and public interest rather than competitive advantage-seeking
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.025745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty XYZ
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingCompetitiveInterestNeutralityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A is a direct competitor of XYZ Engineering and lost Client L to XYZ Engineering, creating a competitive motivation contamination risk that must be actively managed in the reporting decision.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to ensure that any decision to report XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority non-compliance is grounded in genuine public interest and professional ethics — not in competitive self-interest arising from having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — and must not allow competitive motivation to either drive premature reporting or suppress a legitimate reporting obligation.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; professional ethics norms on competitive conduct
sourcetext: the obligation to engage with other professionals in a collegial and cooperative manner, where appropriate
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's deliberation and action regarding XYZ Engineering's non-compliance
textreferences: the Board has stressed the importance of exercising independent judgment and discretion in all business and professional areas
textreferences: the obligation to engage with other professionals in a collegial and cooperative manner, where appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.024198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment XYZ Engineering
type: CompetitorMisconductReportingThresholdAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must assess whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P rises to the threshold of 'knowledge or reason to believe' that triggers a mandatory reporting obligation to the State P licensing board.
casecontext: Engineer A's decision about whether to report XYZ Engineering requires applying the competitor misconduct reporting threshold to the specific facts of the certificate of authority deficiency.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to evaluate whether the identified certificate of authority deficiency constitutes reportable misconduct under applicable professional conduct rules.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.020254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Case BER Precedent Analogical Transfer 96-8 to Certificate of Authority
type: Cross-CaseEthicalPrecedentAnalogicalTransferCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Cross-Case Ethical Precedent Analogical Transfer Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A (and the BER) possessed the capability to recognize that the ethical principles established in BER Case 96-8 — specifically the clarification-first, graduated escalation approach to discovered violations — were analogically transferable to the certificate of authority violation context, despite the different factual setting.
casecontext: The BER explicitly drew on BER Case 96-8 as a precedent for the collegial-clarification-first approach applicable to Engineer A's situation with XYZ Engineering, requiring analogical transfer of the principle across different factual contexts.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Applying the BER 96-8 principle that collegial discussion and clarification should precede formal reporting to the certificate of authority violation scenario, recognizing the shared normative structure across both cases
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: A good instructive example of the intersection between these sometimes competing ethical concerns is BER Case 96-8
textreferences: A good instructive example of the intersection between these sometimes competing ethical concerns is BER Case 96-8
textreferences: As illustrated in BER Case 96-8, when an engineer becomes aware of a violation of the state engineering licensure law, the engineer's first ethical obligation may be to refrain from jumping to conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness ABC Engineering
type: EngineeringBusinessEthicsCompetitiveContextAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed awareness of the intersection between competitive business interests and professional ethics obligations, enabling him to recognize that his competitive financial interest in the outcome of reporting XYZ Engineering must not suppress legitimate reporting duties or distort his professional judgment.
casecontext: Engineer A's situation exemplified the intersection of engineering as a business pursuit and engineering as a profession, requiring awareness of how competitive dynamics interact with professional ethics obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Navigating the tension between competitive interest (having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering) and professional obligations to report licensure violations and engage collegially with competitors
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: the practice of engineering, as with all professional pursuits, is also a business. As a business pursuit, engineers compete with one another for clients in order to maximize individual and firm profits
textreferences: the Board has stressed the importance of exercising independent judgment and discretion in all business and professional areas
textreferences: the practice of engineering, as with all professional pursuits, is also a business. As a business pursuit, engineers compete with one another for clients in order to maximize individual and firm profits
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Epistemic Verification XYZ Certificate of Authority Status
type: EpistemicVerificationBeforeCompetitorRegulatoryViolationReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A 'learns' of XYZ's non-compliance, but the source and reliability of that information is unspecified; verification is required before formal action.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Before filing any formal report with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority, Engineer A is constrained to independently verify — through public licensing records or direct inquiry — that XYZ Engineering in fact lacks a current certificate of authority, and may not file a complaint based solely on secondhand information or competitive suspicion.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional norms of responsible reporting
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
temporalscope: Prior to submission of any formal complaint to the State P licensing board
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.013762
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Delivery XYZ Engineering
type: InadvertentLicensureViolationCollegialCounselDeliveryCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Delivery Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to approach Engineer X collegially about XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P, explain the requirement's rationale, and provide Engineer X an opportunity to cure the violation before any formal report was filed.
casecontext: Engineer A, owner of ABC Engineering in State P, discovered that competing firm XYZ Engineering lacked a certificate of authority to practice in State P and was obligated to counsel Engineer X before escalating to formal reporting.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engaging Engineer X in direct discussion about the certificate of authority requirement rather than immediately filing a report with the State P licensing board
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
textreferences: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
textreferences: potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.024786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Inadvertent vs Willful Distinction XYZ Certificate of Authority
type: InadvertentvsWillfulLicensureViolationDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Inadvertent vs Willful Licensure Violation Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to assess that XYZ Engineering's failure to obtain a certificate of authority in State P appeared to be an inadvertent oversight rather than a willful violation, and to calibrate his response accordingly by pursuing collegial counsel before formal reporting.
casecontext: Engineer A's discovery that XYZ Engineering lacked a certificate of authority required assessment of whether this was inadvertent non-compliance or deliberate unlicensed practice, which determined the appropriate response pathway.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Treating XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority deficiency as a potential oversight warranting collegial guidance rather than immediate formal reporting to the State P licensing board
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation
textreferences: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation
textreferences: what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.025200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Independent Judgment Competitive Business Context Constraint
type: BusinessPressureTechnicalRecommendationSeparationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The NSPE Board has consistently stressed independent judgment and discretion in business and professional areas over its 50+ year history of BER decisions, making this a foundational constraint applicable to Engineer A's competitive conduct decisions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Business Pressure Technical Recommendation Separation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A is constrained to exercise independent professional judgment and discretion in all business and professional decisions — including the decision of whether and how to report XYZ Engineering's non-compliance — prohibiting the subordination of that judgment to competitive business pressures or profit-maximization motivations arising from the competitive relationship with XYZ Engineering.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; NSPE BER 50-year business ethics precedent
sourcetext: the Board has stressed the importance of exercising independent judgment and discretion in all business and professional areas
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's professional engagement with the XYZ Engineering non-compliance situation
textreferences: While engineering is a profession, the practice of engineering, as with all professional pursuits, is also a business
textreferences: the Board has stressed the importance of exercising independent judgment and discretion in all business and professional areas
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.024647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance State P XYZ
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to identify and apply State P's specific reporting threshold standard for triggering a mandatory reporting obligation to the state licensing board, and to evaluate whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority met that threshold.
casecontext: Engineer A's reporting decision regarding XYZ Engineering required application of State P's specific reporting threshold standard, which may differ from other states' standards.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Evaluating whether XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority deficiency met State P's specific threshold (e.g., 'knowledge,' 'reason to believe,' or 'reasonable grounds to believe') before determining whether to file a formal report
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board
textreferences: most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.025880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Assessment XYZ Certificate of Authority
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must possess the capability to identify and apply State P's specific threshold standard for mandatory reporting of competitor misconduct to the licensing board, and to evaluate whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority meets that threshold.
casecontext: Engineer A must determine whether State P's licensing board rules impose a 'knowledge,' 'reason to believe,' or other threshold standard and whether the known facts about XYZ Engineering satisfy that standard.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to assess whether XYZ Engineering's conduct meets State P's reportable misconduct threshold before filing a report.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.020922
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Licensure System Integrity Preservation Advocacy XYZ Engineering
type: LicensureSystemIntegrityPreservationAdvocacyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Licensure System Integrity Preservation Advocacy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must recognize their role as an active steward of State P's engineering licensure system and understand that the obligation to report XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is owed to the system's public protection function — not merely to competitive self-interest — and that this stewardship duty persists even when reporting is competitively uncomfortable.
casecontext: Engineer A's situation — where a former client has been taken by a competitor practicing without proper authorization — creates a tension between competitive self-interest and systemic integrity stewardship that requires this capability to navigate correctly.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to preserve the integrity of State P's engineering licensure system by reporting XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice, even though Engineer A has a competitive interest in the outcome.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Reciprocity Deliberation Before Formal Report
type: ProfessionalReciprocityReportingDeliberationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A has a competitive interest in the outcome (having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering), making the reciprocity deliberation particularly important as a check against self-interested reporting.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Professional Reciprocity Reporting Deliberation Constraint
constraintstatement: Before deciding whether and how to report XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority non-compliance, Engineer A is constrained to apply the professional reciprocity standard — considering how Engineer A would wish to be treated if the roles were reversed — as a check on the motivation and proportionality of the reporting decision.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; professional reciprocity norms
sourcetext: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
temporalscope: During Engineer A's deliberation about whether to file a formal board complaint regarding XYZ Engineering
textreferences: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.023889
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Reciprocity Perspective-Taking XYZ Reporting Decision
type: ProfessionalReciprocityPerspective-TakingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Reciprocity Perspective-Taking Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to engage in professional reciprocity perspective-taking — imagining himself in Engineer X's position and recognizing that he would value collegial counsel before formal reporting — and to allow this reasoning to appropriately temper the timing of any formal report.
casecontext: Engineer A's reporting decision regarding XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority violation required weighing competitive interests, reporting obligations, and professional reciprocity norms.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Deliberating on whether to immediately report XYZ Engineering or first counsel Engineer X, informed by recognition that Engineer A himself might one day benefit from similar collegial guidance
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
textreferences: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.025050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Public Confidence in Profession Protection XYZ Unauthorized Practice
type: PublicConfidenceinProfessionProtectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Confidence in Profession Protection Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must recognize that acquiescing in XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice in State P — by failing to report it — would undermine public confidence in the engineering profession and the intent of the licensure system, and must act to protect that confidence by fulfilling the reporting obligation.
casecontext: Engineer A's decision about whether to report XYZ Engineering has implications for public confidence in the profession's self-regulatory mechanisms and the effectiveness of the licensure system.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to preserve the integrity of State P's engineering licensure system through active reporting of XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority deficiency.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.021197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Reporting Motivation Purity Competitive Interest Scrutiny Capability
type: CompetitiveInterestNon-SubordinationofReportingDutySelf-MonitoringCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty Self-Monitoring Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A must scrutinize whether the motivation to report XYZ Engineering is grounded in professional duty and public interest rather than competitive self-interest in recovering Client L or disadvantaging XYZ Engineering.
casecontext: The fact that Client L is a former client of ABC Engineering creates a specific competitive motivation that Engineer A must examine and ensure does not corrupt the reporting decision.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to examine reporting motivations before filing any report with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority status.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.010976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Firm Practice Reporting Obligation State P Board
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority constitutes unauthorized practice of engineering in State P, triggering Engineer A's affirmative reporting obligation once the violation is confirmed and collegial correction has been attempted.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering is practicing engineering in State P without a required certificate of authority, and after affording Engineer X a reasonable opportunity for collegial correction, Engineer A is constrained to report the continuing unauthorized practice to the State P licensing board and may not passively acquiesce in XYZ Engineering's ongoing unauthorized practice.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; State P Engineering Licensure Law; Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
temporalscope: After verification of non-compliance and after collegial notification has failed to produce correction
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.019971
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge XYZ Engineering State P Board
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingandChallengeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge Capability
capabilitystatement: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering lacks a current certificate of authority and confirming that this meets State P's reporting threshold, Engineer A must possess the capability to formulate, document, and communicate a professional report to the State P licensing board.
casecontext: Engineer A's reporting obligation, once triggered, requires the practical capability to file a report with the appropriate state licensing authority regarding XYZ Engineering's unauthorized firm practice in State P.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to report XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority to the State P licensing board once verification and threshold conditions are satisfied.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (ABC Engineering)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011129
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A informing Engineer X of intent to notify authorities before reporting to proper authorities
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Review Engineer A must inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Engineer A's only alternative would be to cooperate with the proper authorities as indicated above
from entity text: Engineer A informing Engineer X of intent to notify authorities
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: reporting to proper authorities
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: reporting to proper authorities
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer B Peer-Reviewed Engineer Subject to Safety Code Findings
type: Peer-ReviewedEngineerSubjecttoSafetyCodeFindings
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'review_context': 'Organized peer review program', 'finding': 'Potential safety code violations in recent design projects'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer whose firm was visited by Review Engineer A as part of an organized peer review program; design work found to potentially violate state and local safety code requirements, triggering collegial discussion obligations.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'reviewed_by', 'target': 'Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Peer-Reviewed Engineer Subject to Safety Code Findings
sourcetext: Review Engineer A visited Engineer B's firm
textreferences: Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: Review Engineer A visited Engineer B's firm
textreferences: the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.015934
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Recognition Safety Findings
type: PeerReviewCooperationObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B, whose design work was found to potentially violate state and local safety codes during a peer review, must recognize the obligation to cooperate fully with the peer review process and to address the identified safety concerns rather than resist or obstruct the review findings.
casecontext: Engineer B is the subject of a peer review that identified potential safety code violations, creating an obligation to cooperate with the review process and address the findings.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to cooperate with Review Engineer A's peer review findings regarding potential safety code violations in Engineer B's design work.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B Peer-Reviewed Engineer Subject to Safety Code Findings — Engineer whose firm was visited by Review Engineer A as part of an organized peer review program; design work found to potentially violate state and local safety codes.
textreferences: Engineer B Peer-Reviewed Engineer Subject to Safety Code Findings — Engineer whose firm was visited by Review Engineer A as part of an organized peer review program; design work found to potentially violate state and local safety codes.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.021606
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
type: EngineerReportingObligationtoLicensingBoardStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: State P Licensing Board / NCEES Model Rules
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State licensing board rules on duty to report violations by other licensees or firms
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating whether to report XYZ Engineering to the State P licensing board
usedincontext: Establishes Engineer A's affirmative duty to report XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority to the relevant state licensing board in State P
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.015054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Licensing Board — Graduated Duty
type: EngineerReportingObligationtoStateBoardStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.91
createdby: State engineering licensure boards
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: State Engineering Licensure Board Reporting Obligation Standard
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
sourcetext: most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board, this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
textreferences: most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board, this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations toward Engineer X
usedincontext: Referenced as the general professional norm that most state engineering licensure boards impose on engineers to report violations of licensure laws or regulations, but qualified by the principle that this duty is not immediate (absent imminent danger) and does not preclude collegial resolution steps first
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.012674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
type: EngineerSolicitationandCompetitionEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing ethical competition and solicitation among engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
usedby: Engineer A in assessing the ethical propriety of any action taken regarding XYZ Engineering
usedincontext: Relevant because Engineer A is a competitor of Engineer X (Client L is a former client of Engineer A), raising the question of whether Engineer A's motivation for reporting is legitimate professional duty or self-interested competitive conduct
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.015189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer X XYZ Engineering Certificate of Authority Pre-Practice Self-Assessment
type: Out-of-StateCertificateofAuthorityPre-PracticeComplianceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Out-of-State Certificate of Authority Pre-Practice Compliance Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X, as owner of XYZ Engineering licensed in State Q, was required to possess and exercise the capability to verify that XYZ Engineering held a current certificate of authority from State P before accepting and performing engineering services for Client L on a project in State P.
casecontext: Engineer X accepted a project in State P without verifying or obtaining the required firm-level certificate of authority, indicating a failure to exercise this compliance self-assessment capability.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Absence of this capability demonstrated by XYZ Engineering's failure to obtain a certificate of authority from State P prior to commencing practice there.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X (XYZ Engineering)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.020120
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer X XYZ Engineering Certificate of Authority Regulatory Framework Knowledge
type: CertificateofAuthorityRegulatoryFrameworkKnowledgeCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Certificate of Authority Regulatory Framework Knowledge Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer X was required to possess knowledge of State P's certificate of authority requirements for out-of-state engineering firms, including the distinction between individual PE licensure and firm-entity authorization.
casecontext: XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P while performing engineering services there reflects a failure to understand or apply the firm-level authorization framework.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure to obtain a certificate of authority from State P before practicing there indicates a gap in this regulatory framework knowledge.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer X (XYZ Engineering)
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.020393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer X being retained by Client L without certificate of authority before Engineer A learning of the licensure violation
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P...Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority
from entity text: Engineer X being retained by Client L without certificate of authority
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A learning of the licensure violation
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A learning of the licensure violation
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026345
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

II.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

III.7.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111109
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Licensure Violation Occurs
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: Certificate_of_Authority_Required_Constraint
activates constraint: Interstate_Licensure_Compliance_Constraint
activates constraint: Public_Protection_Regulatory_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer X transitions from licensed engineer (State Q) to unlicensed practitioner (State P); regulatory violation is active and ongoing; Client L is unknowingly receiving services from an unlicensed provider
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Discovering_Engineer_Must_Address_Violation
creates obligation: Engineer_X_Must_Disclose_Licensure_Status_to_Client
creates obligation: Engineer_X_Must_Obtain_Certificate_or_Cease_Practice
emergency status: medium
event type: outcome
temporal marker: At project commencement, when Engineer X accepts engagement from Client L
temporal sequence: 3
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer X begins practicing engineering in State P without holding the required certificate of authority, constituting an active regulatory violation from the moment of engagement.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

NSPE BER 50-Year Business Ethics Case History
type: ReferenceMaterial
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review — Accumulated Case History on Business of Engineering
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Reference Material
sourcetext: Over the more than 50 years of existence, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has examined a variety of ethical matters relating to the business of engineering, including advertising, contingent fees, using an employer's facilities, firm names, ownership of design drawings, proprietary interests, remuneration, unfair competition, and other topics
textreferences: Over the more than 50 years of existence, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has examined a variety of ethical matters relating to the business of engineering, including advertising, contingent fees, using an employer's facilities, firm names, ownership of design drawings, proprietary interests, remuneration, unfair competition, and other topics
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as contextual grounding for the present analysis
usedincontext: Cited as the body of accumulated BER decisions over 50+ years addressing business ethics topics including advertising, contingent fees, firm names, ownership of design drawings, unfair competition, and related matters, establishing the broader professional context for the present case
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.012969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

NSPE Board of Ethical Review examination of BER Case 96-8 before present case analysis
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: As illustrated in BER Case 96-8, when an engineer becomes aware of a violation...In the present case, part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include...
from entity text: NSPE Board of Ethical Review examination of BER Case 96-8
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: present case analysis
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: present case analysis
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
usedby: Engineer A in evaluating ethical obligations
usedincontext: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations upon discovering that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P, including duties to report unlicensed practice and obligations regarding competition with other engineers
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.014526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Obtain Certificate of Authority
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Owner, XYZ Engineering, State Q
foreseen unintended effects: Acknowledgment that prior practice in State P was conducted without proper authorization
foreseen unintended effects: Administrative burden and cost of certificate of authority application
foreseen unintended effects: Continued ability to serve Client L and future clients in State P
foreseen unintended effects: Resolution of the matter without formal sanction if obtained promptly
fulfills obligation text: Duty to protect client interests by ensuring services are legally authorized
fulfills obligation text: Ethical obligation to comply with state engineering licensure laws
fulfills obligation text: Legal obligation to hold a valid certificate of authority before practicing engineering in State P
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to perform services only within lawful authorization
guided by principle text: Integrity and accountability in professional conduct
guided by principle text: Legal compliance as a prerequisite to professional practice
guided by principle text: Protection of client interests through lawful service delivery
guided by principle text: Responsiveness to professional counsel from a peer
has agent: Engineer X
has mental state: deliberate and compliance-motivated if action is taken
intended outcome: Achieve legal authorization to practice engineering in State P, protect XYZ Engineering's ability to enforce its contracts and collect fees, and avoid formal disciplinary proceedings by the State P licensure board
raises obligation text: If Engineer X fails to act: continued violation of State P licensure law, ongoing breach of ethical obligation to comply with applicable regulations
requires capability text: Administrative capability to compile required documentation for State P licensure board
requires capability text: Judgment to act promptly upon learning of the compliance gap
requires capability text: Knowledge of out-of-state certificate of authority application procedures
temporal marker: Engineer X's response point, following communication from Engineer A
temporal sequence: 8
within competence: true
comment: Upon being informed by Engineer A of the certificate of authority requirement, Engineer X must decide whether to take all appropriate steps to obtain the required certificate from State P's engineering licensure board. The discussion presents this as the expected response of a reasonable and prudent professional.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement (BER 96-8 Context)
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityAgreement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: Organized peer review program administering body
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Confidentiality Agreement for Organized Peer Review Program
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:59.510399+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement
sourcetext: Review Engineer A was asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreement' whereby he agreed not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
textreferences: Review Engineer A was asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreement' whereby he agreed not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
textreferences: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
usedby: Review Engineer A in BER Case 96-8 peer review program
usedincontext: Referenced as the instrument signed by Review Engineer A in BER Case 96-8 prohibiting disclosure of confidential information from peer-reviewed firms; the Board determined this agreement becomes secondary when genuine public safety violations are at stake
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.012476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111807
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110281
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115737
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115795
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115583
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these facts?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does Engineer A have an affirmative duty to verify XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority status before concluding a violation has occurred, and if so, what level of epistemic certainty is required before initiating either collegial contact or formal reporting?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111581
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: To what extent does Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of Engineer X — and as the firm that previously served Client L — create a structural conflict of interest that should require Engineer A to apply heightened self-scrutiny before deciding whether and how to report the certificate of authority violation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111635
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Does the ethical framework change if Engineer A has reason to believe that XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is willful rather than inadvertent, and should the distinction between inadvertent and deliberate non-compliance affect the sequencing or urgency of Engineer A's reporting obligations?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: What obligation, if any, does Engineer A have toward Client L — a former client now potentially receiving engineering services from an unlicensed firm — and does Engineer A's duty to protect the public extend to proactively informing Client L of XYZ Engineering's non-compliance?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.111945
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement principle conflict with the Mandatory Reporting Obligation principle when Engineer A's competitive interest in the outcome creates a risk that collegial outreach is used as a delay tactic rather than a genuine corrective mechanism — and if so, how should Engineer A resolve this tension?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Competitive Fairness Dimension of XYZ Engineering's Unauthorized Practice — which benefits Engineer A if XYZ is removed from competition — conflict with the Epistemic Verification Obligation principle, in that Engineer A's competitive interest may bias the threshold of certainty Engineer A applies before concluding a violation has occurred and acting on it?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112095
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Licensure Integrity principle — which demands that unauthorized practice be reported to protect the profession and the public — conflict with the Professional Reciprocity Norm when Engineer A must decide how much latitude to extend to Engineer X before escalating to formal reporting, given that excessive deference to reciprocity could allow ongoing unlicensed practice to harm the public?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112229
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Engineering Business-Profession Duality principle — which acknowledges Engineer A's legitimate competitive interests — conflict with the Jurisdiction-Specific Compliance Violation principle when Engineer A must decide whether to report, given that the same act of reporting simultaneously serves Engineer A's business interest and the profession's regulatory integrity, making it impossible to cleanly separate self-interested from duty-driven motivation?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have an unconditional duty to report XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority to the State P licensure board, regardless of whether Engineer A's competitive interest in the matter might taint the motivation behind the report?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, does the collegial-first approach prescribed by the Board reflect the disposition of a professionally virtuous engineer, or does it risk allowing Engineer A's competitive self-interest to masquerade as professional courtesy, thereby undermining the integrity of the reporting process?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's graduated reporting sequence — collegial contact first, formal report only if unsatisfied — produce better outcomes for public welfare, licensure system integrity, and professional trust than an immediate mandatory report to the State P board would?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the epistemic verification obligation — requiring Engineer A to confirm XYZ Engineering's non-compliance before reporting — represent a genuine duty of fairness owed to Engineer X, or does it create a procedural loophole that allows unauthorized practice to continue unchecked while Engineer A deliberates?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer A had no prior business relationship with Client L — and therefore had no competitive stake in XYZ Engineering's engagement — would the Board's ethical analysis and reporting sequence have differed, and does the presence of competitive motivation structurally alter Engineer A's obligations or merely require heightened self-scrutiny?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112617
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer X, upon being contacted collegially by Engineer A, acknowledged the missing certificate of authority but continued providing engineering services in State P while claiming the application was pending — would Engineer A's obligation to report to the State P licensure board become immediate and unconditional at that point?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the BER 96-8 peer review precedent had established that confidentiality obligations fully override reporting duties even in cases of safety violations, how would that alternative precedent have affected the graduated reporting framework the Board applied to Engineer A's certificate of authority discovery?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer A had immediately reported XYZ Engineering to the State P licensure board without first contacting Engineer X, and it subsequently emerged that XYZ Engineering had in fact obtained a certificate of authority that Engineer A had simply failed to verify — what ethical and professional consequences would Engineer A face under Code provisions governing malicious or false injury to a competitor's professional reputation?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.112796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Report Violation to Authorities
type: Action
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
event role context: Owner, ABC Engineering, State P
foreseen unintended effects: Engineer X's potential inability to enforce contracts or collect fees in State P
foreseen unintended effects: Formal sanction or investigation of Engineer X and XYZ Engineering
foreseen unintended effects: Possible perception that Engineer A used the reporting mechanism to eliminate a competitor
foreseen unintended effects: Potential disruption to Client L's project
fulfills obligation text: Duty to protect public interest through enforcement of licensure requirements
fulfills obligation text: Ethical obligation to uphold the integrity of the licensure system
fulfills obligation text: Legal obligation to report licensure violations to the state engineering board
fulfills obligation text: NSPE Code obligation to act in accordance with law and professional standards
guided by principle text: Integrity and honesty in professional conduct
guided by principle text: Obligation to uphold and advance the engineering profession
guided by principle text: Proportionate and graduated response to violations
guided by principle text: Public protection through licensure enforcement
has agent: Engineer A
has mental state: obligatory and deliberate
intended outcome: Fulfill the legal and ethical obligation to report a known, unresolved licensure violation to the appropriate state authorities, ensuring enforcement of licensure laws that protect the public and the integrity of the profession
raises obligation text: No obligations violated if reporting is done in good faith after exhausting collegial resolution; however, premature or bad-faith reporting would violate obligations of fair dealing with competitors
requires capability text: Ability to document and present the facts of the violation accurately
requires capability text: Ethical judgment to ensure report is made in good faith and not for competitive purposes
requires capability text: Knowledge of state licensure board reporting procedures
temporal marker: Post-communication decision point, only if direct contact with Engineer X fails to produce compliance
temporal sequence: 10
within competence: true
comment: If Engineer A's direct communication with Engineer X fails to resolve the certificate of authority violation, Engineer A must then decide to formally notify the appropriate State P engineering licensure authorities of the ongoing violation. This escalation fulfills the reporting obligation that collegial first contact had temporarily deferred.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011759
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110586
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110614
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110649
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110680
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.110769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115949
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.115978
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.116007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.116038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:39:36.116069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Collegial Discussion Before Authority Notification BER 96-8
type: InadvertentLicensureViolationCollegialCounselPriorityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 96-8 established the precedent that collegial discussion and clarification must precede external authority notification even in safety-related peer review contexts, provided the violation is not immediately imminent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Review Engineer A (BER 96-8)
constraintclass: Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Priority Constraint
constraintstatement: Review Engineer A was constrained to first discuss the discovered safety code concerns with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolution before notifying proper authorities, and was further constrained to inform Engineer B of the intent to notify authorities if the issue could not be resolved collegially.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 96-8; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of the issues
temporalscope: Upon discovery of potential safety code violations during the peer review visit, prior to any external authority notification
textreferences: a more appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue
textreferences: the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of the issues
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.024505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation BER 96-8
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityFrameworkNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Review Engineer A possessed the capability to navigate the confidentiality agreement signed as peer reviewer, correctly determining that the confidentiality obligation became secondary when Engineer B's work posed a serious danger to public health and safety requiring disclosure to proper authorities.
casecontext: Review Engineer A signed a confidentiality agreement as part of the peer review program but discovered potential safety code violations, requiring navigation of the tension between contractual confidentiality and public safety disclosure obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Recognizing that the confidentiality agreement governing the peer review program did not override the obligation to disclose Engineer B's safety code violations to proper authorities when public safety was genuinely at risk
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Review Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
textreferences: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.025468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation Safety Override
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityFrameworkNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Review Engineer A must navigate the confidentiality agreement signed as part of the peer review program, recognizing when the discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work override the confidentiality obligation and require public safety disclosure.
casecontext: Review Engineer A signed a confidentiality agreement before visiting Engineer B's firm and must determine whether the discovered safety violations override that confidentiality commitment.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to balance confidentiality agreement obligations against the paramount duty to report safety code violations discovered during the peer review.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Review Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer — signed a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, discovered potential safety code violations.
textreferences: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer — signed a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, discovered potential safety code violations.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.021458
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Confidentiality Safety Override BER 96-8
type: PeerReviewConfidentialitySafetyOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Review Engineer A discovered during a peer review visit that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare. The confidentiality agreement signed as a condition of peer review participation was held not to override the public safety reporting obligation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Review Engineer A (BER 96-8)
constraintclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Review Engineer A's confidentiality agreement as peer reviewer did not override the obligation to disclose Engineer B's safety code violations to proper authorities if Engineer B failed to resolve the issues after collegial discussion; the confidentiality constraint was rendered secondary by the public safety imperative.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case 96-8; NSPE Code of Ethics; peer review program confidentiality agreement
sourcetext: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
temporalscope: Upon discovery of Engineer B's potential safety code violations during the peer review visit
textreferences: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.024346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Program Public Benefit Recognition BER 96-8
type: PeerReviewProgramPublicBenefitRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Program Public Benefit Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Review Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional and public benefits of the organized peer review program in which he participated, understanding its role in improving professional practice and ultimately enhancing public safety through quality improvement.
casecontext: Review Engineer A served as a peer reviewer in an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice, requiring recognition of the program's dual collegial and public safety purposes.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Participating in the organized peer review program designed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice, and understanding the program's collegial and public benefit purposes
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Review Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Review Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice
textreferences: Review Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.025598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Escalation Sequencing BER 96-8
type: PeerReviewSafetyEscalationSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: Review Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly sequence his response to Engineer B's potential safety code violations — first discussing the issues with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolution, then advising Engineer B of intent to notify authorities if resolution failed, and finally reporting to proper authorities.
casecontext: Review Engineer A, serving as peer reviewer under a confidentiality agreement, discovered that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements, requiring application of the correct graduated escalation sequence.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.95
demonstratedthrough: Following the graduated escalation sequence: collegial discussion with Engineer B → notification of intent to report → reporting to proper authorities, rather than immediately escalating to external authorities upon discovering potential violations
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:21:02.391277+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Review Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of the issues
textreferences: If they were unable to resolve the issue, Review Engineer A would have an obligation to inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Review Engineer A's only alternative is to notify and inform the proper authorities
textreferences: the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of the issues
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.025336
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
type: PeerReviewSafetyEscalationSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: Review Engineer A, upon discovering potential safety code violations in Engineer B's design work during a confidential peer review, must possess the capability to correctly sequence escalation steps — first discussing concerns with Engineer B, then advising of intent to report if unresolved, and finally reporting to appropriate authorities.
casecontext: Review Engineer A discovered potential safety violations during a peer review of Engineer B's firm and must navigate the tension between confidentiality obligations and public safety reporting duties through correct escalation sequencing.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: The obligation to follow a graduated escalation sequence when safety code violations are discovered during a confidential peer review of Engineer B's firm.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:51.443524+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Review Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer — Served as peer reviewer in an organized peer review program, signed a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, discovered potential safety code violations.
textreferences: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer — Served as peer reviewer in an organized peer review program, signed a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, discovered potential safety code violations.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.021330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A visiting Engineer B's firm before discovery of potential safety code violations
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: As part of a peer review visit, Review Engineer A visited Engineer B's firm. Following a review of the technical documentation...Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements
from entity text: Review Engineer A visiting Engineer B's firm
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: discovery of potential safety code violations
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: discovery of potential safety code violations
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct — State P
type: StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: State P Board of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State P Board of Professional Engineers Rules of Professional Conduct
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
sourcetext: XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
textreferences: XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
usedby: Engineer A in determining state-specific professional conduct obligations
usedincontext: State-level regulatory rules that may independently impose obligations on Engineer A to report XYZ Engineering's non-compliance with the certificate of authority requirement
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.015321
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

State P Certificate of Authority to Practice Engineering Requirement
type: CertificateofAuthoritytoPracticeEngineeringStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: State P Engineering Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State P Firm Licensure / Certificate of Authority Regulation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Certificate of Authority to Practice Engineering Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
usedby: Engineer A in identifying the nature of XYZ Engineering's non-compliance
usedincontext: The specific regulatory instrument requiring out-of-state engineering firms to obtain a certificate of authority before practicing in State P; XYZ Engineering's non-compliance is the central factual trigger of the ethical dilemma
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.014790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

State P Engineering Licensure Law
type: EngineeringLicensureLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.92
createdby: State P Legislature / Licensing Board
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: State P Engineering Practice Act / Licensure Statute
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineering Licensure Law
sourcetext: XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
textreferences: XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
usedby: Engineer A in assessing whether XYZ Engineering is in violation of State P law
usedincontext: Establishes the legal requirement for engineering firms to hold a certificate of authority to practice in State P, making XYZ Engineering's lack of such a certificate a potential statutory violation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.014660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard
type: UnlicensedPracticeReportingStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: NSPE and state licensing boards
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional norms governing duty to report unlicensed engineering practice
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:43.875147+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Unlicensed Practice Reporting Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
usedby: Engineer A in determining reporting obligations
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's ethical obligation upon discovering that XYZ Engineering is practicing without a certificate of authority in State P — whether and how to report this violation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.014919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Violation Discovered by Engineer A
type: Event
type: NamedIndividual
activates constraint: NSPE_Code_Section_III_Reporting_Constraint
activates constraint: Peer_Ethics_Enforcement_Constraint
activates constraint: Professional_Reporting_Obligation_Constraint
causes state change: Engineer A moves from uninformed third party to informed professional observer with active ethical obligations; the violation transitions from a private non-compliance issue to one with a known witness who has professional duties to act
concept category: Event
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Contact_Engineer_X_Directly_First
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Decide_How_to_Respond
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Not_Ignore_Known_Violation
creates obligation: Engineer_A_Must_Report_if_Direct_Contact_Fails
emergency status: medium
event type: exogenous
temporal marker: After Engineer X has commenced the engagement with Client L, at an unspecified point during the project
temporal sequence: 4
urgency level: medium
comment: Engineer A becomes aware that Engineer X is practicing engineering in State P without the required certificate of authority, triggering Engineer A's ethical and potentially legal obligations to respond.
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.011902
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

XYZ Engineering State P Certificate of Authority Pre-Practice Requirement
type: Out-of-StateFirmCertificateofAuthorityJurisdictionalPracticeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer X accepted a State P engineering engagement without holding the required State P certificate of authority, creating the regulatory non-compliance that Engineer A subsequently discovered.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: XYZ Engineering (Engineer X, owner)
constraintclass: Out-of-State Firm Certificate of Authority Jurisdictional Practice Constraint
constraintstatement: XYZ Engineering, as an out-of-state firm licensed in State Q, was required to obtain a current certificate of authority from State P before accepting or performing engineering services for Client L on a project located in State P; its failure to do so constitutes unauthorized practice of engineering in State P.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State P Engineering Licensure Law; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
temporalscope: From the moment XYZ Engineering accepted the engagement in State P through the completion of services
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.013623
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

clarification discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X before Engineer X obtaining certificate of authority
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation...Assuming Engineer X is a reasonable and prudent individual, we believe Engineer A's counsel to Engineer X would be all that would be necessary to convince Engineer X to take all appropriate steps to obtain the certificate of authority
from entity text: clarification discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer X obtaining certificate of authority
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer X obtaining certificate of authority
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.710575+00:00
value: Collegial pre-reporting engagement is prioritized over immediate formal reporting because the violation appears inadvertent; formal reporting remains obligatory if Engineer X fails to cure the violation after being advised

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.91
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711880+00:00
value: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority in State P, Engineer A is constrained to first notify Engineer X privately of the apparent non-compliance and afford a reasonable opportunity for voluntary correction before escalating to a formal report to the State P licensing board, given that the violation appears to be an administrative oversight rather than a deliberate circumvention of licensure requirements.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711184+00:00
value: Collegial pre-reporting engagement is prioritized over immediate formal reporting because the violation appears inadvertent; formal reporting remains obligatory if Engineer X fails to cure the violation after being advised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.710834+00:00
value: The reporting obligation is not negated by competitive interest; however, the manner of reporting must be professional, factual, and non-malicious to avoid violating the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711722+00:00
value: The reporting obligation is not negated by competitive interest; however, the manner of reporting must be professional, factual, and non-malicious to avoid violating the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711936+00:00
value: The reporting obligation is genuine and not negated by Engineer A's competitive interest, provided the report is factually grounded and not maliciously motivated

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.712280+00:00
value: Collegial pre-reporting engagement is prioritized over immediate formal reporting because the violation appears inadvertent; formal reporting remains obligatory if Engineer X fails to cure the violation after being advised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.712131+00:00
value: Collegial pre-reporting engagement is prioritized over immediate formal reporting because the violation appears inadvertent; formal reporting remains obligatory if Engineer X fails to cure the violation after being advised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711333+00:00
value: Collegial pre-reporting engagement is prioritized over immediate formal reporting because the violation appears inadvertent; formal reporting remains obligatory if Engineer X fails to cure the violation after being advised

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711817+00:00
value: The restraint principle requires verification but does not require certainty; 'knowledge or reason to believe' is the applicable threshold, and Engineer A's direct knowledge that XYZ lacks a certificate of authority satisfies this threshold once verified

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.709700+00:00
value: Collegial pre-reporting engagement is prioritized over immediate formal reporting because the violation appears inadvertent; formal reporting remains obligatory if Engineer X fails to cure the violation after being advised

Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711396+00:00
value: Engineer A's duty to report XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority non-compliance to the State P licensing board does not require immediate filing upon discovery, because the violation poses no imminent public danger; Engineer A is constrained to first pursue collegial resolution before treating the reporting duty as requiring instantaneous formal action.

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.712371+00:00
value: The reporting obligation is not negated by competitive interest; however, the manner of reporting must be professional, factual, and non-malicious to avoid violating the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711617+00:00
value: Good-faith, factually grounded reporting of a genuine licensing violation does not constitute malicious reputation injury even when the reporter has a competitive interest; the prohibition targets malicious or false injury, not legitimate reporting

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711990+00:00
value: Jurisdiction-specific compliance obligations are not overridden by client loyalty or faithful agent duties; compliance is a precondition of lawful practice

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.710228+00:00
value: Public safety obligation overrides confidentiality agreement; confidentiality becomes a secondary matter when genuine public danger exists

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711481+00:00
value: Public safety obligation overrides confidentiality agreement; confidentiality becomes a secondary matter when genuine public danger exists

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.712219+00:00
value: Public safety obligation overrides confidentiality agreement; confidentiality becomes a secondary matter when genuine public danger exists

Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
type: Derivation
comment: source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
generated at time: 2026-05-02T02:44:28.711273+00:00
value: Public welfare paramount overrides confidentiality; the confidentiality issue becomes secondary when genuine public danger exists

direct communication between Engineer A and Engineer X before reporting violation to state licensing authorities
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations...this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately...a more prudent approach...would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification
from entity text: direct communication between Engineer A and Engineer X
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: reporting violation to state licensing authorities
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: reporting violation to state licensing authorities
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026315
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X (failed resolution) before Engineer A informing Engineer X of intent to notify authorities
type: TemporalRelation
type: NamedIndividual
allen relation: before
evidence: if they were unable to resolve the issue, Review Engineer A would have an obligation to inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Review Engineer A's only alternative is to notify and inform the proper authorities
from entity text: discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X (failed resolution)
owl time property: time:intervalBefore
to entity text: Engineer A informing Engineer X of intent to notify authorities
comment: Entity1 is before Entity2
interval before: Engineer A informing Engineer X of intent to notif
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.026437
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board frames Engineer A's decision about whether and how to respond to Engineer X's certificate of authority violation within the broader context of engineering as simultaneously a profession and a business, requiring independent judgme

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The competitive market for engineering services in State P requires that all participating firms comply with State P's licensure requirements as a precondition of market participation; XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice violates the bo

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's collegial counsel to Engineer X includes an explanation of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement — identifying professional engineers present in the state, their licensure status, office locations, and engine

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounds Engineer A's obligation to counsel Engineer X before reporting in the reciprocity norm: Engineer A may one day find himself in a similar circumstance and would value collegial guidance, which generates a present obligation

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must evaluate whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P meets State P's specific threshold for reportable misconduct, applying State P's licensing board standards rather than a generic national stand

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must ensure that any report to the State P licensing board about XYZ Engineering's lack of certificate of authority is motivated by professional duty to uphold licensure integrity rather than by competitive desire to recover Clie

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Before reporting XYZ Engineering to the State P licensing board, Engineer A must verify that XYZ Engineering truly lacks a current certificate of authority and must not act on incomplete or potentially mistaken information, given the compet

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon learning that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, faces an obligation to challenge or report this unlicensed practice to the appropriate State P licensing authority

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, having knowledge that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P, is obligated to report this violation to the State P licensing board in writing, notwithstanding that Engineer A has a competitive in

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that competitor Engineer X's firm lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P, is advised to first counsel Engineer X directly — explaining the reasons for the requirement and its consequences — befo

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's collegial counsel to Engineer X includes an explanation of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement — identifying professional engineers present in the state, their licensure status, office locations, and engine

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: The Board grounds Engineer A's obligation to counsel Engineer X before reporting in the reciprocity norm: Engineer A may one day find himself in a similar circumstance and would value collegial guidance, which generates a present obligation

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that competitor Engineer X's firm lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P, is advised to first counsel Engineer X directly — explaining the reasons for the requirement and its consequences — befo

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering's practice in State P without a certificate of authority creates an unfair competitive advantage over firms like ABC Engineering that have obtained and maintained proper authorization, as XYZ avoids the compliance costs and

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: XYZ Engineering's practice in State P without a certificate of authority undermines the licensure system that State P has established to protect its public from unqualified engineering practice, as Client L is unknowingly receiving engineer

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X accepted and performed engineering services for Client L on a project in State P without obtaining the certificate of authority required by State P, violating the jurisdiction-specific compliance obligation applicable to out-of-s

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X accepted and performed engineering services for Client L on a project in State P without obtaining the certificate of authority required by State P, violating the jurisdiction-specific compliance obligation applicable to out-of-s

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: In BER Case 96-8, the Board held that when Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements and endanger public health, safety, and welfare, Review Engineer A's obligation to protect the public overrides the confidenti

R->P->O edge: adheresToPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Review Engineer A, bound by a confidentiality agreement as peer reviewer, discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work; the Board held that public safety obligations override the confidentiality agreement, requiring Engi

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer in State P, bears an obligation to actively preserve the integrity of State P's engineering licensure system by not ignoring XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice, recognizing that permittin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer in State P, bears an obligation to actively preserve the integrity of State P's engineering licensure system by not ignoring XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice, recognizing that permittin

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must evaluate whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P meets State P's specific threshold for reportable misconduct under State P's rules of professional conduct before concluding that a reporting o

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must not allow the competitive discomfort of reporting a firm that has taken a former client — or the appearance of self-interest — to suppress the legitimate reporting obligation triggered by XYZ Engineering's lack of a certific

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's competitive financial interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — does not extinguish any applicable obligation to report Engineer X's certificate of authority violation to the State P licensing board, p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's competitive financial interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — does not extinguish any applicable obligation to report Engineer X's certificate of authority violation to the State P licensing board, p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must examine and ensure that any report filed with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is motivated by professional duty to protect the public and the licensure system, not b

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Before filing any report with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority, Engineer A is obligated to verify through authoritative sources — such as the State P licensing board's public records

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering lacks a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P and confirming that this meets State P's reporting threshold, Engineer A is obligated to report XYZ Engineering's unauthorized p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering lacks a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P and confirming that this meets State P's reporting threshold, Engineer A is obligated to report XYZ Engineering's unauthorized p

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to consider the professional reciprocity norm — that he may one day find himself in a similar circumstance and would value collegial guidance — as part of his ethical deliberation about how to respond to Engineer X's

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: As part of his collegial counsel to Engineer X, Engineer A is obligated to explain the substantive reasons for the certificate of authority requirement and the practical legal consequences of non-compliance, including impaired ability to se

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to refrain from immediately filing a report with the State P licensing board upon discovering Engineer X's certificate of authority deficiency, and instead to first counsel Engineer X and allow a reasonable opportuni

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that Engineer X's firm (XYZ Engineering) lacks a certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, is obligated to first communicate directly with Engineer X to advise him of the potential violation a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that Engineer X's firm (XYZ Engineering) lacks a certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, is obligated to first communicate directly with Engineer X to advise him of the potential violation a

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, as owner of XYZ Engineering (licensed in State Q), was obligated to obtain a current certificate of authority from State P before accepting and performing engineering services for Client L on a project located in State P.

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Review Engineer A, having discovered that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements during a peer review visit, was obligated to first discuss the issues with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolutio

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Review Engineer A, having discovered that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements during a peer review visit, was obligated to first discuss the issues with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolutio

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Review Engineer A's confidentiality agreement as peer reviewer did not override the obligation to disclose Engineer B's safety code violations to proper authorities when those violations posed a genuine danger to public health, safety, and

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Review Engineer A's confidentiality agreement as peer reviewer did not override the obligation to disclose Engineer B's safety code violations to proper authorities when those violations posed a genuine danger to public health, safety, and

R->P->O edge: derivedFromPrinciple
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must not allow the competitive discomfort of reporting a firm that has taken a former client — or the appearance of self-interest — to suppress the legitimate reporting obligation triggered by XYZ Engineering's lack of a certific

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer in State P, bears an obligation to actively preserve the integrity of State P's engineering licensure system by not ignoring XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice, recognizing that permittin

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must evaluate whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P meets State P's specific threshold for reportable misconduct under State P's rules of professional conduct before concluding that a reporting o

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A, upon discovering that Engineer X's firm (XYZ Engineering) lacks a certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, is obligated to first communicate directly with Engineer X to advise him of the potential violation a

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, as owner of XYZ Engineering (licensed in State Q), was obligated to obtain a current certificate of authority from State P before accepting and performing engineering services for Client L on a project located in State P.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer X, as owner of XYZ Engineering (licensed in State Q), was obligated to obtain a current certificate of authority from State P before accepting and performing engineering services for Client L on a project located in State P.

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Review Engineer A, having discovered that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements during a peer review visit, was obligated to first discuss the issues with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolutio

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Review Engineer A's confidentiality agreement as peer reviewer did not override the obligation to disclose Engineer B's safety code violations to proper authorities when those violations posed a genuine danger to public health, safety, and

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must not allow the competitive discomfort of reporting a firm that has taken a former client — or the appearance of self-interest — to suppress the legitimate reporting obligation triggered by XYZ Engineering's lack of a certific

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Before filing any report with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority, Engineer A is obligated to verify through authoritative sources — such as the State P licensing board's public records

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A's competitive financial interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — does not extinguish any applicable obligation to report Engineer X's certificate of authority violation to the State P licensing board, p

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A must examine and ensure that any report filed with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is motivated by professional duty to protect the public and the licensure system, not b

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering lacks a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P and confirming that this meets State P's reporting threshold, Engineer A is obligated to report XYZ Engineering's unauthorized p

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to consider the professional reciprocity norm — that he may one day find himself in a similar circumstance and would value collegial guidance — as part of his ethical deliberation about how to respond to Engineer X's

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: As part of his collegial counsel to Engineer X, Engineer A is obligated to explain the substantive reasons for the certificate of authority requirement and the practical legal consequences of non-compliance, including impaired ability to se

R->P->O edge: hasObligation
type: Derivation
value: Engineer A is obligated to refrain from immediately filing a report with the State P licensing board upon discovering Engineer X's certificate of authority deficiency, and instead to first counsel Engineer X and allow a reasonable opportuni

Engineer A Collegial Notification Priority Before Board Report XYZ Engineering
type: CollegialNotificationPriorityBeforeFormalCompetitorRegulatoryReportConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The certificate of authority deficiency may be an inadvertent administrative oversight by Engineer X, making collegial notification the appropriate first step before formal regulatory escalation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Collegial Notification Priority Before Formal Competitor Regulatory Report Constraint
constraintstatement: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority in State P, Engineer A is constrained to first notify Engineer X privately of the apparent non-compliance and afford a reasonable opportunity for voluntary correction before escalating to a formal report to the State P licensing board, given that the violation appears to be an administrative oversight rather than a deliberate circumvention of licensure requirements.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:14:01.464430+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 96-8 collegial notification precedent; professional norms of peer self-regulation
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
temporalscope: Immediately upon verification of non-compliance and prior to formal board complaint submission
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.013899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Immediate Reporting Constraint XYZ Certificate of Authority
type: Non-ImminentLicensureViolationImmediateReportingNon-CompulsionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is an administrative regulatory violation without imminent public safety implications, distinguishing it from violations requiring immediate reporting under the imminent danger exception.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Imminent Licensure Violation Immediate Reporting Non-Compulsion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's duty to report XYZ Engineering's certificate of authority non-compliance to the State P licensing board does not require immediate filing upon discovery, because the violation poses no imminent public danger; Engineer A is constrained to first pursue collegial resolution before treating the reporting duty as requiring instantaneous formal action.
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:20:21.922609+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: State P engineering licensure law; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 96-8 precedent
sourcetext: most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board, this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
temporalscope: From the moment of discovery of XYZ Engineering's non-compliance through the collegial resolution process
textreferences: most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board, this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.024033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

BER 96-8 Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
type: PeerReviewSafetyViolationDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Review Engineer A identified potential safety code violations during the peer review visit through resolution
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Public health and safety
affectedparties: Review Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
stateclass: Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery State
subject: Review Engineer A's discovery of Engineer B's potential safety code violations during peer review
terminatedby: Discussion between Review Engineer A and Engineer B, or escalation to proper authorities if unresolved
textreferences: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: if Review Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work is, or may be, in violation of state and local safety requirements and endangers public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B
triggeringevent: Review Engineer A's examination of technical documentation revealing potential violations of state and local safety code requirements
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.016223
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Competitive Fairness Dimension of XYZ Engineering's Unauthorized Practice
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client L Former Client Now Retaining Competitor
appliedto: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Engineering's practice in State P without a certificate of authority creates an unfair competitive advantage over firms like ABC Engineering that have obtained and maintained proper authorization, as XYZ avoids the compliance costs and procedural requirements that authorized firms bear
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Competitive fairness requires that all firms competing for work in a jurisdiction comply with the same licensure requirements; unauthorized practice by one firm undermines the level competitive playing field that the certificate of authority system is designed to maintain
invokedby: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
tensionresolution: The competitive fairness violation reinforces rather than conflicts with the reporting obligation; reporting serves both professional integrity and competitive fairness simultaneously
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.018494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Correction Priority Before Formal Reporting
type: InadvertentPeerRegulatoryViolationCollegialCorrectionPriorityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery of Engineer X's non-compliance through Engineer A's collegial communication with Engineer X
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: State P licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
stateclass: Inadvertent Peer Regulatory Violation Collegial Correction Priority State
subject: Engineer A's ethical obligation sequencing upon discovering Engineer X's inadvertent certificate of authority non-compliance
terminatedby: Engineer X taking corrective action to obtain the certificate of authority, or failure of collegial resolution triggering formal reporting obligation
textreferences: Assuming Engineer X is a reasonable and prudent individual, we believe Engineer A's counsel to Engineer X would be all that would be necessary to convince Engineer X to take all appropriate steps to obtain the certificate of authority
textreferences: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction
textreferences: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
textreferences: this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
triggeringevent: Engineer A becoming aware that competitor Engineer X's firm lacks a required certificate of authority in State P, with no indication of willful non-compliance or imminent public danger
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.016752
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Cooperative Disclosure Pathway via Collegial Communication
type: CooperativeDisclosurePathwayAvailableState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery of the non-compliance through Engineer A's decision on how to proceed
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: State P licensing board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
stateclass: Cooperative Disclosure Pathway Available State
subject: Engineer A's access to a collegial, private communication pathway with Engineer X before formal regulatory reporting
terminatedby: Engineer A initiating collegial communication with Engineer X, or determination that formal reporting is immediately required
textreferences: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
textreferences: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
triggeringevent: Engineer A identifying that a direct collegial conversation with Engineer X is available as a first-step resolution mechanism
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.013450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Discovery of XYZ Non-Compliance
type: CompetitorRegulatoryNon-ComplianceDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A learns of XYZ Engineering's lack of certificate of authority onward
affectedparties: ABC Engineering
affectedparties: Client L
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: State P licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:05.365281+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:05.365281+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
stateclass: Competitor Regulatory Non-Compliance Discovery State
subject: Engineer A's knowledge that competitor XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority in State P
terminatedby: Not described — state is ongoing; would terminate upon reporting or resolution of XYZ's non-compliance
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
triggeringevent: Engineer A learning that XYZ Engineering does not hold a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.015651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Former Client Relationship with Client L
type: FormerClientCompetitorEngagementAwarenessState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point Engineer A learns of XYZ Engineering's engagement with Client L onward
affectedparties: ABC Engineering
affectedparties: Client L
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:05.365281+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:05.365281+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm
stateclass: Former Client Competitor Engagement Awareness State
subject: Engineer A's awareness that former client Client L has engaged competitor XYZ Engineering
terminatedby: Not described — state is ongoing at time of case analysis
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P
triggeringevent: Engineer A learning that Client L — a former client of ABC Engineering — has retained XYZ Engineering for a State P project
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.015496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer X Firm Certificate of Authority Non-Compliance
type: FirmUnauthorizedJurisdictionPracticeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer X's firm began providing engineering services in State P without a certificate of authority through remediation
affectedparties: Clients of XYZ in State P
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: State P licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P, and might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
stateclass: Firm Unauthorized Jurisdiction Practice State
subject: Engineer X's firm XYZ operating in State P without a required certificate of authority
terminatedby: Engineer X obtaining the required certificate of authority following Engineer A's collegial counsel
textreferences: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon
textreferences: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P, and might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
triggeringevent: Engineer X's firm undertaking engineering services in State P without obtaining the required certificate of authority
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.016587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer X Out-of-State Firm Owner Without Certificate of Authority
type: Out-of-StateFirmOwnerPracticingWithoutCertificateofAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Jurisdiction-Specific Compliance Violation by Engineer X in State P
has obligation: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Certificate of Authority State P Pre-Practice Compliance
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (home state)', 'firm': 'XYZ Engineering', 'violation': 'No certificate of authority in State P', 'violation_character': 'Inadvertent/unintentional'}
caseinvolvement: Owner of XYZ engineering firm, licensed in another state, who accepted and performed engineering services in State P without obtaining the required certificate of authority, subject to collegial counsel from Engineer A and potential formal reporting if non-compliant.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'advised_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Collegial Unlicensed Practice Advisor'}
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Collegial Unlicensed Practice Advisor'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Out-of-State Firm Owner Practicing Without Certificate of Authority
sourcetext: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P
textreferences: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon
textreferences: might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
textreferences: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.013132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineering Business-Profession Duality Framing of Engineer A Competitive Reporting Decision
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board frames Engineer A's decision about whether and how to respond to Engineer X's certificate of authority violation within the broader context of engineering as simultaneously a profession and a business, requiring independent judgment and collegial engagement rather than purely competitive or purely punitive responses
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The business-profession duality means Engineer A cannot treat the competitive context as either irrelevant (pure professional duty to report) or determinative (self-interested reporting to eliminate a competitor); independent judgment and collegial engagement are required
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: While engineering is a profession, the practice of engineering, as with all professional pursuits, is also a business.
tensionresolution: Independent judgment and collegial engagement are required to navigate the intersection of competitive business interests and professional ethical obligations
textreferences: In many of these cases, the Board has stressed the importance of exercising independent judgment and discretion in all business and professional areas.
textreferences: Included in this is the obligation to engage with other professionals in a collegial and cooperative manner, where appropriate.
textreferences: While engineering is a profession, the practice of engineering, as with all professional pursuits, is also a business.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.022116
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Free and Open Competition Boundary Condition in State P Engineering Market
type: FreeandOpenCompetitionasEngineeringEthicsBoundaryCondition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client L Former Client Now Retaining Competitor
appliedto: State P engineering services market
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The competitive market for engineering services in State P requires that all participating firms comply with State P's licensure requirements as a precondition of market participation; XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice violates the boundary conditions within which free and open competition is ethically permissible
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Free and open competition is valuable precisely because it occurs within a framework of professional standards; firms that circumvent licensure requirements are not competing freely and openly but are instead obtaining an illegitimate competitive advantage
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
invokedby: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
principleclass: Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
sourcetext: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
tensionresolution: The free competition principle does not protect unauthorized market participation; the boundary condition is that competition must occur within applicable professional and licensure standards
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.018689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

XYZ Engineering Unauthorized State P Practice
type: FirmUnauthorizedJurisdictionPracticeState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the time Engineer X accepted the engagement with Client L in State P through the present (no termination event described)
affectedparties: Client L
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: Public in State P
affectedparties: State P licensing board
affectedparties: XYZ Engineering
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:07:05.365281+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:07:05.365281+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
stateclass: Firm Unauthorized Jurisdiction Practice State
subject: XYZ Engineering's engagement to provide engineering services in State P
terminatedby: Not described — state is ongoing at time of case analysis
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P
textreferences: XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
triggeringevent: XYZ Engineering accepting an engineering services engagement in State P without holding a current certificate of authority to practice in that jurisdiction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.012139
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Certificate of Authority Consequence Explanation to Engineer X
type: CertificateofAuthorityConsequenceExplanationCollegialDutyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A counsels Engineer X about XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority to practice in State P; the explanation is intended to motivate Engineer X to voluntarily remedy the violation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Licensure Integrity Invoked in Certificate of Authority Requirement Explanation
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (ABC Engineering, State P)
obligationclass: Certificate of Authority Consequence Explanation Collegial Duty Obligation
obligationstatement: As part of his collegial counsel to Engineer X, Engineer A is obligated to explain the substantive reasons for the certificate of authority requirement and the practical legal consequences of non-compliance, including impaired ability to seek judicial redress and inability to enforce contracts or obtain payment in State P.
sourcetext: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement (e.g., identifying the professional engineers present in the state and their licensure status, office location(s), engineers in responsible charge)
temporalscope: During the collegial counsel conversation with Engineer X
textreferences: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement (e.g., identifying the professional engineers present in the state and their licensure status, office location(s), engineers in responsible charge)
textreferences: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P, and might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.022746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Reciprocity Deliberation in Reporting Decision
type: ProfessionalReciprocityGoldenRuleCollegialRestraintObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A weighs whether to immediately report Engineer X to the State P licensing board or to first counsel Engineer X collegially about the certificate of authority deficiency.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Professional Reciprocity Norm Invoked in Engineer A Counsel to Engineer X
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A (ABC Engineering, State P)
obligationclass: Professional Reciprocity Golden Rule Collegial Restraint Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to consider the professional reciprocity norm — that he may one day find himself in a similar circumstance and would value collegial guidance — as part of his ethical deliberation about how to respond to Engineer X's certificate of authority violation, informing his choice of a collegial, counseling-first approach.
sourcetext: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
temporalscope: During the ethical deliberation about how to respond to the discovered violation
textreferences: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
textreferences: Included in this is the obligation to engage with other professionals in a collegial and cooperative manner, where appropriate
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.023046
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A State P Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Assessment XYZ
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: State P may have specific rules defining what constitutes reportable misconduct; Engineer A must apply State P's rules rather than a generic standard when assessing the reporting obligation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
derived from principle: State P Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Applied by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A / ABC Engineering
obligationclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must evaluate whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P meets State P's specific threshold for reportable misconduct under State P's rules of professional conduct before concluding that a reporting obligation is triggered.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
temporalscope: Before filing any report with the State P licensing board
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.019384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Motivation Contamination Risk
type: RegulatoryViolationCompetitiveMotivationContaminationRiskState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's discovery of Engineer X's non-compliance through resolution of the matter
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer X
affectedparties: State P engineering profession
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:41.541825+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: As a business pursuit, engineers compete with one another for clients in order to maximize individual and firm profits.
stateclass: Regulatory Violation Competitive Motivation Contamination Risk State
subject: Engineer A's position as a competitor of Engineer X who has discovered Engineer X's regulatory non-compliance
terminatedby: Engineer A taking action clearly grounded in professional obligation (collegial correction) rather than competitive interest
textreferences: As a business pursuit, engineers compete with one another for clients in order to maximize individual and firm profits.
textreferences: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
textreferences: potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction
triggeringevent: Engineer A, as a competitor of Engineer X in State P, becoming aware of Engineer X's failure to obtain a certificate of authority
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.016906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Epistemic Verification XYZ Certificate of Authority Status Before Report
type: EpistemicVerificationBeforeCompetitorMisconductReportObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Discovery of XYZ Non-Compliance
casecontext: Engineer A 'learns' that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority, but the source and reliability of this information is unspecified; Engineer A must confirm this through authoritative channels before acting on it.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Epistemic Verification Obligation Before Engineer A Reports XYZ
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A / ABC Engineering
obligationclass: Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Misconduct Report Obligation
obligationstatement: Before filing any report with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority, Engineer A is obligated to verify through authoritative sources — such as the State P licensing board's public records — that XYZ Engineering does not in fact hold a current certificate of authority.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
temporalscope: Before filing any report or taking formal action against XYZ Engineering
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.019118
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Licensure System Integrity Preservation XYZ Unauthorized Practice
type: LicensureSystemIntegrityPreservationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: XYZ Engineering's practice without a certificate of authority in State P erodes the licensure system that State P has established to protect the public, and Engineer A's awareness of this violation creates a professional duty to act.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
derived from principle: Licensure Integrity Undermined by XYZ Engineering's Unauthorized Practice
derived from principle: Unlicensed Practice Obligation Invoked Against XYZ Engineering by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A / ABC Engineering
obligationclass: Licensure System Integrity Preservation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, as a licensed professional engineer in State P, bears an obligation to actively preserve the integrity of State P's engineering licensure system by not ignoring XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice, recognizing that permitting such practice to continue unchallenged undermines public protection and the competitive fairness of the State P engineering market.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
temporalscope: Upon learning of XYZ Engineering's lack of certificate of authority
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.018850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
type: Out-of-StateFirmOwnerPracticingWithoutCertificateofAuthority
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Competitive Fairness Dimension of XYZ Engineering's Unauthorized Practice
adheres to principle: Jurisdiction-Specific Compliance Violation by Engineer X in State P
adheres to principle: Licensure Integrity Undermined by XYZ Engineering's Unauthorized Practice
has obligation: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Certificate of Authority State P Pre-Practice Compliance
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (State Q, presumed)', 'firm_role': 'Owner/Principal', 'firm': 'XYZ Engineering', 'home_jurisdiction': 'State Q', 'practice_jurisdiction': 'State P', 'certificate_of_authority_State_P': 'None/Expired'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer X, owner of XYZ Engineering (licensed in State Q), accepts and performs engineering services for Client L on a project in State P without holding a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, constituting unlicensed firm practice.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:45.292690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:45.292690+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter'}
relationships: {'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Client L'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Out-of-State Firm Owner Practicing Without Certificate of Authority
sourcetext: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P
textreferences: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q
textreferences: XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.014222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Licensure Integrity Undermined by XYZ Engineering's Unauthorized Practice
type: LicensureIntegrityandPublicProtectionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client L Former Client Now Retaining Competitor
appliedto: State P's public protection framework
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Engineering's practice in State P without a certificate of authority undermines the licensure system that State P has established to protect its public from unqualified engineering practice, as Client L is unknowingly receiving engineering services from a firm not authorized to practice in the jurisdiction
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The certificate of authority requirement exists to ensure that firms practicing in State P meet State P's standards; bypassing this requirement deprives Client L and the public of the protection the licensure system is designed to provide
invokedby: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
principleclass: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
tensionresolution: Licensure integrity is not subordinated to client service convenience; the public protection rationale of licensure overrides the commercial interest in accepting out-of-state work without proper authorization
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.017674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer
type: PeerReviewSafetyViolationDiscoveringEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation Invoked in BER Case 96-8 Peer Review Context
adheres to principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Override of Peer Review Confidentiality in BER 96-8
has obligation: Review Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Override of Public Safety BER 96-8
has obligation: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Sequential Escalation BER 96-8
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'program_role': 'Peer reviewer in organized peer review program', 'confidentiality_bound': True, 'safety_violation_discovered': True}
caseinvolvement: Served as peer reviewer in an organized peer review program, signed a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's design work, and bore obligations to discuss findings collegially before notifying authorities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'bound_by', 'target': 'Confidentiality Agreement'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_review_of', 'target': 'Engineer B Peer-Reviewed Engineer'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Peer Review Safety Violation Discovering Engineer
sourcetext: Review Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program
textreferences: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements
textreferences: Review Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program
textreferences: Review Engineer A was asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreement'
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.015796
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

State P Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Applied by Engineer A
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThreshold
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
appliedto: State P licensing board
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must evaluate whether XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P meets State P's specific threshold for reportable misconduct, applying State P's licensing board standards rather than a generic national standard
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: State P's certificate of authority requirement is a jurisdiction-specific rule; whether its violation constitutes reportable misconduct under State P's ethics and licensing framework must be evaluated against State P's specific standards
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
tensionresolution: Practicing without a certificate of authority is a clear, objective, verifiable violation of State P's licensure requirements, which in most jurisdictions meets the threshold for reportable misconduct without ambiguity
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.018343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Suppression of Reporting Duty XYZ Engineering
type: CompetitiveInterestNon-SubordinationofLicensureReportingDutyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: Engineer A Former Client Relationship with Client L
casecontext: The fact that Client L is a former client of ABC Engineering creates a competitive dynamic that might cause Engineer A to hesitate in reporting, or might cause others to question the motivation; neither consideration extinguishes the reporting duty.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.83
derived from principle: Competitive Motivation Scrutiny in Engineer A's Reporting Decision
derived from principle: Mandatory Reporting Obligation of Engineer A Despite Competitive Interest
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A / ABC Engineering
obligationclass: Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Licensure Reporting Duty Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must not allow the competitive discomfort of reporting a firm that has taken a former client — or the appearance of self-interest — to suppress the legitimate reporting obligation triggered by XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority in State P.
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
temporalscope: Throughout the decision-making process regarding whether to report XYZ Engineering
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.019671
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Epistemic Verification Obligation Before Engineer A Reports XYZ
type: IncompleteSituationalKnowledgeRestraintinCompetitorCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Before reporting XYZ Engineering to the State P licensing board, Engineer A must verify that XYZ Engineering truly lacks a current certificate of authority and must not act on incomplete or potentially mistaken information, given the competitive stakes involved
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The competitive context heightens the epistemic obligation: Engineer A must be confident in the factual basis of the report before proceeding, to avoid unjustly injuring XYZ Engineering's professional standing based on incomplete information
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
tensionresolution: The restraint principle requires verification but does not require certainty; 'knowledge or reason to believe' is the applicable threshold, and Engineer A's direct knowledge that XYZ lacks a certificate of authority satisfies this threshold once verified
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.018188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Unlicensed Practice Advisor
type: CollegialUnlicensedPracticeAdvisorEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Invoked by Engineer A Toward Engineer X
adheres to principle: Licensure Integrity Invoked in Certificate of Authority Requirement Explanation
adheres to principle: Professional Reciprocity Norm Invoked in Engineer A Counsel to Engineer X
has obligation: Engineer A Certificate of Authority Consequence Explanation to Engineer X
has obligation: Engineer A Collegial Counsel to Engineer X Before Board Report
has obligation: Engineer A Non-Immediate Board Reporting for Engineer X Inadvertent Violation
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'jurisdiction': 'State P', 'relationship_to_engineer_x': 'Competitor and professional colleague'}
caseinvolvement: A licensed engineer in State P who became aware that competitor Engineer X's firm (XYZ) was practicing engineering in State P without the required certificate of authority, and bore an obligation to first counsel Engineer X collegially — explaining the legal and professional consequences — before considering formal reporting.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:08:20.848465+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'collegial_advisor_to', 'target': 'Engineer X Out-of-State Firm Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'competitor_of', 'target': 'Engineer X Out-of-State Firm Owner'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Collegial Unlicensed Practice Advisor Engineer
sourcetext: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
textreferences: Assuming Engineer X is a reasonable and prudent individual, we believe Engineer A's counsel to Engineer X would be all that would be necessary
textreferences: Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
textreferences: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.016072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer X XYZ Engineering Certificate of Authority State P Pre-Practice Compliance
type: Out-of-StateFirmCertificateofAuthorityPre-PracticeComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
defeasible under: XYZ Engineering Unauthorized State P Practice
casecontext: XYZ Engineering accepted and performed engineering services for Client L in State P without obtaining the required certificate of authority from State P, constituting unauthorized firm-level practice of engineering in State P.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Jurisdiction-Specific Compliance Violation by Engineer X in State P
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer X / XYZ Engineering
obligationclass: Out-of-State Firm Certificate of Authority Pre-Practice Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer X, as owner of XYZ Engineering (licensed in State Q), was obligated to obtain a current certificate of authority from State P before accepting and performing engineering services for Client L on a project located in State P.
sourcetext: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
temporalscope: Prior to accepting the engagement from Client L for the State P project
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.018986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Licensure Integrity Invoked in Certificate of Authority Requirement Explanation
type: LicensureIntegrityandPublicProtectionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
balancingwith: Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation for Inadvertent Violations
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's collegial counsel to Engineer X includes an explanation of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement — identifying professional engineers present in the state, their licensure status, office locations, and engineers in responsible charge — grounding the regulatory requirement in the public protection rationale of the licensure system
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The certificate of authority requirement serves the same public protection function as individual licensure; explaining this rationale to Engineer X is part of the collegial engagement obligation and reinforces the legitimacy of the regulatory requirement
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
invokedby: Engineer A Collegial Unlicensed Practice Advisor
principleclass: Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
sourcetext: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement (e.g., identifying the professional engineers present in the state and their licensure status, office location(s), engineers in responsible charge)
tensionresolution: Licensure integrity supports both the requirement itself and the collegial explanation of its rationale as a means of achieving compliance
textreferences: part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement (e.g., identifying the professional engineers present in the state and their licensure status, office location(s), engineers in responsible charge)
textreferences: the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P, and might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.022419
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Immediate Board Reporting for Engineer X Inadvertent Violation
type: Non-ImmediateReportingRestraintforInadvertentLicensureViolationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering
defeasible under: Engineer X Firm Certificate of Authority Non-Compliance
casecontext: Engineer A discovers that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority in State P; the violation appears inadvertent rather than willful, and there is no indication of imminent public danger.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Invoked by Engineer A Toward Engineer X
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (ABC Engineering, State P)
obligationclass: Non-Immediate Reporting Restraint for Inadvertent Licensure Violation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A is obligated to refrain from immediately filing a report with the State P licensing board upon discovering Engineer X's certificate of authority deficiency, and instead to first counsel Engineer X and allow a reasonable opportunity for remedy, absent any imminent public danger.
sourcetext: this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the violation, prior to any board report
textreferences: this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
textreferences: when an engineer becomes aware of a violation of the state engineering licensure law, the engineer's first ethical obligation may be to refrain from jumping to conclusions
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.022887
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Reporting Motivation Purity Competitive Interest Scrutiny
type: CompetitorUnlicensedPracticeReportingMotivationPurityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty State P
defeasible under: Engineer A Competitive Motivation Contamination Risk
casecontext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm who has now retained XYZ Engineering, creating a direct competitive financial interest that could color Engineer A's motivation for reporting.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
derived from principle: Competitive Motivation Scrutiny in Engineer A's Reporting Decision
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A / ABC Engineering
obligationclass: Competitor Unlicensed Practice Reporting Motivation Purity Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A must examine and ensure that any report filed with the State P licensing board regarding XYZ Engineering's lack of a certificate of authority is motivated by professional duty to protect the public and the licensure system, not by the competitive desire to recover Client L or eliminate XYZ Engineering as a competitor.
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
temporalscope: Before and at the time of filing any report with the State P licensing board
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.019253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Jurisdiction-Specific Compliance Violation by Engineer X in State P
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client L Former Client Now Retaining Competitor
appliedto: XYZ Engineering's practice in State P
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer X accepted and performed engineering services for Client L on a project in State P without obtaining the certificate of authority required by State P, violating the jurisdiction-specific compliance obligation applicable to out-of-state engineers practicing in State P
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: State P's certificate of authority requirement is a jurisdiction-specific professional conduct obligation that Engineer X was required to satisfy before accepting the State P project; failure to do so constitutes an ethics violation regardless of Engineer X's licensure in State Q
invokedby: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
principleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
tensionresolution: Jurisdiction-specific compliance obligations are not overridden by client loyalty or faithful agent duties; compliance is a precondition of lawful practice
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.017214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Override of Peer Review Confidentiality in BER 96-8
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Peer-Reviewed Engineer Subject to Safety Code Findings
balancingwith: Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation in Peer Review
balancingwith: Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 96-8, the Board held that when Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements and endanger public health, safety, and welfare, Review Engineer A's obligation to protect the public overrides the confidentiality agreement and requires notification of proper authorities
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramount operates as the foundational override principle that subordinates contractual confidentiality obligations when genuine public safety is at stake
invokedby: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides confidentiality; the confidentiality issue becomes secondary when genuine public danger exists
textreferences: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
textreferences: Review Engineer A must inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Engineer A's only alternative would be to cooperate with the proper authorities
textreferences: if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.022270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Unlicensed Practice Obligation Invoked Against XYZ Engineering by Engineer A
type: UnlicensedPracticeProhibitionandChallengeObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
appliedto: XYZ Engineering's practice in State P without certificate of authority
balancingwith: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, upon learning that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, faces an obligation to challenge or report this unlicensed practice to the appropriate State P licensing authority
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The certificate of authority requirement in State P constitutes a licensure prerequisite; practicing without it is a form of unlicensed practice triggering the reporting obligation of licensed engineers who discover it
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
tensionresolution: The reporting obligation is genuine and not negated by Engineer A's competitive interest, provided the report is factually grounded and not maliciously motivated
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.017059
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty State P
type: CompetitiveInterestNon-SubordinationofLicensureReportingDutyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Reporting Motivation Purity Competitive Interest Scrutiny
defeasible under: Engineer A Competitive Motivation Contamination Risk
casecontext: Engineer A lost Client L to competitor XYZ Engineering, which lacks a certificate of authority in State P; Engineer A must distinguish between professional duty to report and competitive motivation.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Competitive Motivation Scrutiny in Engineer A's Reporting Decision
derived from principle: Mandatory Reporting Obligation of Engineer A Despite Competitive Interest
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (ABC Engineering, State P)
obligationclass: Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Licensure Reporting Duty Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's competitive financial interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — does not extinguish any applicable obligation to report Engineer X's certificate of authority violation to the State P licensing board, provided the report is factually verified and professionally motivated; however, Engineer A must ensure the report is not motivated primarily by competitive self-interest.
sourcetext: While it is true that most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board
temporalscope: When deciding whether and how to report the certificate of authority violation
textreferences: As a business pursuit, engineers compete with one another for clients in order to maximize individual and firm profits
textreferences: While it is true that most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.023494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Professional Reciprocity Norm Invoked in Engineer A Counsel to Engineer X
type: ProfessionalReciprocityandCollegialSolidarityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Board grounds Engineer A's obligation to counsel Engineer X before reporting in the reciprocity norm: Engineer A may one day find himself in a similar circumstance and would value collegial guidance, which generates a present obligation to extend that same courtesy to Engineer X despite their competitive relationship
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The Golden Rule applied to professional community membership generates an affirmative obligation of collegial engagement that constrains purely adversarial competitive conduct, even when the engineer has a personal competitive interest in the outcome of the other's violation
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Professional Reciprocity and Collegial Solidarity Principle
sourcetext: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction.
tensionresolution: Reciprocity norm supports collegial engagement first; competitive interest does not override the professional community obligation to treat colleagues as one would wish to be treated
textreferences: At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.021931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Sequential Escalation BER 96-8
type: PeerReviewSafetyCodeViolationSequentialEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Review Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Override of Public Safety BER 96-8
prevails over: Review Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Override of Public Safety BER 96-8
casecontext: Review Engineer A served as peer reviewer under a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, and discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's design work that could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
derived from principle: Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation Invoked in BER Case 96-8 Peer Review Context
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Override of Peer Review Confidentiality in BER 96-8
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Review Engineer A (BER Case 96-8)
obligationclass: Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Review Engineer A, having discovered that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements during a peer review visit, was obligated to first discuss the issues with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolution, and if unresolved, to inform Engineer B that the only alternative was to notify proper authorities, and then to do so notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement.
sourcetext: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
temporalscope: Upon discovery of potential safety code violations during the peer review visit
textreferences: If they were unable to resolve the issue, Review Engineer A would have an obligation to inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Review Engineer A's only alternative is to notify and inform the proper authorities
textreferences: Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
textreferences: the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of the issues
textreferences: the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.023214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Competitive Motivation Scrutiny in Engineer A's Reporting Decision
type: ProhibitiononReputationInjuryThroughCompetitiveCritique
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client L Former Client Now Retaining Competitor
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A must ensure that any report to the State P licensing board about XYZ Engineering's lack of certificate of authority is motivated by professional duty to uphold licensure integrity rather than by competitive desire to recover Client L or harm XYZ Engineering's standing
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The fact that Client L is a former client of ABC Engineering creates a competitive context that requires Engineer A to examine whether the reporting motivation is professional duty or competitive self-interest; the prohibition applies to malicious or false injury, not to good-faith factual reporting
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
sourcetext: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
tensionresolution: Good-faith, factually grounded reporting of a genuine licensing violation does not constitute malicious reputation injury even when the reporter has a competitive interest; the prohibition targets malicious or false injury, not legitimate reporting
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.018029
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation Invoked in BER Case 96-8 Peer Review Context
type: Confidentiality-BoundedPublicSafetyEscalationinPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B Peer-Reviewed Engineer Subject to Safety Code Findings
balancingwith: Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Obligation
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Review Engineer A, bound by a confidentiality agreement as peer reviewer, discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work; the Board held that public safety obligations override the confidentiality agreement, requiring Engineer A to first discuss with Engineer B, then warn of intent to report, and finally notify authorities if unresolved
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The confidentiality agreement assumed by a peer reviewer yields to the overriding public welfare obligation when genuine safety code violations are discovered; the sequencing of engagement-warning-reporting mirrors the collegial pre-reporting engagement principle
invokedby: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discoverer
principleclass: Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation in Peer Review
sourcetext: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
tensionresolution: Public safety obligation overrides confidentiality agreement; confidentiality becomes a secondary matter when genuine public danger exists
textreferences: Review Engineer A would have an obligation to inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Review Engineer A's only alternative is to notify and inform the proper authorities
textreferences: a more appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue
textreferences: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.021782
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Collegial Counsel to Engineer X Before Board Report
type: InadvertentLicensureViolationCollegialCounselBeforeReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering
defeasible under: Engineer A Cooperative Disclosure Pathway via Collegial Communication
prevails over: Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering
casecontext: Engineer A, owner of ABC Engineering in State P, learns that competitor XYZ Engineering (owned by Engineer X, licensed in State Q) has been performing engineering services in State P for Client L without obtaining the required certificate of authority.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Invoked by Engineer A Toward Engineer X
derived from principle: Professional Reciprocity Norm Invoked in Engineer A Counsel to Engineer X
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (ABC Engineering, State P)
obligationclass: Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, upon discovering that Engineer X's firm (XYZ Engineering) lacks a certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P, is obligated to first communicate directly with Engineer X to advise him of the potential violation and afford him an opportunity to remedy it before filing any report with the State P licensing board.
sourcetext: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
temporalscope: Upon discovery of the certificate of authority deficiency, before any board report is filed
textreferences: Assuming Engineer X is a reasonable and prudent individual, we believe Engineer A's counsel to Engineer X would be all that would be necessary to convince Engineer X to take all appropriate steps to obtain the certificate of authority
textreferences: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction
textreferences: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.022605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Review Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Override of Public Safety BER 96-8
type: ConfidentialityScopeLimitationforPublicDangerDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Sequential Escalation BER 96-8
defeasible under: BER 96-8 Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
casecontext: Review Engineer A had signed a confidentiality agreement as part of the peer review program but discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work that could endanger the public.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
derived from principle: Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation Invoked in BER Case 96-8 Peer Review Context
derived from principle: Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Override of Peer Review Confidentiality in BER 96-8
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Review Engineer A (BER Case 96-8)
obligationclass: Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
obligationstatement: Review Engineer A's confidentiality agreement as peer reviewer did not override the obligation to disclose Engineer B's safety code violations to proper authorities when those violations posed a genuine danger to public health, safety, and welfare; the confidentiality obligation became secondary to the public safety obligation.
sourcetext: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
temporalscope: Upon determination that Engineer B's work posed a genuine public safety risk
textreferences: the Board also disposed of the confidentiality issue, noting that if in fact there was truly a violation that posed a serious danger to the public health and safety, the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.023356
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Mandatory Reporting Obligation of Engineer A Despite Competitive Interest
type: MandatoryCompetitorMisconductReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
appliedto: State P licensing board
balancingwith: Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
balancingwith: Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
balancingwith: Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, having knowledge that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P, is obligated to report this violation to the State P licensing board in writing, notwithstanding that Engineer A has a competitive interest in the outcome as a competitor who lost Client L to XYZ Engineering
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:11:01.147316+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The mandatory reporting obligation applies even when the reporting engineer stands to benefit competitively from the report; the competitive interest does not negate the duty but does require that the report be factually grounded and not maliciously motivated
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
tensionresolution: The reporting obligation is not negated by competitive interest; however, the manner of reporting must be professional, factual, and non-malicious to avoid violating the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique
textreferences: Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.017845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering
type: CompetitorUnlicensedFirmPracticeStateBoardReportingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
competes with: Engineer A Collegial Counsel to Engineer X Before Board Report
competes with: Engineer A Non-Immediate Board Reporting for Engineer X Inadvertent Violation
defeasible under: Engineer A Collegial Correction Priority Before Formal Reporting
casecontext: Engineer A has learned that XYZ Engineering is performing engineering services in State P without the required certificate of authority; after epistemic verification and motivation scrutiny, a reporting obligation is triggered.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
derived from principle: Mandatory Reporting Obligation of Engineer A Despite Competitive Interest
derived from principle: Unlicensed Practice Obligation Invoked Against XYZ Engineering by Engineer A
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:12:37.739825+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A / ABC Engineering
obligationclass: Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Reporting Obligation
obligationstatement: Upon verifying that XYZ Engineering lacks a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P and confirming that this meets State P's reporting threshold, Engineer A is obligated to report XYZ Engineering's unauthorized practice to the State P licensing board, provided the report is motivated by professional duty rather than competitive self-interest.
sourcetext: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
temporalscope: After verification of facts and assessment of State P's reporting threshold
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
textreferences: Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.019516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Invoked by Engineer A Toward Engineer X
type: CollegialPre-ReportingEngagementObligationforInadvertentViolations
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner Unlicensed Firm Practice
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
balancingwith: Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
balancingwith: Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, upon discovering that competitor Engineer X's firm lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P, is advised to first counsel Engineer X directly — explaining the reasons for the requirement and its consequences — before escalating to formal reporting to the licensing board, on the grounds that the violation appears inadvertent
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:16:44.979866+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle requires Engineer A to treat the certificate of authority violation as presumptively inadvertent and to engage Engineer X collegially before triggering formal reporting mechanisms, calibrating the response to the apparent nature of the violation
invokedby: Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
principleclass: Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation for Inadvertent Violations
sourcetext: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction.
tensionresolution: Collegial pre-reporting engagement is prioritized over immediate formal reporting because the violation appears inadvertent; formal reporting remains obligatory if Engineer X fails to cure the violation after being advised
textreferences: Assuming Engineer X is a reasonable and prudent individual, we believe Engineer A's counsel to Engineer X would be all that would be necessary to convince Engineer X to take all appropriate steps to obtain the certificate of authority.
textreferences: Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction.
textreferences: a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question.
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.013295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction

Engineer A ABC Engineering Owner Reporter
type: Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReporterEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
adheres to principle: Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Invoked by Engineer A Toward Engineer X
adheres to principle: Competitive Motivation Scrutiny in Engineer A's Reporting Decision
adheres to principle: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Framing of Engineer A Competitive Reporting Decision
adheres to principle: Epistemic Verification Obligation Before Engineer A Reports XYZ
adheres to principle: Free and Open Competition Boundary Condition in State P Engineering Market
adheres to principle: Licensure Integrity Invoked in Certificate of Authority Requirement Explanation
adheres to principle: Mandatory Reporting Obligation of Engineer A Despite Competitive Interest
adheres to principle: Professional Reciprocity Norm Invoked in Engineer A Counsel to Engineer X
adheres to principle: State P Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Applied by Engineer A
adheres to principle: Unlicensed Practice Obligation Invoked Against XYZ Engineering by Engineer A
has obligation: Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty State P
has obligation: Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Suppression of Reporting Duty XYZ Engineering
has obligation: Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering
has obligation: Engineer A Epistemic Verification XYZ Certificate of Authority Status Before Report
has obligation: Engineer A Licensure System Integrity Preservation XYZ Unauthorized Practice
has obligation: Engineer A Professional Reciprocity Deliberation in Reporting Decision
has obligation: Engineer A Reporting Motivation Purity Competitive Interest Scrutiny
has obligation: Engineer A State P Jurisdiction-Specific Reporting Threshold Assessment XYZ
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer (State P)', 'firm_role': 'Owner/Principal', 'firm': 'ABC Engineering', 'jurisdiction': 'State P'}
caseinvolvement: Engineer A, owner of ABC Engineering in State P, discovers that competing firm XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority to practice in State P and must evaluate obligations to report this unlicensed firm practice to the appropriate state licensing board.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 93
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-28T15:06:45.292690+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 93
generatedattime: 2026-02-28T15:06:45.292690+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'competitor', 'target': 'Engineer X XYZ Engineering Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'former_provider', 'target': 'Client L'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P
textreferences: Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P
textreferences: Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
wasattributedto: Case 93 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-28T15:27:04.014067
was generated by: ProEthica Case 93 Extraction