ProEthica Case 97 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.532783
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Absence of Client-Transmitted Confidential Information — Home Inspection Context
type: Inspection-Discoveredvs.Client-DisclosedSafetyInformationDistinctionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the engagement — the inspection report contained findings Engineer A independently discovered, not information the client transmitted in confidence
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client
stateclass: Inspection-Discovered vs. Client-Disclosed Safety Information Distinction State
subject: The nature of the information in the inspection report — engineer-generated findings, not client-confided secrets
terminatedby: Ethical analysis clarifying that the distinction does not eliminate the confidentiality obligation — client proprietary right still applies
textreferences: Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer
textreferences: That provision of the Code necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client
textreferences: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client
triggeringevent: Engineer A commissioned to conduct independent home inspection; all findings were engineer-generated rather than client-disclosed
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.537837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Absence of Explicit Confidentiality Agreement for Inspection Report
type: AbsenceofConfidentialityAgreementAffectingDisclosureObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engagement inception through the disclosure dispute
affectedparties: Client (husband and wife)
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
stateclass: Absence of Confidentiality Agreement Affecting Disclosure Obligation State
subject: The lack of any explicit confidentiality agreement between Engineer A and the client governing distribution of the inspection report
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
triggeringevent: Engineer A accepted the inspection engagement without establishing explicit terms governing report distribution
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.537099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Accept Client Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Agent-Trustee-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard-HomeInspection
type: Agent-TrusteeLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.83
createdby: NSPE professional ethics norms
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard (applied to home inspection context)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's obligations to the client
usedincontext: Frames the question of whether Engineer A, as a faithful agent and trustee to the client, fulfilled or violated his loyalty obligation by sending the inspection report to the real estate firm; the standard addresses the scope and limits of loyalty when a client seeks a partisan outcome from an engineer retained for objective professional services
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.535633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

BER-Case-Precedent-HomeInspectionDisclosure
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case — Home Inspection Report Disclosure
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
textreferences: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
usedincontext: This case itself constitutes a BER case precedent establishing the ethical boundaries of report disclosure in residential engineering inspection services, providing analogical reasoning for future similar situations involving client confidentiality and third-party disclosure
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.535831
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

BER Novel Principle Small-Scale Case Full Philosophical Analysis — Home Inspection Report
type: BroadPhilosophicalEthicsPrincipleNarrowFactualApplicabilityNon-LimitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER acknowledged that the case involved a relatively small economic issue compared to larger commercial and industrial projects but proceeded to analyze it on broader philosophical grounds because it raised an ethical principle not previously addressed.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constrainedentity: BER / Ethics Analysis Body
constraintclass: Broad Philosophical Ethics Principle Narrow Factual Applicability Non-Limitation Constraint
constraintstatement: The BER was not constrained to limit its analysis to the narrow economic facts of the home inspection case merely because the immediate economic stakes were relatively small; the novelty of the ethical principle implicated — client proprietary rights over engineer-generated commissioned work product — warranted full consideration on broader philosophical dimensions.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: BER Case Analysis Methodology
sourcetext: A first blush this appears to be a case involving a relatively small economic issue compared with the larger commercial and industrial projects with which engineers are often concerned.
temporalscope: At the time of BER case analysis
textreferences: A first blush this appears to be a case involving a relatively small economic issue compared with the larger commercial and industrial projects with which engineers are often concerned.
textreferences: But as it involves an ethical principle we have not had occasion to address before, we will consider it on the broader philosophical aspects.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550441
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Engineer A Disclosure Violation
type: BenevolentMotiveDoesNotCureEthicalViolation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Even if Engineer A believed that sharing the inspection report with the real estate firm was a routine professional courtesy, a helpful transparency measure, or a standard practice in home inspection services, such benevolent or conventional motivation does not render the unauthorized disclosure ethically permissible — the ethical evaluation turns on the nature of the act (unauthorized disclosure to a non-consenting third party) rather than the engineer's subjective intent.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: This principle forecloses any defense that Engineer A 'meant well' or followed industry custom. The ethical violation is established by the act of unauthorized disclosure and its prejudicial effect on the client, regardless of the engineer's motivation.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
sourcetext: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
tensionresolution: Good intentions do not cure the structural breach of confidentiality and loyal agency; the client's objection and the resulting prejudice to their bargaining position confirm the concrete harm caused by the disclosure, independent of Engineer A's intent.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.540056
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation Applied to Engineer A Openness Philosophy
type: BenevolentMotiveDoesNotCureEthicalViolation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Carbon copy disclosure to real estate firm
appliedto: Engineer A's professional philosophy of openness
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's good-faith belief that sharing inspection findings openly with all parties was 'right and proper' — a sincere professional philosophy rather than a self-serving motive — did not render the unauthorized disclosure ethically permissible; the violation is assessed by the nature of the act, not the purity of the actor's intentions.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even when an engineer acts from a coherent and sincere professional philosophy (openness and equal access to facts), the ethical evaluation turns on whether the act conforms to professional duties, not on whether the motivation was praiseworthy.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
sourcetext: although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
tensionresolution: The board exonerated Engineer A of 'substantial or deliberate wrongdoing' in terms of moral culpability, but still found the conduct incorrect — confirming that benevolent motive reduces culpability without eliminating the ethical violation.
textreferences: We read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive; that he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
textreferences: although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.546516
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Case 97 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

CausalLink_Accept Client Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

CausalLink_Conduct Residential Inspection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138509
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

CausalLink_Offer Inspection Service
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135930
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

CausalLink_Prepare Written Inspection Rep
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

CausalLink_Send Copy to Real Estate Firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Obligation Engaged in Home Inspection Report
type: Client-TransmittedConfidentialityStrongerObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The inspection report was produced at the client's direct request and in the course of a fee-based professional engagement; the client was the commissioning party and the report was prepared in their exclusive interest. This direct client-engineer engagement fully engages the stronger confidentiality obligation, distinguishing this case from scenarios where the engineer independently discovers information.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Because the client retained and paid Engineer A, and the report was prepared specifically for the client's benefit, the full force of the confidentiality obligation applies. The client's voluntary engagement of Engineer A and payment of a fee establishes the professional relationship that triggers the stronger confidentiality duty.
invokedby: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
principleclass: Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
tensionresolution: The stronger confidentiality obligation prevails because there is no competing public safety or legal disclosure requirement; the only motivation for sharing the report was Engineer A's own practice or convenience, which cannot override the client's confidentiality interest.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.538468
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle Distinguished in Home Inspection Case
type: Client-TransmittedConfidentialityStrongerObligationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Home inspection engagement
appliedto: NSPE Code Section III.4 confidentiality provision
balancingwith: Commissioned Report Proprietary Right of Client Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The board explicitly distinguished this case from Section III.4 (client-transmitted confidential business information), noting that no confidential information was transmitted by the client to the engineer — yet still found a confidentiality violation, establishing that the stronger Section III.4 obligation is not the only source of confidentiality duty.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The absence of client-to-engineer information transmission means Section III.4's stronger confidentiality obligation is not engaged, but a residual confidentiality duty still exists grounded in the client's proprietary rights under Section II.1.c — demonstrating that the two provisions operate independently.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle
sourcetext: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
tensionresolution: The board resolved the apparent gap by grounding confidentiality in Section II.1.c's proprietary rights provision rather than Section III.4, showing that confidentiality has multiple independent bases in the Code.
textreferences: Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
textreferences: That provision of the Code necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
textreferences: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.545932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client Bargaining Interest Protection Applied to Home Purchase Negotiation
type: ClientBargainingInterestProtectioninInspectionEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client couple's negotiating position in property purchase
appliedto: Real estate firm as counterparty representative
balancingwith: Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Transparency Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The client couple's retention of Engineer A for a pre-purchase inspection created a duty to protect their bargaining position in the property negotiation; Engineer A's disclosure of the report's findings to the seller's real estate firm undermined this interest by giving the counterparty knowledge of the inspection results before the client could deploy them strategically.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The duty to protect client bargaining interests is engaged whenever the engineer's work product could affect the relative informational positions of the parties in a transaction, and is violated when the engineer equalizes that information without client consent.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Client Bargaining Interest Protection in Inspection Engagements
sourcetext: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
tensionresolution: The client's bargaining interest protection obligation prevails over the engineer's view that all parties should have equal access to factual data.
textreferences: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.546341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client Bargaining Interest Protection Violated by Disclosure to Real Estate Firm
type: ClientBargainingInterestProtectioninInspectionEngagements
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's disclosure of the inspection report to the real estate firm — the agent of the seller — directly undermined the client's bargaining position by revealing the report's findings (generally good condition, only minor repairs needed) to the counterparty before the client could use that information strategically in price negotiations.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In a pre-purchase inspection context, the client commissions the report to gain informational leverage in negotiating the purchase price and terms. Sharing the report with the seller's agent eliminates that leverage and may cause the client concrete financial harm. The engineer's duty of loyalty in this transactional context extends to protecting the client's strategic informational position.
invokedby: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
principleclass: Client Bargaining Interest Protection in Inspection Engagements
sourcetext: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
tensionresolution: The client's bargaining interest is a legitimate and foreseeable interest that the engineer should have recognized at the outset of the engagement. No competing principle justified disclosure to the real estate firm; the engineer's duty of loyalty to the client required protecting, not undermining, the client's negotiating position.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.538882
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client Bargaining Position Prejudiced by Report Disclosure
type: Engineer-InitiatedThird-PartyDisclosurePrejudicingClientBargainingState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment the real estate firm received the report through the conclusion of the property transaction or dispute resolution
affectedparties: Client (husband and wife)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Real estate firm
affectedparties: Residence owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence
stateclass: Engineer-Initiated Third-Party Disclosure Prejudicing Client Bargaining State
subject: The materially weakened negotiating position of the client (prospective purchasers) resulting from Engineer A's disclosure of the inspection report to the real estate firm
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence
triggeringevent: Real estate firm received a copy of the inspection report showing the residence was in generally good condition with only minor repairs needed
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.537303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
type: ProspectiveHomePurchaserInspectionClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'party_composition': 'Husband and wife', 'fee_paid': True, 'report_received': True, 'consent_to_third_party_disclosure': False}
caseinvolvement: Husband and wife prospective purchasers who retained Engineer A for a fee to perform a pre-purchase home inspection and receive a written report; objected that Engineer A's unauthorized disclosure of the report to the real estate firm prejudiced their bargaining position and constituted unethical conduct.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:17:41.681091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:17:41.681091+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adversely_affected_by_disclosure_to', 'target': 'Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient'}
relationships: {'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.534543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client Interest Primacy Violated by Engineer A Unilateral Distribution Decision
type: ClientInterestPrimacyOverEngineerPersonalAdvantageinFaithfulAgentRole
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A, acting as a faithful agent of the client couple, allowed his own practice preference or convenience (carbon-copying the real estate firm) to override the client's interest in controlling distribution of the report, thereby subordinating client interests to the engineer's own unilateral decision about who should receive the report.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Even if Engineer A believed that sharing the report with the real estate firm was harmless or even helpful, the principle requires that the client's interests — not the engineer's judgment about what is convenient or appropriate — govern distribution decisions. The engineer had no authority to make this decision unilaterally.
invokedby: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
principleclass: Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent role requires the engineer to carry out the engagement in the manner most beneficial to the client. Sharing the report with a counterparty in the transaction was not beneficial to the client and was not authorized; therefore, the engineer's personal decision to do so violated the faithful agent obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.539746
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client Loyalty Obligation Breached by Engineer A Disclosure to Adverse Party
type: ClientLoyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
balancingwith: Public Safety
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's duty of loyalty to the client couple required him to serve their interests faithfully in the home inspection engagement; by unilaterally sharing the report with the real estate firm — a party whose interests as the seller's agent were potentially adverse to the client's interests as prospective purchasers — Engineer A breached his loyalty obligation.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Loyalty in the inspection context means the engineer works exclusively for the client's benefit; the real estate firm represents the seller's side of the transaction and has interests that diverge from the client's. Sharing the report with the firm is a form of divided loyalty that the engineer was not authorized to exercise.
invokedby: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
principleclass: Client Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report.
tensionresolution: No competing obligation required or justified disclosure to the real estate firm; client loyalty therefore required Engineer A to keep the report confidential to the client.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.540294
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Client Proprietary Right Over Inspection Report — Engineer A Home Inspection Case
type: ClientProprietaryRightOverEngineer-GeneratedWorkProductState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A was commissioned to conduct the inspection through the unauthorized disclosure to the property owner
affectedparties: Client (buyer/commissioning party)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property owner (adverse third party)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client
stateclass: Client Proprietary Right Over Engineer-Generated Work Product State
subject: Client's implicit proprietary right over the home inspection report commissioned from Engineer A
terminatedby: Not terminated — the proprietary right persisted at the time of disclosure; the violation occurred precisely because the state was active and unrecognized by Engineer A
textreferences: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client
textreferences: the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
textreferences: there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer
triggeringevent: Client commissioned Engineer A to conduct a home inspection, generating a professional report on the client's behalf
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.536027
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Clients' Bargaining Position Harmed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533644
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Commissioned Report Proprietary Right of Client Applied to Home Inspection Report
type: CommissionedReportProprietaryRightofClientPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Home inspection report
appliedto: Real estate firm as unauthorized recipient
appliedto: Section II.1.c NSPE Code proprietary rights provision
balancingwith: Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The home inspection report commissioned by the client couple was their proprietary work product under Section II.1.c of the NSPE Code; Engineer A had no authority to transmit it to the real estate firm because the exclusive right to benefit from the report — and to control its distribution — belonged to the commissioning clients.
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The proprietary rights provision of Section II.1.c operates independently of Section III.4's confidential-information provision, grounding a distinct confidentiality obligation in the client's ownership of the work product rather than in the secrecy of information transmitted to the engineer.
invokedby: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
principleclass: Commissioned Report Proprietary Right of Client Principle
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
tensionresolution: The client's proprietary right over commissioned work product is the primary basis for the confidentiality obligation in this case, filling the gap left by Section III.4's inapplicability and confirming that the confidentiality duty has multiple independent Code bases.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
textreferences: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.546879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection to the real estate firm representing the owners.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A acted unethically, the analysis reveals that the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement does not diminish the engineer's duty to protect the inspection report. The commissioned inspection report is client proprietary work product by its very nature: it was ordered by the client couple, paid for by them, and prepared exclusively for their benefit in an ongoing property negotiation. An implicit confidentiality obligation attaches to any work product generated under a professional service engagement, regardless of whether the parties reduced that obligation to a written agreement. The NSPE Code's faithful agent and trustee standard under Section II.4 independently supplies this duty, meaning Engineer A's obligation to withhold the report from unauthorized third parties was fully operative even without a formal confidentiality clause. The absence of an explicit agreement therefore merely weakens — but does not eliminate — the engineer's duty, and in the context of an adversarial real estate transaction, the implied duty was sufficiently strong to prohibit unilateral disclosure.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137202
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion is further reinforced by the adversarial character of the real estate firm as a recipient. The real estate firm in this case represented the sellers — the opposing party in an active price negotiation — making it not merely an unauthorized third party but an adverse party whose interests were structurally opposed to those of Engineer A's clients. This adversarial relationship independently aggravates the ethical violation beyond a generic confidentiality breach. Transmitting the inspection report to a neutral party such as a municipal building inspector or public safety authority, while still potentially impermissible without client consent, would present a meaningfully different ethical profile because the recipient would not be positioned to exploit the findings against the client's bargaining interests. By directing the carbon copy specifically to the sellers' representative, Engineer A effectively armed an adverse party with information the clients had commissioned and paid for, compounding the breach of loyalty with a concrete and foreseeable harm to the clients' negotiating position. The severity of findings is immaterial to this analysis: even a favorable report can be weaponized in negotiation, and the clients' proprietary interest in controlling disclosure exists independently of whether the report's contents are advantageous or damaging.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137285
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 401
answers question3: 404
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's finding also carries an important prospective implication: Engineer A's good-faith philosophy of openness and transparency, while reflective of a genuine professional disposition, cannot serve as an ethical substitute for client consent, and it cannot be laundered into ethical permissibility through routine practice alone. However, the analysis suggests a narrow path by which such a disclosure practice could be rendered ethically sound: if Engineer A had disclosed his carbon-copy practice in his service agreement before engagement, and clients had knowingly retained him on those terms, the prior informed consent of the client would have transformed what is otherwise a unilateral breach into a consensual arrangement. This conclusion underscores that the ethical defect in Engineer A's conduct was not the philosophy of transparency itself, but the failure to obtain client authorization before acting on that philosophy. Engineers who maintain standard practices that affect client confidentiality interests bear an affirmative obligation to disclose those practices at the outset of the engagement, so that clients can make an informed decision about whether to proceed. The absence of such advance disclosure here left the clients without any meaningful opportunity to protect their own bargaining interests, which is precisely the harm the faithful agent and trustee standard is designed to prevent.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: The absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement between Engineer A and the client couple does not eliminate the engineer's implied duty to protect the inspection report from unauthorized third-party disclosure — it merely shifts the basis of that duty from contractual to professional. The NSPE Code imposes confidentiality obligations as a matter of professional ethics, not merely as a function of written agreements. When a client commissions and pays for an inspection report, that report becomes the client's proprietary work product by the nature of the engagement itself. Engineer A's obligation to protect the report therefore arises from the professional relationship and the Code's provisions on faithful agency and proprietary rights, independent of any formal confidentiality clause. The absence of an explicit agreement weakens no ethical duty; it simply means the duty is grounded in professional obligation rather than contract.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137538
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: The severity of the inspection findings does not alter the client's proprietary interest in controlling disclosure of the report, nor does it affect the ethical analysis of unauthorized third-party distribution in the absence of a safety hazard. Whether the report reveals minor items or major defects, the client retains the same proprietary right over the commissioned document and the same interest in controlling how its contents are used in an ongoing negotiation. A more damaging report might intensify the practical harm of unauthorized disclosure, but the ethical violation is identical in either case: Engineer A transmitted client work product to an adverse party without consent. The severity of findings becomes ethically relevant only when a genuine public safety exception is triggered — a threshold that minor repair items plainly do not meet and that even significant structural defects would require careful analysis to satisfy under the Code.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137612
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: The real estate firm's status as the representative of the sellers — the opposing party in the purchase negotiation — independently aggravates the ethical violation beyond a generic confidentiality breach. Even if one were to imagine a scenario where sharing an inspection report with a neutral third party might be defensible under certain circumstances, sharing it with an adverse party in an active negotiation compounds the breach by directly weaponizing the client's own commissioned information against the client's bargaining interests. The adversarial relationship between the sellers' representative and the buyers is not incidental; it is the precise context that makes the disclosure most harmful and most contrary to Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent and trustee. This distinction matters: the ethical wrong is not merely that a third party received the report, but that the third party was positioned to use that information against the very clients who paid for it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137690
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A breached an unconditional duty of loyalty to the client by transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm, regardless of whether the disclosure caused measurable harm or was motivated by benevolent intent. The duty of faithful agency under the NSPE Code is categorical in character: it does not admit of exceptions grounded in good intentions or in the engineer's personal philosophy of openness and transparency. A deontological analysis focuses on the nature of the act itself — unauthorized disclosure of a client's commissioned work product to an adverse party — rather than on its consequences or the agent's subjective motivation. Engineer A's sincere belief that transparency serves all parties does not transform an act that violates the client's rights into a permissible one. The moral wrong is complete at the moment of unauthorized disclosure, independent of outcome.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138107
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: From a consequentialist perspective, the foreseeable harms to the client's bargaining position independently support the Board's finding of unethical conduct, even setting aside deontological duties. By transmitting the inspection report to the sellers' representative, Engineer A placed in adverse hands a document that could be used to undermine the buyers' negotiating leverage — for example, by alerting the sellers that the buyers found the property acceptable and were unlikely to walk away over minor items. The consequentialist calculus is unfavorable to Engineer A: the benefit of transparency to the real estate firm is speculative and serves no party with a legitimate claim on Engineer A's loyalty, while the harm to the client's bargaining position is concrete and foreseeable. A consequentialist analysis therefore converges with the deontological conclusion: the disclosure was ethically unjustified.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135829
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.4.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and trustworthiness expected of a faithful agent and trustee. A virtuous professional engineer in Engineer A's position would recognize that the client's trust — expressed through the act of commissioning and paying for a private inspection — carries with it a reasonable expectation that the resulting report will be used exclusively in the client's interest. The virtue of trustworthiness requires not merely avoiding deliberate betrayal but also exercising the practical wisdom to foresee how unilateral disclosure decisions can harm those who have placed their confidence in the engineer. Engineer A's personal philosophy of openness, however sincerely held, reflects a failure of practical wisdom rather than a virtue: it substitutes the engineer's own values for the client's legitimate expectations, which is precisely the disposition that faithful agency obligations are designed to constrain.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: Prior client consent represents the only ethically sound path to third-party distribution of a commissioned inspection report, and such consent would render the disclosure permissible. Had the client couple explicitly authorized Engineer A to share the report with the real estate firm — whether in advance through a service agreement or at the time of delivery — the disclosure would have been consistent with both the Code's confidentiality provisions and the faithful agent standard. Alternatively, if Engineer A had made it a standard, publicly disclosed practice to carbon-copy inspection reports to real estate firms, and clients had engaged his services with full knowledge of that practice, the ethical analysis would shift materially: informed consent embedded in the service relationship would substitute for case-by-case authorization. What the Code does not permit is unilateral disclosure based solely on the engineer's personal judgment about what transparency requires, absent any client authorization express or implied.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: The tension between engineering openness and transparency on one hand and client confidentiality and loyalty on the other is resolved clearly in this context: the Code's provisions on faithful agency and client proprietary rights take precedence over any general professional norm favoring openness when the two conflict in a private client engagement. The openness and honesty provisions of the Code are directed primarily at the engineer's obligations to the public and to the profession — they do not authorize the engineer to override a client's proprietary interest in a commissioned document by sharing it with parties the client has not authorized. In a private inspection engagement with no public safety dimension, the client's right to control disclosure of the report is not merely one value to be weighed against transparency; it is the governing obligation. Engineer A's personal philosophy of openness, however consistent with certain professional values in other contexts, cannot override the specific duty of confidentiality owed to the client in this engagement.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136947
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: Although Section III.4 of the NSPE Code — which addresses client-transmitted confidential information — may not apply with full force to engineer-generated findings rather than client-confided secrets, this technical distinction does not exculpate Engineer A. The inspection report, though generated by Engineer A's own professional work rather than communicated to him in confidence by the client, remains the client's proprietary work product by virtue of the commissioning relationship and the fee paid. The client's proprietary right over the report is grounded in Section II.1.c and the faithful agent standard of Section II.4, not exclusively in Section III.4. The inapplicability of the strongest form of the confidentiality obligation — that which attaches to client-transmitted secrets — does not mean no confidentiality obligation exists; it means the obligation is grounded in a different, but equally binding, set of Code provisions. Engineer A's disclosure was therefore unethical regardless of which specific Code provision supplies the primary basis for the duty.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between engineering openness and transparency on one hand, and client confidentiality and loyalty on the other, was resolved decisively in favor of confidentiality and loyalty. Engineer A's personal philosophy of openness — however sincerely held — was treated not as a competing ethical principle of equal weight but as a professional disposition that must yield whenever it conflicts with the client's proprietary interest in controlling the distribution of commissioned work product. This case teaches that openness norms operate within the engineer-to-public or engineer-to-profession relationship, not as a license to redistribute client-commissioned findings to adverse parties in an ongoing negotiation. The principle of client loyalty functions as a side-constraint that forecloses certain disclosures regardless of the engineer's subjective rationale for making them.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: II.4.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The case reveals a layered resolution of the tension between the stronger confidentiality obligation triggered by client-transmitted secrets under Section III.4 and the implicit confidentiality duty that attaches to engineer-generated work product. The Board declined to limit confidentiality protection only to information the client confided to the engineer, recognizing instead that a commissioned inspection report is client proprietary work product regardless of whether the underlying data originated with the client. This synthesis establishes that the source of the information — whether client-confided or engineer-generated — does not determine whether confidentiality applies; rather, the commissioning relationship and the client's proprietary interest in controlling the report's distribution are independently sufficient to impose a duty of non-disclosure. The absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement does not weaken this duty to the point of permitting unilateral third-party distribution, because the implicit duty arises from the faithful-agent and trustee obligations inherent in any paid professional engagement.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 402
cited provision1: II.4.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The case definitively resolves the tension between benevolent motive and ethical compliance by establishing that good intentions are morally relevant to character assessment but legally and professionally irrelevant to the determination of whether a breach occurred. Engineer A's non-self-interested, transparency-motivated disclosure was acknowledged as a mitigating contextual factor but was given no exculpatory weight. This resolution reflects a deontological priority structure: the duty of client loyalty and confidentiality is not a consequentialist balancing test that can be satisfied by demonstrating net benefit or pure motive. It is a categorical obligation that binds the engineer regardless of outcome or intent. Simultaneously, the case forecloses any public-interest override in the absence of a genuine safety hazard: because the inspection revealed only minor items and no structural or safety defects, no safety exception was triggered, and the client's bargaining interest in controlling disclosure remained the paramount consideration. The interaction of these principles teaches that the safety exception to confidentiality is narrow and fact-specific, not a general license to share findings with all parties who might benefit from knowing them.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Conduct Residential Inspection
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533361
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Inapplicable Here — No Safety Exception Triggered
type: ConfidentialityNon-ApplicabilitytoPublicDangerDisclosure
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
appliedto: Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The inspection report found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs; there was no imminent public danger that would have triggered an exception to the confidentiality obligation. Therefore, the public danger exception to confidentiality did not apply, and Engineer A had no basis to justify disclosure to the real estate firm on safety grounds.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: This principle is invoked in its negative form: the absence of a public danger finding means the safety-based exception to confidentiality was not available to Engineer A. The principle's inapplicability reinforces that the disclosure was unjustified.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
tensionresolution: Because no public danger existed, confidentiality was not overridden; the disclosure to the real estate firm was therefore an unexcused violation of the client's confidentiality rights.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.540491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Confidentiality Principle Invoked in Home Inspection Report Disclosure
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Carbon copy transmitted to real estate firm
appliedto: Home inspection report commissioned by client couple
balancingwith: Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Transparency Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's duty of confidentiality to the client couple extended to the inspection report itself, prohibiting its transmission to the real estate firm even absent any client-to-engineer transmission of confidential business information, because the report was prepared exclusively in the client's interest.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, confidentiality extends beyond Section III.4 (client-transmitted business information) to encompass the client's proprietary right over all engineer-generated work product commissioned in the client's interest, regardless of whether the client transmitted any information to the engineer.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
tensionresolution: The principle of the client's right of confidentiality predominates over the engineer's professional philosophy of openness and transparency, even when the engineer acted without deliberate wrongdoing.
textreferences: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.545314
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Confidentiality Violated by Engineer A Carbon Copy to Real Estate Firm
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
appliedto: Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
balancingwith: Public Safety
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A breached the confidentiality inherent in the client-engineer relationship by sending a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm — a third party with interests potentially adverse to the client — without the client's prior consent, thereby disclosing the client's private commissioned findings to a party not party to the engagement.
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In the home inspection context, the confidentiality principle means that the engineer's written report is prepared exclusively for the client and must not be shared with any third party — especially one with adverse interests in the same transaction — without explicit client authorization. The principle operates even in the absence of a formal confidentiality agreement because the professional relationship itself creates the expectation.
invokedby: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
tensionresolution: No public safety concern was present (the report found the residence in generally good condition); no legal disclosure requirement applied. Therefore, no countervailing principle justified overriding confidentiality, and the disclosure was an unmitigated violation.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.538283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A have withheld the inspection report from the real estate firm, or was transmitting a carbon copy to the sellers' representative an ethically permissible professional practice?
focus: Engineer A completed a home inspection report commissioned and paid for by a prospective purchaser couple, then submitted a carbon copy of that report to the real estate firm representing the sellers — without obtaining the clients' prior consent. The clients objected that this disclosure prejudiced their bargaining position in an active purchase negotiation. The core question is whether Engineer A's transmission of the report to the sellers' representative constituted unethical conduct under the NSPE Code's faithful agent and client proprietary rights provisions.
option1: Deliver the completed inspection report exclusively to the client couple, refraining from transmitting any copy to the real estate firm or any other party not a party to the inspection services agreement, unless and until the clients provide express authorization.
option2: Transmit a carbon copy of the completed report to the real estate firm as a matter of professional transparency and routine practice, on the basis that all parties to a real estate transaction benefit from accurate information about the property's condition.
option3: Before finalizing and delivering the report, ask the client couple whether they consent to a copy being provided to the real estate firm, proceeding with transmission only if express authorization is granted.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer A treat the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement as eliminating his duty to protect the inspection report from third-party disclosure, or does an implicit professional confidentiality obligation persist regardless of any written agreement?
focus: Engineer A had no explicit confidentiality agreement with the client couple at the time of engagement. He argued, implicitly, that the absence of a formal confidentiality clause meant no binding duty of non-disclosure attached to the inspection report. The question is whether the NSPE Code imposes an implicit confidentiality obligation over commissioned work product even when no written confidentiality agreement exists, and whether that implicit duty was sufficient to prohibit Engineer A's disclosure to the real estate firm.
option1: Treat the commissioned inspection report as client proprietary work product subject to an implicit confidentiality obligation arising from the professional engagement itself, regardless of the absence of a written confidentiality clause, and refrain from any third-party disclosure without client consent.
option2: Interpret the lack of an explicit confidentiality clause as indicating that no binding duty of non-disclosure attaches to the inspection report, and proceed with transmitting the carbon copy to the real estate firm on the basis that no formal restriction was agreed upon.
option3: Recognize that some confidentiality expectation exists but treat it as substantially weakened by the absence of a formal agreement, applying a lower standard of care that permits disclosure to transaction-adjacent parties such as the real estate firm while still withholding the report from unrelated third parties.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A allow his professional philosophy of openness and transparency to guide disclosure of the inspection report to all transaction parties, or must he subordinate that philosophy to the client's proprietary right to control distribution of the commissioned report?
focus: Engineer A maintained a personal professional philosophy of openness and dealing straightforwardly with facts, which he appears to have relied upon — at least implicitly — as justification for sharing the inspection report with all parties to the transaction. The NSPE Code also reflects general professional values of honesty and transparency. The question is whether this openness orientation constitutes a legitimate competing ethical principle that can override the client's proprietary interest in controlling disclosure of a commissioned report, or whether client confidentiality and loyalty function as a side-constraint that forecloses such disclosures regardless of the engineer's professional philosophy.
option1: Recognize that the professional value of openness and transparency, while legitimate in engineer-to-public and engineer-to-profession contexts, does not override the client's proprietary right to control distribution of a commissioned report, and withhold the report from the real estate firm absent client consent.
option2: Treat the professional commitment to transparency and straightforward dealing with facts as a governing principle that justifies sharing accurate inspection findings with all parties to the transaction, including the real estate firm, on the basis that informed parties make better decisions.
option3: Before accepting the engagement, inform prospective clients that Engineer A's standard practice includes sharing inspection findings with all transaction parties, allowing clients to decide whether to retain him on those terms, thereby reconciling the openness philosophy with the client consent requirement.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135425
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A's benevolent motive and the minimal harm caused by disclosure be treated as factors that cure or substantially mitigate the ethical violation of transmitting the report to the real estate firm without client consent?
focus: Engineer A's benevolent, non-self-interested motive for sharing the inspection report — a genuine professional philosophy of transparency rather than any intent to harm the clients — raises the question of whether good intentions can cure or mitigate an otherwise impermissible breach of client confidentiality. Simultaneously, the fact that the inspection found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs raises the question of whether the minimal harm to the clients' bargaining position affects the ethical analysis, and whether a public safety exception could have justified disclosure had serious defects been found.
option1: Recognize that the duty of client confidentiality is categorical and that Engineer A's benevolent motive and the minimal harm caused by disclosure provide no exculpatory weight — the ethical violation is complete at the moment of unauthorized transmission, independent of outcome or intent.
option2: Recognize that Engineer A's non-self-interested, transparency-motivated disclosure and the minimal actual harm to the clients' bargaining position together constitute substantial mitigating factors that reduce or eliminate the ethical violation, treating the conduct as a good-faith professional judgment error rather than an ethical breach.
option3: Determine that a technical ethical violation occurred but formally acknowledge Engineer A's benevolent motive and good professional character as factors relevant to the severity of any sanction or remedial guidance, distinguishing the violation finding from a negative character assessment.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135502
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A have obtained the client couple's express prior consent before transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm, and would such consent — or a publicly disclosed standard practice disclosed at engagement — have rendered the disclosure ethically permissible?
focus: Engineer A did not obtain the client couple's prior consent before transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm. The question is whether prior client consent — whether obtained case-by-case or embedded in a publicly disclosed standard service practice — represents the only ethically sound path to third-party distribution of a commissioned inspection report, and whether Engineer A's failure to seek such consent was itself an independent ethical defect separate from the disclosure itself.
option1: Before transmitting any copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm or any other third party, seek and obtain the express prior authorization of the client couple, proceeding with distribution only if affirmative consent is granted.
option2: Include a clear disclosure in the service agreement at the time of engagement that Engineer A's standard practice is to provide a carbon copy of all inspection reports to the relevant real estate firm, allowing clients to make an informed decision about whether to retain him on those terms before any report is prepared.
option3: Treat the carbon-copy practice as a standard professional courtesy that clients implicitly accept when retaining an inspector operating in the real estate market, without seeking express consent or disclosing the practice in advance, on the basis that industry custom provides sufficient notice.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A treat the real estate firm's status as the sellers' representative — an adverse party in the transaction — as an independent categorical basis for withholding the report, or is the adversarial relationship merely one factor in a broader confidentiality analysis?
focus: The real estate firm that received the inspection report represented the sellers — the opposing party in an active price negotiation with Engineer A's clients. This adversarial relationship raises the question of whether the firm's status as an adverse party independently heightens Engineer A's duty to withhold the report beyond a generic confidentiality obligation, and whether the ethical analysis would differ materially if the report had been transmitted to a neutral party such as a municipal building inspector rather than to the sellers' representative.
option1: Recognize the real estate firm's status as the sellers' representative as an independent categorical basis for withholding the report — separate from and in addition to the general confidentiality obligation — and refrain from any transmission to the firm regardless of other considerations.
option2: Treat the real estate firm's role as the sellers' representative as one relevant factor in a broader confidentiality analysis, but not as a categorical bar — allowing disclosure if other factors such as professional transparency norms, minimal harm, or the absence of a formal confidentiality agreement are deemed to outweigh the adversarial relationship.
option3: Apply a heightened non-disclosure duty specifically because the recipient is an adverse party in an active negotiation, while acknowledging that transmission to a genuinely neutral party — such as a municipal building inspector — would present a different ethical profile requiring separate analysis rather than categorical prohibition.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer-Confidentiality-Loyalty-Obligation-Standard-HomeInspection
type: EngineerConfidentialityandLoyaltyObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE professional ethics norms
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard (applied to home inspection context)
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
sourcetext: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Establishes that Engineer A owed a duty of confidentiality to the client couple who retained him for the inspection; sharing the written report with the real estate firm without client consent potentially violated this duty and prejudiced the client's bargaining interests
version: N/A
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.535456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A - Client Relationship with Prospective Purchasers
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From engagement for inspection service through delivery of written report and subsequent dispute
affectedparties: Client (husband and wife)
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's paid inspection service agreement with husband and wife prospective purchasers
terminatedby: Not terminated within the case facts; dispute arises within the active relationship
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
triggeringevent: Husband and wife retained Engineer A for a fee to perform a residential inspection
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.536546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Adverse Interest Third-Party Non-Transmission Principle Non-Application
type: AdverseInterestThird-PartyCommissionedReportNon-TransmissionPrincipleGeneralizationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Adverse Interest Third-Party Commissioned Report Non-Transmission Principle Generalization Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the general principle prohibiting transmission of commissioned reports to adverse-interest parties applied to his situation with the real estate firm
casecontext: The real estate firm represented the seller's interests, making it an adverse-interest party relative to the client couple; Engineer A failed to identify this adversarial relationship as triggering the non-transmission principle
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm — a party with interests adverse to the client couple — without recognizing the general principle that commissioned reports must not be shared with adverse-interest parties
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.548570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Adverse Interest Third-Party Report Non-Transmission — Real Estate Firm
type: AdverseInterestThird-PartyCommissionedReportNon-TransmissionCategoricalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A sent a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm, which represented the seller's interests and was therefore a party with actual or potential adverse interests to the client couple (prospective purchasers) in the property negotiation.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Adverse Interest Third-Party Commissioned Report Non-Transmission Categorical Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was categorically prohibited from transmitting a copy of the client-commissioned home inspection report to the real estate firm — a party with actual or potential adverse interests to the client couple as the seller's agent — regardless of his motivation, the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement, or the magnitude of potential client harm.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.c; BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
temporalscope: At the time of report distribution to the real estate firm
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550045
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Non-Recognition
type: AltruisticDisclosureClientInterestNeglectSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to assess whether his altruistic disclosure — motivated by a desire for all parties to have equal factual information — constituted a neglect of the client couple's interests as their faithful agent and trustee
casecontext: Engineer A's motivation was to ensure both sides had the same factual data, but this altruistic goal did not justify the client interest neglect resulting from the unauthorized disclosure
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Sharing the inspection report with the real estate firm in the belief that equal information access served all parties, without recognizing that this altruistic motivation did not excuse the neglect of the client's exclusive benefit rights
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
textreferences: although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.549192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Self-Assessment
type: AltruisticDisclosureClientInterestNeglectSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to assess whether the carbon copy transmission to the real estate firm — even if motivated by professional transparency or courtesy — constituted a neglect of client interests, and failed to recognize that the absence of personal advantage motivation did not render the client-interest-neglecting disclosure ethically permissible
casecontext: The case involves Engineer A potentially acting out of professional courtesy or transparency rather than personal gain, but the ethical analysis requires recognizing that even altruistic motivations do not justify disclosures that harm client interests
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's transmission of the report to the real estate firm, which the client identified as prejudicing their interests, regardless of Engineer A's apparent professional courtesy motivation
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.544232
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Altruistic Disclosure Non-Justification Client Interest Neglect
type: AltruisticDisclosureNon-JustificationforClientInterestNeglectObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's disclosure to the real estate firm — regardless of subjective motivation — directly harmed the client couple's bargaining position, constituting a neglect of client interests that the faithful agent standard prohibits irrespective of the engineer's intent.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Altruistic Disclosure Non-Justification for Client Interest Neglect Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that even if the carbon copy to the real estate firm was motivated by professional transparency or a desire to facilitate the transaction, such altruistic or professionally well-intentioned motivation did not justify the neglect of the client couple's interests caused by the unauthorized disclosure.
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of report submission and carbon copy distribution.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.541214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override — Home Inspection Case
type: AltruisticMotiveFaithfulAgentDutyNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Even if Engineer A believed transparency with the real estate firm served some broader professional good, his duty as faithful agent required him to prioritize the client couple's interests, which were materially harmed by the disclosure.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's altruistic or collegial motivation for sending the carbon copy to the real estate firm did not override his duty as faithful agent and trustee to the client couple, and the balance of benefits and detriments had to be assessed from the client's perspective — which showed clear prejudice to their bargaining position.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent and trustee provisions; BER Case 93-3 precedent
sourcetext: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of report distribution
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.542815
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Non-Override — Home Inspection Report
type: AltruisticMotiveFaithfulAgentDutyNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A believed it was right and proper to make findings known to all interested parties so both sides could negotiate with the same factual data — an altruistic, transparency-motivated rationale that nonetheless violated his faithful agent duty to the client.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's altruistic motivation to ensure both negotiating parties had equal access to factual data from his inspection services did not override his duty as faithful agent and trustee to the client couple, prohibiting him from distributing the commissioned report to the real estate firm on the basis of that altruistic rationale.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.1.c, II.3, II.3.a; BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
temporalscope: At the time of report distribution to the real estate firm
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.549885
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure Confidentiality Breach
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-CureofUnauthorizedClientConfidentialityBreachObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board found that Engineer A acted without ulterior motive and as a matter of course considered it right and proper to share findings openly, yet still found the disclosure ethically incorrect.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Unauthorized Client Confidentiality Breach Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his good-faith, non-ulterior-motive belief that sharing the inspection report with all parties was proper did not cure the ethical violation of unauthorized disclosure to the adverse real estate firm, because the principle of client confidentiality predominates over benevolent intent.
sourcetext: We read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
temporalscope: At the time of the disclosure decision and throughout the engagement
textreferences: We read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
textreferences: although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
textreferences: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.547907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure Confidentiality Breach Non-Recognition
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that his benevolent, non-ulterior-motive belief that sharing the inspection report with all parties was proper did not render the confidentiality breach ethically permissible
casecontext: The BER read into the case that Engineer A acted without ulterior motive but found this did not excuse the confidentiality violation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Acting on a good-faith belief that openness served all parties' interests, without recognizing that benevolent motivation does not cure a confidentiality breach
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
textreferences: although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.548890
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Confidentiality Breach
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-CureofUnauthorizedClientConfidentialityBreachObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A may have sent the carbon copy to the real estate firm as a matter of professional routine or courtesy, but such benevolent or habitual motivation does not excuse the breach of client confidentiality under NSPE Code Section III.4.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Unauthorized Client Confidentiality Breach Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that any professional courtesy rationale or routine practice motivation for sending the carbon copy to the real estate firm did not render the disclosure ethically permissible, and that the absence of an intent to harm the client did not cure the ethical violation arising from the unauthorized disclosure.
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of the decision to include the real estate firm as a carbon copy recipient on the inspection report.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.541031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition
type: BenevolentMotiveNon-JustificationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that any professional courtesy or benevolent motivation for sending the carbon copy to the real estate firm did not render the confidentiality breach ethically permissible
casecontext: Engineer A's transmission of the carbon copy to the real estate firm may have been motivated by professional transparency or courtesy, but the ethical analysis requires recognizing that benevolent motives do not justify breaches of confidentiality obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's apparent reliance on professional courtesy or routine practice as implicit justification for the disclosure, without recognizing that good intentions do not cure an ethical violation
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.544376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to correctly identify that NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was fully engaged in this inspection engagement, as the client couple transmitted their personal information, property details, and inspection request to Engineer A in the course of the fee-for-service engagement
casecontext: The client couple retained Engineer A for a fee to perform a home inspection, transmitting their personal and property information in the course of the engagement, which triggered Section III.4's confidentiality obligation for the resulting report
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The case requires Engineer A to recognize that Section III.4 was triggered by the client's engagement of Engineer A for the inspection service, making the resulting report confidential to the client
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.544993
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Client Bargaining Position Adverse Disclosure Impact Recognition
type: ClientBargainingPositionAdverseDisclosureImpactRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Bargaining Position Adverse Disclosure Impact Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm (seller's agent) would directly prejudice the client couple's bargaining position by revealing their knowledge of the property's condition to the opposing party in the transaction
casecontext: The client couple's bargaining leverage in negotiating the purchase price was compromised when the real estate firm received the inspection report showing the property was in generally good condition with only minor repairs needed
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by the client's complaint that the disclosure lessened their bargaining position with the property owners, a harm Engineer A should have foreseen
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.543735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Client Confidentiality Boundary Non-Recognition
type: ClientConfidentialityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that sharing the inspection report with the real estate firm — even without ulterior motive and as a matter of routine professional courtesy — crossed the boundary of confidentiality obligations owed to the client couple
casecontext: The BER found Engineer A acted without deliberate wrongdoing but was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Transmitting the carbon copy to the real estate firm without client consent, acting without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive but nonetheless breaching confidentiality
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.548735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition
type: ClientConfidentialityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that sharing the inspection report with the real estate firm — even without deliberate wrongdoing — crossed the boundary of confidentiality obligations owed to the client couple
casecontext: Engineer A shared the client's inspection report with a third party (real estate firm) without recognizing that this crossed the confidentiality boundary established by the fee-for-service inspection engagement
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's distribution of the report to the real estate firm without client consent, which the client identified as a violation of their confidentiality rights
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.544553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Distribution
type: ClientConsentPrerequisiteThird-PartyReportDistributionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Distribution Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to obtain the express prior consent of the client couple before transmitting a copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm, violating the consent-prerequisite requirement for third-party report distribution
casecontext: Engineer A sent the carbon copy to the real estate firm as part of the report submission without first obtaining client consent, which was the procedural prerequisite required by the confidentiality obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's distribution of the report to the real estate firm without any indication that the client couple had been consulted or had consented to this distribution
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.544075
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Sharing
type: ClientConsentforThird-PartyDataSharingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A transmitted the inspection report to the real estate firm without obtaining the client couple's consent, violating the requirement that client information not be shared with third parties without client authorization.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Consent for Third-Party Data Sharing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to obtain the express prior consent of the client couple before transmitting or copying the inspection report to the real estate firm or any other party not a party to the inspection services agreement.
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: Before submitting the report with any carbon copy notation to non-client parties.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.541365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Sharing — Home Inspection Case
type: ClientConsentPrerequisiteforThird-PartyReportSharingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A performed a paid residential inspection for a husband and wife (prospective purchasers) and unilaterally sent a carbon copy of the written report to the real estate firm handling the sale, without client authorization, prejudicing the clients' bargaining position.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Client Consent Prerequisite for Third-Party Report Sharing Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from transmitting a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm without first obtaining the express prior consent of the client couple who commissioned and paid for the report.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c (client proprietary rights); faithful agent and trustee duty; implicit confidentiality of commissioned work product
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of report submission and distribution
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.542177
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Commissioned Report Adverse Party Non-Disclosure Violation
type: CommissionedReportClientExclusiveBenefitNon-DisclosuretoAdverseInterestPartyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A performed a pre-purchase home inspection for a client couple and sent a carbon copy of the resulting report to the real estate firm handling the sale, without client authorization.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Commissioned Report Client Exclusive Benefit Non-Disclosure to Adverse Interest Party Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from providing a copy of the client-commissioned home inspection report to the real estate firm — a party with interests adverse to the client couple — without the client's consent, because the client held a proprietary right to the exclusive benefit of the report under NSPE Code Section II.1.c.
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
temporalscope: At the time of transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm
textreferences: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
textreferences: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.545147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing
type: CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed to recognize that the contextual balancing of confidentiality against public safety did not justify disclosure in this case — the inspection found the residence in generally good condition with only minor items, so no safety exception was triggered to override the confidentiality obligation
casecontext: The inspection report found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, meaning no public safety emergency existed that could override the confidentiality obligation — Engineer A needed to recognize this contextual balance
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: The case requires Engineer A to correctly determine that the absence of a safety emergency means confidentiality was not overridden, and that the carbon copy to the real estate firm was therefore impermissible
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.544698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Confidentiality Constraint — Commissioned Inspection Report as Client Proprietary Work Product
type: ConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The inspection report was commissioned by and prepared exclusively for the client couple; it constituted their proprietary work product, and Engineer A's confidentiality obligation over it was a foundational constraint on his professional conduct.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was bound by a confidentiality constraint over the written inspection report as client proprietary work product, prohibiting disclosure to any party not authorized by the client, arising from the professional norms governing the engineer-client relationship in paid inspection engagements.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; professional norms governing client proprietary rights over commissioned engineering work product
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
temporalscope: From engagement through report distribution and beyond
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.543172
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Violated by Real Estate Firm Disclosure
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, retained by the client couple to perform a pre-purchase home inspection, transmitted the inspection report to the real estate firm (the seller's agent), thereby weakening the client's bargaining position and acting contrary to the client's interests in the transaction.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the client couple, serving their interests loyally by refraining from any action — including transmitting the inspection report to the seller's real estate agent — that would undermine the client's negotiating position or otherwise harm their interests in the home purchase transaction.
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of the inspection engagement, from acceptance of the commission through delivery of the final report.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.540850
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition
type: FaithfulAgentandTrusteeConfidentialityObligationSourceRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the duty to maintain confidentiality of the inspection report was rooted in the dual obligations to serve as a faithful agent and trustee for the client couple, and that transmitting the report to the real estate firm violated both the fiduciary dimension and the appearance-of-impropriety dimension of this obligation
casecontext: The inspection engagement created a faithful agent and trustee relationship between Engineer A and the client couple, which required Engineer A to maintain the confidentiality of the inspection report and serve the client's interests exclusively
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's transmission of the report to the real estate firm, which violated the faithful agent duty by placing the interests of the real estate firm above those of the client couple
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.544839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
type: Good-FaithTransparencyMotiveConfidentialityViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: At the time Engineer A provided the inspection report to the property owner
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
stateclass: Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation State
subject: Engineer A's state of mind and professional disposition at the time of unauthorized disclosure
terminatedby: Ethical analysis finding that client confidentiality prevails despite good-faith motive
textreferences: although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
textreferences: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data
textreferences: we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional belief that all interested parties should have equal access to factual findings from his inspection
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.536206
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Good Faith Motive Non-Exculpation — Home Inspection Confidentiality Breach
type: GoodIntentionNon-ExculpationforConfidentialityBreachConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A may have sent the carbon copy as a matter of professional courtesy or routine practice, but the BER found this motivation did not cure the ethical violation of transmitting the report without client consent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Good Intention Non-Exculpation for Confidentiality Breach Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's good-faith motivation — professional transparency or routine practice of copying the real estate firm — did not exculpate or mitigate the ethical violation arising from unauthorized sharing of the client's commissioned inspection report with the real estate firm.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER precedent establishing that benevolent motivation does not cure confidentiality violations
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of the unauthorized disclosure
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.542660
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Good Intention Non-Exculpation — Home Inspection Report Confidentiality Breach
type: GoodIntentionNon-ExculpationforConfidentialityBreachConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER found that Engineer A acted without ulterior motive and as a matter of course considered it right and proper to share findings with all parties, but nonetheless held that he was incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Good Intention Non-Exculpation for Confidentiality Breach Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's good-faith, non-ulterior-motive belief that sharing the inspection report with all parties was proper professional conduct did not exculpate him from the ethical violation of breaching client confidentiality; the absence of deliberate wrongdoing mitigated but did not eliminate the ethical violation.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.c; BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: We read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive; that he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
temporalscope: At the time of report distribution to the real estate firm
textreferences: Thus, although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: We read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive; that he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.549726
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
type: HomeInspectionConfidentialityViolatingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Residential home inspection', 'service_type': 'Pre-purchase engineering inspection', 'report_format': 'One-page written report'}
caseinvolvement: Offered and performed a residential home inspection service for a prospective purchaser couple, prepared a written report concluding the residence was in generally good condition, and then unilaterally sent a carbon copy of that confidential report to the real estate firm handling the sale — without client consent — thereby prejudicing the client's bargaining position.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:17:41.681091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:17:41.681091+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'unauthorized_disclosure_to', 'target': 'Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers
textreferences: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.537466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Home Inspection Engagement Confidentiality Scope Self-Recognition
type: HomeInspectionEngagementConfidentialityScopeSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Home Inspection Engagement Confidentiality Scope Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that the written inspection report prepared for the client couple was confidential to them even without an explicit confidentiality agreement, because the fee-for-service inspection engagement and the client's reasonable expectation of exclusive receipt triggered the NSPE Code Section III.4 confidentiality obligation
casecontext: Engineer A offered a home inspection service for a fee, prepared a written report for the client couple, and then distributed it to the real estate firm without recognizing the confidential nature of the engagement
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's distribution of the report to the real estate firm as if it were a non-confidential document, without recognizing the inherent confidentiality of the inspection engagement
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
textreferences: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.543564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Home Inspection Report Confidentiality Scope Recognition
type: HomeInspectionReportConfidentialityScopeRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A offered a homeowner inspection service and prepared a written report for a fee-paying client couple. The absence of an express confidentiality clause in the inspection agreement did not diminish the implied confidentiality of the report, which was prepared solely for the client's benefit.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Home Inspection Report Confidentiality Scope Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the written inspection report prepared for the client couple was confidential to them — even without an express confidentiality agreement — because it was commissioned and paid for by the client for their exclusive use in evaluating and negotiating the home purchase, and that this implied confidentiality precluded routine distribution to third parties.
sourcetext: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
temporalscope: From the inception of the inspection engagement through the delivery and use of the report.
textreferences: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: Following the inspection, Engineer A renders a written report to the prospective purchaser.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.541711
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Inspection Report Adverse Party Confidentiality Boundary Recognition
type: InspectionReportAdversePartyConfidentialityBoundaryRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Inspection Report Adverse Party Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the real estate firm was an adverse party to the client couple and that transmitting the inspection report to that firm without client consent violated confidentiality and faithful agent obligations
casecontext: Engineer A sent a carbon copy of the confidential home inspection report to the real estate firm (seller's agent) without the client couple's consent, constituting the central ethical violation in this case
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's transmission of a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm without client consent, prejudicing the client's bargaining position
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.543376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Inspection Report Adverse Party Non-Transmission
type: InspectionEngagementAdversePartyReportNon-TransmissionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The real estate firm was the agent of the seller, whose interests were directly adverse to those of the client couple (prospective purchasers) in the home purchase negotiation. Engineer A's carbon copy to the real estate firm placed the inspection findings in the hands of the opposing party in the transaction.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Inspection Engagement Adverse Party Report Non-Transmission Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm — the seller's agent and a party with interests directly adverse to the client couple — recognizing that such disclosure undermined the client's negotiating position and violated the faithful agent standard regardless of professional custom or subjective intent.
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of report preparation and submission; the obligation arose upon acceptance of the inspection engagement from the prospective purchaser clients.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.541545
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Inspection Report Adverse Transaction Party Non-Transmission — Real Estate Firm
type: InspectionReportAdverseTransactionPartyNon-TransmissionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The real estate firm was the seller's agent in the transaction, placing it in an adversarial or at minimum conflicting-interest position relative to the prospective purchaser clients. Engineer A's transmission of the report to this firm materially weakened the clients' bargaining position.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Inspection Report Adverse Transaction Party Non-Transmission Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was prohibited from transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm — the seller's agent and a party with interests adverse to the client couple — without the express prior consent of the retaining clients, because the adversarial relationship between the real estate firm and the client independently heightened the non-transmission obligation.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent and trustee provisions; client proprietary rights under Section II.1.c
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of report submission and distribution
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.542353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Inspection Report Carbon Copy Real Estate Firm Confidentiality Breach
type: InspectionReportThird-PartyNon-DisclosureWithoutClientConsentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A performed a fee-based home inspection for a prospective purchaser couple and submitted the written report with a carbon copy notation to the real estate firm handling the sale — without client authorization — thereby disclosing the report to a party with interests adverse to the client.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Inspection Report Third-Party Non-Disclosure Without Client Consent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from transmitting a copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm without the express prior consent of the client couple, as the report was prepared exclusively for the client's benefit and its disclosure to the seller's agent directly prejudiced the client's bargaining position.
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
temporalscope: At the time of submitting the inspection report to the client; the obligation arose upon completion of the report and persisted until client consent was obtained or the engagement concluded.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.540666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception Confidentiality Violation
type: MinimalClientHarmNon-ExceptiontoCommissionedReportConfidentialityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board noted uncertainty about whether the client actually suffered economic disadvantage from the disclosure, but held that the confidentiality principle applies regardless of actual harm.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception to Commissioned Report Confidentiality Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that even if the client couple suffered only slight or speculative economic harm from the disclosure — such as a marginal reduction in bargaining power that may not have affected the final sale price — the confidentiality principle still applied in full force and the disclosure was ethically impermissible.
sourcetext: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply
temporalscope: At the time of the disclosure and in any post-hoc ethical assessment
textreferences: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
textreferences: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.548220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception — Home Inspection Report Confidentiality
type: MinimalEconomicHarmNon-ExceptiontoClientProprietaryRightsConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER acknowledged uncertainty about whether the client couple actually suffered economic disadvantage from the disclosure, but held that the confidentiality principle applied regardless of whether harm was slight or speculative.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Minimal Economic Harm Non-Exception to Client Proprietary Rights Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: The fact that the client couple may have suffered only slight or speculative economic harm from Engineer A's disclosure of the inspection report to the real estate firm did not diminish or excuse the confidentiality obligation; the principle of client proprietary rights and confidentiality predominated regardless of the magnitude of demonstrated harm.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.c; BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
temporalscope: At and following the time of unauthorized report disclosure
textreferences: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
textreferences: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.549570
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Minimal Harm Non-Exception Confidentiality Non-Recognition
type: MinimalClientHarmNon-ExceptiontoConfidentialityPrincipleCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception to Confidentiality Principle Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that even if the client couple suffered only slight or speculative economic harm from the disclosure, the principle of client confidentiality predominates regardless of harm magnitude
casecontext: The BER noted that even if damage to the client was slight, the principle of confidentiality predominates — a principle Engineer A failed to apply
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Transmitting the report to the real estate firm without recognizing that the confidentiality principle applies irrespective of whether actual economic disadvantage resulted
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
textreferences: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
textreferences: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.547213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A No-Explicit-Agreement Commissioned Inspection Report Implicit Confidentiality
type: No-Explicit-AgreementCommissionedWorkProductImplicitConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: No explicit confidentiality agreement governed the distribution of the inspection report, but the BER found that the absence of such an agreement did not eliminate Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to the client couple.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: No-Explicit-Agreement Commissioned Work Product Implicit Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was bound by an implicit confidentiality obligation over the commissioned inspection report even in the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement, because the client's payment for and commissioning of the report created a proprietary right and confidentiality expectation enforceable as an ethical obligation.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; professional norms governing commissioned work product; faithful agent duty
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
temporalscope: From the time of report preparation through distribution
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.542506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override — Home Inspection Case
type: No-Safety-Exception-TriggeredConfidentialityNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The inspection report concluded the residence was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, with only minor items needing attention. This finding meant no public safety override pathway was available to justify disclosure to the real estate firm.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Because the inspection findings revealed only generally good condition with minor items needing attention — and no imminent danger, code violations posing injury risk, or hazardous conditions — no safety exception was triggered, and Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to the client remained fully operative and undiminished, foreclosing any safety-based justification for the unauthorized disclosure.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:09.215747+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; contextual balancing of confidentiality against public safety provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
temporalscope: At the time of report preparation and distribution
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.542999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override — Home Inspection Report
type: No-Safety-Exception-TriggeredConfidentialityNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The inspection report found the residence in generally good condition; no safety exception was triggered, leaving the confidentiality obligation fully intact and undiminished.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Because the home inspection report found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs and triggered no public safety, health, or welfare exception, Engineer A's confidentiality obligation to the client couple remained fully operative and undiminished, prohibiting him from invoking any safety rationale to justify the unauthorized disclosure to the real estate firm.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.c; BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
temporalscope: At the time of report distribution to the real estate firm
textreferences: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550599
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A No Safety Exception Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override
type: CompetingConfidentiality-SafetyCodeProvisionContextualBalancingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The inspection report concluded the residence was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, with only minor items needing attention. No imminent public danger existed that would have activated the public safety exception to confidentiality under NSPE Code Section II.1.c, meaning the confidentiality obligation remained fully operative and undefeated.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the contextual balancing of confidentiality against public safety did not justify disclosure in this case, because the inspection report found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, and therefore no public safety exception existed to override the client's confidentiality interest.
sourcetext: Engineer A prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
temporalscope: At the time of the decision to transmit the report to the real estate firm.
textreferences: Engineer A prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.542014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A No Safety Exception Triggered Confidentiality Primacy
type: No-Safety-Exception-TriggeredConfidentialityPrimacyRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The inspection report found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs; no public safety exception to confidentiality was triggered.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Primacy Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that because the inspection report found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs — triggering no imminent public danger exception — the client's confidentiality right over the commissioned report was fully intact and controlling, leaving no basis for distributing the report to the real estate firm.
sourcetext: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Inapplicable Here — No Safety Exception Triggered
temporalscope: At the time of evaluating whether to share the report with the real estate firm
textreferences: Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Inapplicable Here — No Safety Exception Triggered
textreferences: Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
textreferences: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.548069
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Openness Philosophy Client Confidentiality Non-Override — Home Inspection Report
type: EngineerOpennessPhilosophyClientConfidentialityNon-OverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A performed a residential home inspection for a prospective purchaser couple and, as a matter of professional routine and openness philosophy, sent a carbon copy of the report to the real estate firm (seller's agent) without client consent.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Openness Philosophy Client Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's professional philosophy of openness and straightforward dealing with facts — while code-endorsed under Sections II.3 and II.3.a — did not override his duty under Section II.1.c to protect the client couple's proprietary rights over the commissioned inspection report, prohibiting him from distributing the report to the real estate firm on the basis of that openness philosophy.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.1.c, II.3, II.3.a; BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation.
temporalscope: At the time of report distribution to the real estate firm
textreferences: At the same time, Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation.
textreferences: This basic philosophy is found to a substantial degree throughout the Code (e.g., Sections II.3. and II.3.a).
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.549385
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Openness Philosophy Confidentiality Non-Override Non-Recognition
type: EngineeringOpennessPhilosophyConfidentialityNon-OverrideSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineering Openness Philosophy Confidentiality Non-Override Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his professional philosophy of openness and dealing straightforwardly with facts did not override the specific confidentiality obligation owed to the client couple
casecontext: Engineer A considered it right and proper to make findings known to all interested parties so both sides had the same factual data, reflecting an openness philosophy that he incorrectly applied over client confidentiality
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Acting on a personal philosophy of openness by sharing findings with all interested parties, without recognizing that this philosophy is subordinate to the client's proprietary rights under Section II.1.c
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
textreferences: At the same time, Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation.
textreferences: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.547704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Openness Philosophy Non-Override Confidentiality Violation
type: EngineeringOpennessPhilosophyNon-OverrideofClientCommissionedReportConfidentialityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A believed it was 'right and proper' to make his findings known to all interested parties so both sides could negotiate with the same factual data, reflecting the engineering profession's openness culture.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Engineering Openness Philosophy Non-Override of Client Commissioned Report Confidentiality Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his professional philosophy of openness and dealing straightforwardly with facts — while a legitimate engineering value — did not authorize him to distribute the client-commissioned inspection report to the real estate firm, because the client's proprietary right under NSPE II.1.c. takes precedence over the general openness orientation.
sourcetext: It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation.
temporalscope: At the time of deciding to carbon-copy the real estate firm on the inspection report
textreferences: It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation.
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
textreferences: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties
textreferences: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.547480
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Routine Practice Non-Justification for Confidentiality Breach Self-Recognition
type: RoutinePracticeNon-JustificationforConfidentialityBreachSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Routine Practice Non-Justification for Confidentiality Breach Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to recognize that any routine practice of copying inspection reports to real estate firms — whether as professional courtesy or standard operating procedure — did not constitute ethical justification for breaching client confidentiality
casecontext: The case implies Engineer A may have treated the carbon copy to the real estate firm as a routine professional practice, without recognizing that such a practice violates confidentiality obligations regardless of its customary nature
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Failure demonstrated by Engineer A's apparent routine transmission of the carbon copy to the real estate firm without ethical analysis of whether this practice was permissible
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:25:11.574004+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.543916
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Section II.1.c Proprietary Rights Non-Recognition
type: SectionII.1.cClientProprietaryRightsExclusiveBenefitRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Section II.1.c Client Proprietary Rights Exclusive Benefit Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that Section II.1.c established the client couple's proprietary rights to exclusive benefit of the inspection findings, independently of Section III.4's client-transmitted information scope
casecontext: Engineer A transmitted a carbon copy of the home inspection report to the real estate firm without client consent, failing to apply Section II.1.c as an independent confidentiality basis
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Failure to recognize that the inspection report findings — though not transmitted by the client — were exclusively owned by the client under Section II.1.c, leading to unauthorized transmission to the real estate firm
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.547062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Engagement
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The inspection report was produced at the client couple's direct request and in the course of a fee-based professional engagement; the client was the commissioning party and the report was prepared for their exclusive benefit, engaging the strongest form of the Section III.4 confidentiality obligation.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:23:07.572818+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Information Engagement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to recognize that NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation was fully engaged in this inspection engagement, as the client couple directly commissioned and transmitted their inspection request and fee to Engineer A in the course of a professional services relationship, creating a heightened expectation of confidentiality over the resulting report.
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
temporalscope: Throughout the inspection engagement and upon delivery of the report.
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.541867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Section III.4 Inapplicability Non-Exculpation — Home Inspection Report
type: SectionIII.4Client-TransmittedInformationScopeLimitationNon-ExculpationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The BER explicitly noted that Section III.4 (governing client-transmitted confidential business information) did not apply because the client did not transmit confidential information to Engineer A, but held that Section II.1.c independently grounded the confidentiality obligation over the engineer-generated inspection report.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Information Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation Constraint
constraintstatement: The fact that NSPE Code Section III.4 did not directly apply to Engineer A's situation — because the client couple did not transmit confidential information to Engineer A but rather Engineer A independently generated findings through inspection — did not exculpate Engineer A from a confidentiality obligation, as Section II.1.c independently grounded the client's proprietary rights over the engineer-generated commissioned work product.
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:59.264679+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Sections II.1.c, III.4; BER Case Analysis
sourcetext: we note that this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
temporalscope: Throughout the inspection engagement and at the time of report distribution
textreferences: At the same time, Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
textreferences: That provision of the Code necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
textreferences: we note that this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Section III.4 Scope Limitation Non-Recognition
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to correctly identify that Section III.4's confidentiality obligation — while not directly triggered by client-transmitted information in this case — did not exhaust the confidentiality analysis, and that Section II.1.c provided an independent basis for confidentiality over engineer-discovered findings
casecontext: The BER explicitly noted this was not a Section III.4 case because no confidential information was transmitted by the client to the engineer, requiring the engineer to correctly identify the applicable code provision
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: The BER's analysis clarified that Section III.4 relates to client-transmitted confidential business information, not engineer-discovered data, requiring correct scope identification before proceeding to the Section II.1.c analysis
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:30:52.082052+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
textreferences: Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
textreferences: That provision of the Code necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
textreferences: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.549044
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineer A Section III.4 Scope Misapplication Recognition
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The board explicitly distinguished this case from Section III.4 scenarios, noting that no confidential information was transmitted by the client to the engineer; the report was engineer-generated on the client's behalf.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:29:02.206640+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Section III.4 Scope Limitation to Client-Transmitted Confidential Business Information Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to correctly recognize that Section III.4's confidentiality provision — governing client-transmitted confidential business information — did not directly govern the home inspection report scenario (where no confidential information was transmitted by the client to the engineer), and that the applicable provision was instead Section II.1.c.'s proprietary rights protection for client-commissioned reports.
sourcetext: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
temporalscope: At the time of analyzing the applicable ethics code provisions governing the inspection report
textreferences: Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
textreferences: That provision of the Code necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
textreferences: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.548402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Applied to Home Inspection Disclosure
type: EngineeringOpennessCultureNon-OverrideofClientConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Client-commissioned home inspection report
appliedto: Engineering professional culture of openness
appliedto: NSPE Code Sections II.3 and II.3.a vs. Section II.1.c
balancingwith: Client Bargaining Interest Protection in Inspection Engagements
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's invocation of the engineering profession's general philosophy of openness and dealing 'in a straightforward way with the facts' — while a legitimate professional value reflected in the Code — did not authorize disclosure of the commissioned report to the real estate firm, because the client's confidentiality right takes precedence over the engineer's professional openness philosophy in the context of client-commissioned work product.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The professional norm of openness governs the engineer's own conduct in neutral contexts (e.g., honest reporting, non-deception) but does not extend to authorizing the engineer to distribute client work product to third parties on the basis that all parties deserve equal access to the facts.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation. This basic philosophy is found to a substantial degree throughout the Code (e.g., Sections II.3. and II.3.a). At the same time, Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
tensionresolution: The client's right of confidentiality over commissioned work product predominates over the engineering culture of openness; the two values operate in different domains and the latter does not override the former.
textreferences: At the same time, Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation.
textreferences: This basic philosophy is found to a substantial degree throughout the Code (e.g., Sections II.3. and II.3.a).
textreferences: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.546704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Ethical Violation Formally Recognized
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533692
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

II.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135568
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Inspection Report Completed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533505
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Inspection Report as Confidential Client Information
type: ConfidentialInformationHeld
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From completion of inspection and report preparation through unauthorized disclosure to real estate firm
affectedparties: Client (husband and wife)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Real estate firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
stateclass: Confidential Information Held
subject: Engineer A's possession of inspection findings and written report prepared exclusively for the client
terminatedby: Disclosure to real estate firm (unauthorized) — though confidentiality obligation persists as a matter of ethics
textreferences: Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services
textreferences: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
triggeringevent: Engineer A prepared a written report containing findings about the residence for the paying client
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.536736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

NSPE-Code-of-Ethics-Confidentiality-Loyalty
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:17:43.518171+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
usedby: Engineer A; NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the complaint
usedincontext: Governs Engineer A's duty to maintain client confidentiality and act as a faithful agent and trustee to the client (husband and wife) who commissioned the home inspection report; prohibits disclosure of client information to third parties (real estate firm) without consent
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.535134
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

NSPE Code Section II.1.c - Client Proprietary Rights
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.1.c
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:51.664717+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:51.664717+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
textreferences: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.
usedby: BER in establishing the client's right to control the inspection report
usedincontext: Cited as the primary normative basis for the client's proprietary right to exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client, grounding the confidentiality obligation over the inspection report.
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.534302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

NSPE Code Section III.4 - Client Confidential Information
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:51.664717+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:51.664717+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
textreferences: That provision of the Code necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
textreferences: this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client.
usedby: BER in analyzing the scope of confidentiality obligations
usedincontext: Cited to clarify that the case does not involve the standard confidential-information-from-client scenario governed by Section III.4, distinguishing the present fact pattern from the typical confidentiality mandate.
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.534100
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

NSPE Code Sections II.3 and II.3.a - Engineer Openness and Honesty
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Sections II.3 and II.3.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:51.664717+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:51.664717+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: This basic philosophy is found to a substantial degree throughout the Code (e.g., Sections II.3. and II.3.a).
textreferences: This basic philosophy is found to a substantial degree throughout the Code (e.g., Sections II.3. and II.3.a).
usedby: BER in explaining the cultural and normative basis for Engineer A's conduct and assessing culpability
usedincontext: Cited as the textual basis for the professional philosophy of openness and straightforward dealing with facts, which contextualizes why Engineer A may have acted without wrongful intent in sharing the inspection report.
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533188
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Non-Self-Interested Confidentiality Violation — Engineer A Mitigating Context
type: Non-Self-InterestedCodeViolationMitigatingContextState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: At the time of and following the unauthorized disclosure, through the ethical analysis
affectedparties: Client
affectedparties: Engineer A
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
stateclass: Non-Self-Interested Code Violation Mitigating Context State
subject: Engineer A's violation of client confidentiality obligations in the absence of any self-interested motive
terminatedby: Ethical finding acknowledging mitigation while still finding the conduct incorrect
textreferences: although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect
textreferences: the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates
textreferences: we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
triggeringevent: Engineer A disclosed the report from professional principle rather than personal advantage
urgencylevel: low
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.538082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Offer Inspection Service
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Offer Inspection Service (Action 1) combined with Send Copy to Real Estate Firm (Action 5) → Ethical Violation Formally Recognized (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Prepare Written Inspection Report
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Prospective Home Purchaser Client
type: ProspectiveHomePurchaserInspectionClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'interest': 'Exclusive benefit of inspection findings for negotiating leverage', 'harm': 'Potential reduction of bargaining power in property price negotiation', 'right': 'Proprietary right to confidentiality of engineer-obtained data under NSPE Section II.1.c'}
caseinvolvement: The client commissioned Engineer A to perform a pre-purchase home inspection and prepare a written report. The client held a right of confidentiality over the inspection findings and a legitimate interest in protecting their bargaining position in the property price negotiation. That position was potentially undermined when Engineer A disclosed the report to the seller without consent.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:33.563288+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:33.563288+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_interest_to', 'target': 'Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient (Property Owner/Seller)'}
relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
sourcetext: a report commissioned by a client
textreferences: Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client
textreferences: a report commissioned by a client
textreferences: the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.537620
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134717
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134754
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134822
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134857
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138636
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138729
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138423
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138476
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135753
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Did Engineer A act unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate firm representing the owners?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: Does the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement between Engineer A and the client couple eliminate or merely weaken the engineer's implied duty to protect the inspection report from unauthorized third-party disclosure?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.135720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Would Engineer A's ethical standing differ if the inspection report had revealed serious defects rather than minor ones — and does the severity of findings affect the client's proprietary interest in controlling disclosure?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Is the real estate firm, which represents the sellers rather than the buyers, properly characterized as an adverse party in the transaction — and does that adversarial relationship independently heighten Engineer A's duty to withhold the report?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136094
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should Engineer A have sought the client's prior consent before establishing any routine practice of copying inspection reports to real estate firms, and would such advance disclosure in the service agreement have rendered the disclosure ethically permissible?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136150
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the principle of engineering openness and transparency — which might favor sharing accurate inspection findings with all relevant parties — conflict with the principle that client confidentiality and loyalty prohibit disclosure to unauthorized third parties without consent?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136205
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the principle that a benevolent or altruistic motive can reflect good professional character conflict with the principle that good intentions provide no ethical cure for a breach of client confidentiality and loyalty — and how should the Board weigh Engineer A's state of mind in its moral assessment?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136262
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the principle that client-transmitted confidential information triggers the strongest confidentiality obligations under Section III.4 conflict with the principle that engineer-generated findings — not client-confided secrets — still carry an implicit confidentiality duty sufficient to prohibit unauthorized disclosure?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136325
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the principle protecting client bargaining interests in an ongoing property negotiation conflict with any residual public-interest principle that might favor transparency and informed decision-making by all parties to a real estate transaction — and where should that line be drawn when no safety hazard is present?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A breach an unconditional duty of loyalty to the client by transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm, regardless of whether the disclosure caused measurable harm or was motivated by benevolent intent?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136450
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did the actual and foreseeable harms to the client's bargaining position outweigh any benefit Engineer A may have intended by sharing the inspection report with the real estate firm, and does this consequentialist calculus independently support the Board's finding of unethical conduct?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136507
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate the professional integrity and trustworthiness expected of a faithful agent and trustee by unilaterally deciding to share the commissioned inspection report with an adverse party in the transaction, even if motivated by a personal philosophy of openness and transparency?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement between Engineer A and the client eliminate or merely reduce the engineer's duty to protect the commissioned inspection report as client proprietary work product, and does the NSPE Code impose an implicit confidentiality obligation even without a formal agreement?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would Engineer A's disclosure have been ethically permissible if the client had explicitly consented in advance to sharing the inspection report with the real estate firm, and does such a consent mechanism represent the only ethically sound path to third-party distribution?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if the inspection report had revealed a serious structural defect or safety hazard rather than only minor items — would the safety exception to confidentiality obligations have justified or even required Engineer A to disclose the report to the real estate firm or other parties without client consent?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.136856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer A had disclosed the report not to the real estate firm representing the sellers but to a neutral third party such as a municipal building inspector or a public safety authority — and does the adverse-party status of the real estate firm independently aggravate the ethical violation beyond a generic confidentiality breach?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137003
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer A had made it a standard, publicly disclosed practice to send carbon copies of all inspection reports to the relevant real estate firms, and clients had engaged his services with knowledge of this practice — would such prior notice and industry custom have altered the ethical or contractual analysis of the disclosure?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.137062
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
type: UnauthorizedThird-PartyReportRecipient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'party_type': 'Real estate firm', 'role_in_transaction': "Seller's representative", 'consent_from_client': False, 'party_to_inspection_agreement': False}
caseinvolvement: The real estate firm handling the sale of the residence, which received an unsolicited carbon copy of the confidential engineering inspection report from Engineer A without the client's consent, thereby gaining information that could affect the seller's negotiating position relative to the prospective purchasers.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:17:41.681091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:17:41.681091+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'adverse_interest_to', 'target': 'Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'received_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer'}
rolecategory: participant
roleclass: Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.534904
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Report Received by Real Estate Firm
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533573
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138758
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.139039
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.139070
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.139099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.139131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.139160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.139190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.139219
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138788
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138827
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138897
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.138989
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:46:13.134952
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Send Copy to Real Estate Firm
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533446
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Send Copy to Real Estate Firm (Action 5) → Clients' Bargaining Position Harmed (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Unauthorized Report Disclosure to Real Estate Firm
type: UnauthorizedThird-PartyReportDisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A submitted the report with a carbon copy notation to the real estate firm onward through the client complaint
affectedparties: Client (husband and wife)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Real estate firm
affectedparties: Residence owners
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:18:00.941480+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence
stateclass: Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A's unilateral decision to send a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm without client authorization
terminatedby: Not resolved within the case facts; client complaint is active
textreferences: Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence
textreferences: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence
triggeringevent: Engineer A submitted the written report showing a carbon copy sent to the real estate firm handling the sale
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.536933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Unauthorized Third-Party Disclosure of Home Inspection Report
type: UnauthorizedThird-PartyReportDisclosureState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A provided the report to the property owner through the ethical analysis finding
affectedparties: Client (buyer)
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Property owner (seller/adverse party)
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:19:25.870265+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
stateclass: Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure State
subject: Engineer A's disclosure of the commissioned inspection report to the property owner (adverse party in negotiation)
terminatedby: Ethical finding that the disclosure was incorrect
textreferences: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report
textreferences: the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
triggeringevent: Engineer A voluntarily provided a copy of the inspection report to the property owner without client authorization
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.536394
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition Applied to Real Estate Firm Carbon Copy
type: UnauthorizedThird-PartyReportDisclosureProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Carbon copy of inspection report
appliedto: Client couple's negotiating position
appliedto: Real estate firm as unauthorized recipient
balancingwith: Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A violated the prohibition on unauthorized third-party disclosure by sending a carbon copy of the home inspection report to the real estate firm handling the sale, without the client couple's prior knowledge or consent, thereby prejudicing the client's bargaining position in the property negotiation.
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:27:12.146453+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The prohibition applies even when the engineer acts without ulterior motive and in good faith, and even when the third party (the real estate firm) has a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the report.
invokedby: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
principleclass: Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition
sourcetext: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
tensionresolution: The prohibition on unauthorized disclosure prevails over the engineer's professional philosophy of openness; good faith and benevolent motive do not cure the violation.
textreferences: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
textreferences: the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.546138
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition Violated by Engineer A
type: UnauthorizedThird-PartyReportDisclosureProhibition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
appliedto: Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
balancingwith: Public Safety
balancingwith: Transparency
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A transmitted the client's inspection report to the real estate firm — a party not party to the inspection agreement — without obtaining the client's prior consent, violating the principle that client-commissioned reports may not be distributed to third parties without authorization.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 97
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 97
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T19:21:20.347213+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The real estate firm was not a party to the inspection agreement; it had independent and potentially adverse interests in the transaction. Engineer A had no authorization — express or implied — to share the report. The carbon copy notation on the report demonstrates that the disclosure was deliberate, not accidental, making the violation clear.
invokedby: Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
principleclass: Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition
sourcetext: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
tensionresolution: No public safety emergency or legal obligation required disclosure to the real estate firm. The disclosure served no legitimate professional purpose that could override the client's right to control distribution of their commissioned report.
textreferences: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
textreferences: They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
wasattributedto: Case 97 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.538686
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

agreement for inspection services before residential inspection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

carbon copy sent to real estate firm before client objection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550674
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

inspection report delivery before price negotiations between client and owner
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550740
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

report submission to client equals carbon copy sent to real estate firm
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.550639
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

residential inspection before written report preparation
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction

written report preparation before report submission to client
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T19:35:14.533858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 97 Extraction