Licensed Professional Engineer / Inspection Service Provider
None identified; Engineer A appears not to have considered downstream report distribution implications at this stage
Entering a legitimate professional service agreement
Providing services within area of competence
Client proprietary rights over commissioned work (Section II.1.c)
Provide paid inspection services to the client couple and deliver a written report on the condition of the residence they were considering purchasing
Pre-inspection; at time of engagement agreement
Failure to clarify terms of confidentiality and report distribution at engagement stage (proactive duty to client)
Engineer A agreed to perform a residential inspection for a specific client couple (husband and wife) for a fee, formally establishing a professional engineer-client relationship with the prospective purchasers as the sole contracting parties.
Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard (applied to home inspection context)
Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report
The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's obligations to the client
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
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case — Home Inspection Report Disclosure
Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
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.
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
BER Novel Principle Small-Scale Case Full Philosophical Analysis — Home Inspection Report
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.
Broad Philosophical Ethics Principle Narrow Factual Applicability Non-Limitation Constraint
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.
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.
But as it involves an ethical principle we have not had occasion to address before, we will consider it on the broader philosophical aspects.
CausalLink_Conduct Residential Inspection
CausalLink_Prepare Written Inspection Rep
CausalLink_Send Copy to Real Estate Firm
Client Proprietary Right Over Inspection Report — Engineer A Home Inspection Case
From the moment Engineer A was commissioned to conduct the inspection through the unauthorized disclosure to the property owner
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
Client Proprietary Right Over Engineer-Generated Work Product State
Client's implicit proprietary right over the home inspection report commissioned from Engineer A
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
the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer
Client commissioned Engineer A to conduct a home inspection, generating a professional report on the client's behalf
Clients transition from unaware victims to active objectors; harm is formally recognized; ethical violation moves from latent to manifest; professional accountability mechanisms are now activatable
After real estate firm received report; upon clients' discovery of the disclosure
As a result of the real estate firm receiving the inspection report, the clients' negotiating leverage in the home purchase transaction was potentially compromised. The clients identified this harm and formally objected, marking the moment the ethical violation produced a recognized adverse consequence.
Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection to the real estate firm representing the owners.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
None identified; inspection itself is a straightforward professional task
Acting in the client's interest by providing accurate information
Objective and truthful assessment of property condition
Honest and factual reporting (Sections II.3 and II.3.a)
Accurately assess and document the physical condition of the residence to provide the client with an objective, factual engineering evaluation to inform their purchasing decision
Identification of defects and safety concerns
During inspection phase; after engagement, before report submission
Engineer A physically conducted the engineering inspection of the residence under consideration by the client couple, applying professional judgment to assess the property's condition.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard (applied to home inspection context)
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's conduct
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
Engineer A - Client Relationship with Prospective Purchasers
From engagement for inspection service through delivery of written report and subsequent dispute
Engineer A's paid inspection service agreement with husband and wife prospective purchasers
Not terminated within the case facts; dispute arises within the active relationship
Husband and wife retained Engineer A for a fee to perform a residential inspection
Engineer A Adverse Interest Third-Party Non-Transmission Principle Non-Application
Adverse Interest Third-Party Commissioned Report Non-Transmission Principle Generalization Capability
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
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
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
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.
he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client.
Engineer A Adverse Interest Third-Party Report Non-Transmission — Real Estate Firm
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.
Adverse Interest Third-Party Commissioned Report Non-Transmission Categorical Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Section II.1.c; BER Case Analysis
At the time of report distribution to the real estate firm
Engineer A Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Non-Recognition
Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Self-Assessment Capability
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
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
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
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.
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.
Engineer A Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Self-Assessment
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
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
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
Engineer A Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override — Home Inspection Case
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.
Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent and trustee provisions; BER Case 93-3 precedent
Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
Engineer A Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Non-Override — Home Inspection Report
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.
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.
NSPE Code Sections II.1.c, II.3, II.3.a; BER Case Analysis
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure Confidentiality Breach Non-Recognition
Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
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
The BER read into the case that Engineer A acted without ulterior motive but found this did not excuse the confidentiality violation
Acting on a good-faith belief that openness served all parties' interests, without recognizing that benevolent motivation does not cure a confidentiality breach
we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition
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
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
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
Engineer A Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification
Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification Capability
Engineer A 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
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
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
Engineer A Client Bargaining Position Adverse Disclosure Impact Recognition
Client Bargaining Position Adverse Disclosure Impact Recognition Capability
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
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
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
Engineer A Client Confidentiality Boundary Non-Recognition
Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
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
The BER found Engineer A acted without deliberate wrongdoing but was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
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
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.
Engineer A Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition
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
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
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
Engineer A Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Distribution
Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Distribution Capability
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
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
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
Engineer A Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing
Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Capability
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
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
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
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.
Engineer A Confidentiality Constraint — Commissioned Inspection Report as Client Proprietary Work Product
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; professional norms governing client proprietary rights over commissioned engineering work product
From engagement through report distribution and beyond
Engineer A Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition
Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition Capability
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
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
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
Engineer A Good Faith Motive Non-Exculpation — Home Inspection Confidentiality Breach
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.
Good Intention Non-Exculpation for Confidentiality Breach Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER precedent establishing that benevolent motivation does not cure confidentiality violations
At the time of the unauthorized disclosure
The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests
Engineer A Good Intention Non-Exculpation — Home Inspection Report Confidentiality Breach
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer A Home Inspection Engagement Confidentiality Scope Self-Recognition
Home Inspection Engagement Confidentiality Scope Self-Recognition Capability
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
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
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
Engineer A Inspection Report Adverse Party Confidentiality Boundary Recognition
Inspection Report Adverse Party Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
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
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
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
Engineer A Inspection Report Adverse Transaction Party Non-Transmission — Real Estate Firm
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.
Inspection Report Adverse Transaction Party Non-Transmission Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent and trustee provisions; client proprietary rights under Section II.1.c
At the time of report submission and distribution
Engineer A Minimal Harm Non-Exception Confidentiality Non-Recognition
Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception to Confidentiality Principle Capability
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
The BER noted that even if damage to the client was slight, the principle of confidentiality predominates — a principle Engineer A failed to apply
Transmitting the report to the real estate firm without recognizing that the confidentiality principle applies irrespective of whether actual economic disadvantage resulted
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.
Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power
Engineer A No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override — Home Inspection Report
The inspection report found the residence in generally good condition; no safety exception was triggered, leaving the confidentiality obligation fully intact and undiminished.
No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
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.
Engineer A Openness Philosophy Client Confidentiality Non-Override — Home Inspection Report
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.
Engineer Openness Philosophy Client Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
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.
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.
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.
This basic philosophy is found to a substantial degree throughout the Code (e.g., Sections II.3. and II.3.a).
Engineer A Openness Philosophy Confidentiality Non-Override Non-Recognition
Engineering Openness Philosophy Confidentiality Non-Override Self-Recognition Capability
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
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
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
Engineer A Routine Practice Non-Justification for Confidentiality Breach Self-Recognition
Routine Practice Non-Justification for Confidentiality Breach Self-Recognition Capability
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
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
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
Engineer A Section II.1.c Proprietary Rights Non-Recognition
Section II.1.c Client Proprietary Rights Exclusive Benefit Recognition Capability
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
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
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
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.
Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4.
Engineer A Section III.4 Inapplicability Non-Exculpation — Home Inspection Report
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.
Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Information Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation Constraint
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.
NSPE Code Sections II.1.c, III.4; BER Case Analysis
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.
Throughout the inspection engagement and at the time of report distribution
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.
Engineer A Section III.4 Scope Limitation Non-Recognition
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
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
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
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.
Ethical ambiguity resolved; violation status is formally established; case transitions from disputed incident to professional ethics precedent; Engineer A's conduct is authoritatively characterized as a breach of client confidentiality
Post-objection; during ethical review and discussion phase
The subsequent ethical analysis concluded that Engineer A violated the principle of client confidentiality by sharing the commissioned report with a party holding an adverse interest, regardless of his apparent lack of malicious intent. This recognition constitutes an outcome of the full sequence of events and formally establishes the ethical breach.
A confidential professional work product now exists; Engineer A holds fiduciary responsibility over its distribution; clients acquire proprietary interest in the report's contents and disclosure
After inspection conducted; before report submission
The written inspection report concluding the residence was in generally good condition with only minor items needing attention was produced and finalized. This report became the central artifact around which subsequent confidentiality concerns arose.
Inspection Report as Confidential Client Information
From completion of inspection and report preparation through unauthorized disclosure to real estate firm
Engineer A's possession of inspection findings and written report prepared exclusively for the client
Disclosure to real estate firm (unauthorized) — though confidentiality obligation persists as a matter of ethics
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
Engineer A prepared a written report containing findings about the residence for the paying client
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A; NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the complaint
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
NSPE Code Section II.1.c - Client Proprietary Rights
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.1.c
BER in establishing the client's right to control the inspection report
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.
NSPE Code Section III.4 - Client Confidential Information
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.4
BER in analyzing the scope of confidentiality obligations
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.
NSPE Code Sections II.3 and II.3.a - Engineer Openness and Honesty
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Sections II.3 and II.3.a
BER in explaining the cultural and normative basis for Engineer A's conduct and assessing culpability
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.
Potential ambiguity in scope of client relationship and report distribution practices
Establishing clear professional service offering
Providing competent professional services within area of expertise
Honest representation of services offered
Public welfare through informed property transactions
Provide a marketable professional service to prospective homebuyers seeking independent engineering assessment of residential properties
Engineering judgment on property condition
Residential structural and systems inspection expertise
Engineer A established and offered a formal residential inspection service to prospective homebuyers, creating a professional service model whereby he performs engineering inspections for a fee and renders written reports.
Offer Inspection Service (Action 1) combined with Send Copy to Real Estate Firm (Action 5) → Ethical Violation Formally Recognized (Event 4)
The subsequent ethical analysis concluded that Engineer A violated the principle of client confidentiality by establishing a service practice that routinely disclosed client inspection results to real estate firms without consent
Offer Inspection Service (Action 1) combined with Send Copy to Real Estate Firm (Action 5)
Had Engineer A either obtained client consent before disclosure or refrained from sending the report to the real estate firm, no breach of confidentiality would have occurred and no ethical violation would have been recognized
Ethical Violation Formally Recognized (Event 4)
Absence of client consent or contractual authorization for such disclosure
Engineer A's act of disclosing confidential client information to a third party
Existence of a professional engineer-client relationship creating a duty of confidentiality
The third party being an interested party in the transaction adverse to the clients' interests
The routine nature of the practice compounded the violation by suggesting systemic disregard for client confidentiality
Unauthorized disclosure of confidential client information to an interested third party by a professional engineer is independently sufficient to constitute an ethical violation under engineering codes of conduct
A favorable report could reduce the client's negotiating leverage if disclosed to the seller or real estate firm; Engineer A does not appear to have considered this
Accurate and honest reporting of findings (Sections II.3 and II.3.a)
Client service through accurate information delivery
Truthfulness and objectivity in professional reports
Produce a clear, concise written record of inspection findings to fulfill the contracted service obligation and provide the client with an actionable summary of the property's condition
Clear communication of findings to non-technical clients
Post-inspection; prior to report submission
Engineer A compiled his inspection findings into a one-page written report concluding the residence was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, while noting several minor items needing attention.
{'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'}
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.
{'type': 'adverse_interest_to', 'target': 'Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient (Property Owner/Seller)'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer'}
Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence
Did Engineer A act unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection report to the real estate firm representing the owners?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
{'party_type': 'Real estate firm', 'role_in_transaction': "Seller's representative", 'consent_from_client': False, 'party_to_inspection_agreement': False}
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.
{'type': 'adverse_interest_to', 'target': 'Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client'}
{'type': 'received_report_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer'}
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
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
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
Confidential client information now in possession of adverse party; clients' bargaining position potentially compromised; Engineer A's ethical violation is now an irreversible fact; professional trust relationship with clients is damaged
Concurrent with or immediately after report submission to clients
The real estate firm handling the property sale received a carbon copy of the inspection report sent by Engineer A without the clients' knowledge or consent. A party holding an adverse interest to the clients thereby gained access to information the clients had commissioned and paid for.
Engineer A did not foresee or consider that sharing the report would reduce the client's bargaining power; he acted without recognition of the adversarial dynamic between the client and the real estate firm
Engineer A believed he was acting in accordance with professional transparency norms (Sections II.3 and II.3.a)
Avoidance of conflicts of interest between client and third parties
Client proprietary rights over commissioned data (Section II.1.c), violated
Openness and transparency (Sections II.3, II.3.a), misapplied here
Ensure all interested parties in the real estate transaction had equal access to the factual findings of the inspection, reflecting Engineer A's belief in openness and transparency for all stakeholders
Ethical judgment regarding client confidentiality
Recognition of adversarial interests in real estate transactions
Understanding of client proprietary rights over commissioned professional work
At report submission; simultaneous with delivery of report to client
Client confidentiality, duty to protect client's proprietary rights over commissioned information (Section II.1.c)
Duty to recognize and honor the exclusive nature of the engineer-client relationship
Faithful agency to client, duty not to act in ways that harm client interests
Obligation not to disclose client-commissioned work to parties with adverse interests without consent
Engineer A, apparently as a matter of routine practice and without the clients' consent or prior agreement, sent a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence, a party with a potentially adverse interest to the client in the ongoing price negotiation.
Send Copy to Real Estate Firm (Action 5) → Clients' Bargaining Position Harmed (Event 3)
As a result of the real estate firm receiving the inspection report, the clients' negotiating leverage was directly undermined by disclosure of findings to the opposing party in the transaction
Send Copy to Real Estate Firm (Action 5)
Had Engineer A not sent the copy to the real estate firm, the firm would have remained unaware of the inspection findings, and the clients would have retained full control over if, when, and how to disclose results, preserving their negotiating leverage entirely
Clients' Bargaining Position Harmed (Event 3)
Absence of client consent or prior agreement authorizing third-party disclosure
Engineer A's unilateral decision to transmit report to real estate firm
Inspection report containing information material to negotiating position
Real estate firm's role as an opposing or interested party in the property transaction
Combination of unauthorized disclosure + adversarial transaction context + material findings = certain harm to negotiating leverage
Transmission of confidential client report to an interested third party without consent was alone sufficient to compromise the clients' bargaining position
agreement for inspection services before residential inspection
carbon copy sent to real estate firm before client objection
The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
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.
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.
The client's bargaining interest protection obligation prevails over the engineer's view that all parties should have equal access to factual data.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.92
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.
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.
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.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.94
The prohibition on unauthorized disclosure prevails over the engineer's professional philosophy of openness; good faith and benevolent motive do not cure the violation.
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.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.9
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.
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.
inspection report delivery before price negotiations between client and owner
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
price negotiations between client and owner
report submission to client equals carbon copy sent to real estate firm
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
residential inspection before written report preparation
Engineer A performed this service for a client...and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition
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 und
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 pre
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, b
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
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 confidentialit
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 exc
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 perm
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 conventiona
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
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-e
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 neede
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 subor
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 b
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 age
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 cl
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 fo
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 d
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 fi
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 a
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 di
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 wou
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 repo
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.
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 clie
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 —
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 t
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 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 confiden
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 hel
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
written report preparation before report submission to client
Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm
Engineer A Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Sharing — Home Inspection Case
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.
Client Consent Prerequisite for Third-Party Report Sharing Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c (client proprietary rights); faithful agent and trustee duty; implicit confidentiality of commissioned work product
Engineer A No-Explicit-Agreement Commissioned Inspection Report Implicit Confidentiality
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.
No-Explicit-Agreement Commissioned Work Product Implicit Confidentiality Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; professional norms governing commissioned work product; faithful agent duty
From the time of report preparation through distribution
Engineer A No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override — Home Inspection Case
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c; contextual balancing of confidentiality against public safety provisions
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.
At the time of report preparation and distribution
Engineer A Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception — Home Inspection Report Confidentiality
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.
Minimal Economic Harm Non-Exception to Client Proprietary Rights Confidentiality Constraint
At and following the time of unauthorized report disclosure
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.
Absence of Client-Transmitted Confidential Information — Home Inspection Context
Throughout the engagement — the inspection report contained findings Engineer A independently discovered, not information the client transmitted in confidence
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
Inspection-Discovered vs. Client-Disclosed Safety Information Distinction State
The nature of the information in the inspection report — engineer-generated findings, not client-confided secrets
Ethical analysis clarifying that the distinction does not eliminate the confidentiality obligation — client proprietary right still applies
Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer
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
Engineer A commissioned to conduct independent home inspection; all findings were engineer-generated rather than client-disclosed
Absence of Explicit Confidentiality Agreement for Inspection Report
From engagement inception through the disclosure dispute
Absence of Confidentiality Agreement Affecting Disclosure Obligation State
The lack of any explicit confidentiality agreement between Engineer A and the client governing distribution of the inspection report
Engineer A accepted the inspection engagement without establishing explicit terms governing report distribution
Non-Self-Interested Confidentiality Violation — Engineer A Mitigating Context
At the time of and following the unauthorized disclosure, through the ethical analysis
Non-Self-Interested Code Violation Mitigating Context State
Engineer A's violation of client confidentiality obligations in the absence of any self-interested motive
Ethical finding acknowledging mitigation while still finding the conduct incorrect
although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect
the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates
Engineer A disclosed the report from professional principle rather than personal advantage
Unauthorized Third-Party Disclosure of Home Inspection Report
From the moment Engineer A provided the report to the property owner through the ethical analysis finding
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure State
Engineer A's disclosure of the commissioned inspection report to the property owner (adverse party in negotiation)
Ethical finding that the disclosure was incorrect
Engineer A voluntarily provided a copy of the inspection report to the property owner without client authorization
Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Obligation Engaged in Home Inspection Report
Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
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.
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.
Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle
Client Bargaining Interest Protection Applied to Home Purchase Negotiation
Client couple's negotiating position in property purchase
Real estate firm as counterparty representative
Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Principle
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.
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.
Client Bargaining Interest Protection in Inspection Engagements
Client Bargaining Interest Protection Violated by Disclosure to Real Estate Firm
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.
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.
Engineer A Home Inspection Report Confidentiality Scope Recognition
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.
Home Inspection Report Confidentiality Scope Recognition Obligation
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.
From the inception of the inspection engagement through the delivery and use of the report.
Following the inspection, Engineer A renders a written report to the prospective purchaser.
Engineer A Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception Confidentiality Violation
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.
Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception to Commissioned Report Confidentiality Obligation
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.
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
At the time of the disclosure and in any post-hoc ethical assessment
Engineer A No Safety Exception Triggered Confidentiality Primacy
The inspection report found the residence in generally good condition requiring no major repairs; no public safety exception to confidentiality was triggered.
No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Primacy Recognition Obligation
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.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Inapplicable Here — No Safety Exception Triggered
At the time of evaluating whether to share the report with the real estate firm
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition Applied to Real Estate Firm Carbon Copy
Real estate firm as unauthorized recipient
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.
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.
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition Violated by Engineer A
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.
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.
Client Bargaining Position Prejudiced by Report Disclosure
From the moment the real estate firm received the report through the conclusion of the property transaction or dispute resolution
Engineer-Initiated Third-Party Disclosure Prejudicing Client Bargaining State
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
Real estate firm received a copy of the inspection report showing the residence was in generally good condition with only minor repairs needed
Client Loyalty Obligation Breached by Engineer A Disclosure to Adverse Party
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.
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.
Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report.
Commissioned Report Proprietary Right of Client Applied to Home Inspection Report
Section II.1.c NSPE Code proprietary rights provision
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.
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.
Commissioned Report Proprietary Right of Client Principle
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.
the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.
Engineer A Altruistic Disclosure Non-Justification Client Interest Neglect
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.
Altruistic Disclosure Non-Justification for Client Interest Neglect Obligation
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.
At the time of report submission and carbon copy distribution.
Engineer A Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Sharing
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.
Client Consent for Third-Party Data Sharing Obligation
Before submitting the report with any carbon copy notation to non-client parties.
Engineer A Inspection Report Adverse Party Non-Transmission
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.
Inspection Engagement Adverse Party Report Non-Transmission Obligation
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.
At the time of report preparation and submission; the obligation arose upon acceptance of the inspection engagement from the prospective purchaser clients.
Unauthorized Report Disclosure to Real Estate Firm
From the moment Engineer A submitted the report with a carbon copy notation to the real estate firm onward through the client complaint
Engineer A's unilateral decision to send a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm without client authorization
Not resolved within the case facts; client complaint is active
Engineer A submitted the written report showing a carbon copy sent to the real estate firm handling the sale
{'party_composition': 'Husband and wife', 'fee_paid': True, 'report_received': True, 'consent_to_third_party_disclosure': False}
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.
{'type': 'adversely_affected_by_disclosure_to', 'target': 'Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient'}
{'type': 'retained', 'target': 'Engineer A Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer'}
Client Interest Primacy Violated by Engineer A Unilateral Distribution Decision
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.
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.
Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
Engineer A Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Engagement
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.
Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Information Engagement Obligation
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.
Throughout the inspection engagement and upon delivery of the report.
Engineer A Section III.4 Scope Misapplication Recognition
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.
Section III.4 Scope Limitation to Client-Transmitted Confidential Business Information Recognition Obligation
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.
At the time of analyzing the applicable ethics code provisions governing the inspection report
Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Applied to Home Inspection Disclosure
Client-commissioned home inspection report
Engineering professional culture of openness
NSPE Code Sections II.3 and II.3.a vs. Section II.1.c
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.
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.
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.
Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle Distinguished in Home Inspection Case
NSPE Code Section III.4 confidentiality provision
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.
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.
Confidentiality Violated by Engineer A Carbon Copy to Real Estate Firm
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.
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.
Engineer A Commissioned Report Adverse Party Non-Disclosure Violation
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.
Commissioned Report Client Exclusive Benefit Non-Disclosure to Adverse Interest Party Obligation
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.
At the time of transmitting the inspection report to the real estate firm
he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
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
Engineer A No Safety Exception Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override
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.
Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
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.
At the time of the decision to transmit the report to the real estate firm.
Confidentiality Principle Invoked in Home Inspection Report Disclosure
Carbon copy transmitted to real estate firm
Home inspection report commissioned by client couple
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.
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.
Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Engineer A Disclosure Violation
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.
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.
Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
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.
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.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation Applied to Engineer A Openness Philosophy
Carbon copy disclosure to real estate firm
Engineer A's professional philosophy of openness
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.
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.
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure Confidentiality Breach
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.
Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Unauthorized Client Confidentiality Breach Obligation
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.
We read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
At the time of the disclosure decision and throughout the engagement
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
Engineer A Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Confidentiality Breach
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.
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.
At the time of the decision to include the real estate firm as a carbon copy recipient on the inspection report.
Engineer A Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation
At the time Engineer A provided the inspection report to the property owner
Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation State
Engineer A's state of mind and professional disposition at the time of unauthorized disclosure
Ethical analysis finding that client confidentiality prevails despite good-faith motive
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
Engineer A's professional belief that all interested parties should have equal access to factual findings from his inspection
Engineer A Inspection Report Carbon Copy Real Estate Firm Confidentiality Breach
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.
Inspection Report Third-Party Non-Disclosure Without Client Consent Obligation
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.
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.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Violated by Real Estate Firm Disclosure
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.
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.
Throughout the duration of the inspection engagement, from acceptance of the commission through delivery of the final report.
Engineer A Openness Philosophy Non-Override Confidentiality Violation
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.
Engineering Openness Philosophy Non-Override of Client Commissioned Report Confidentiality Obligation
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.
At the time of deciding to carbon-copy the real estate firm on the inspection report
he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Residential home inspection', 'service_type': 'Pre-purchase engineering inspection', 'report_format': 'One-page written report'}
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.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client Couple Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client'}
{'type': 'unauthorized_disclosure_to', 'target': 'Real Estate Firm Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient'}
Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers