Full batch re-extraction with pipeline commit and class accumulation.
100-Year Storm Surge Design Standard Recommendation Obligation
Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined, based on newly released climate data and a recently developed modeling algorithm, that a residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation to protect public safety, to formally recommend that standard to the client in writing — including the scientific and professional basis for the recommendation — even when the client refuses to accept the increased cost, so that the client has clear documented notice of the engineer's professional judgment and the public safety rationale.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies that applicable local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect climate change effects — including sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities — to proactively disclose to the client and relevant stakeholders that the regulatory-compliant design may nonetheless pose material risks to third parties and public welfare that the outdated standards fail to capture, so that decision-makers are not misled into believing regulatory compliance equals safety adequacy.
ADA-Protected Condition Ethics Code Deception Non-Application Constraint
Engineer A perceived the potential for bias on the part of Engineer A's employer and clients despite the fact that Engineer A's condition is clearly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Legal and ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics deception provisions do not apply to an engineer's non-disclosure of a personal condition that is affirmatively protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act — because the ADA establishes a legal right to non-disclosure of disability status, and because applying the ethics code's deception provisions to compel disclosure of ADA-protected conditions would conflict with federal law and give the Code an unintended and impermissibly broad scope — constraining ethics reviewers, employers, and professional bodies from characterizing an engineer's exercise of ADA-protected privacy rights as an ethical violation under the NSPE Code.
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Disclosure Non-Deception Compliance Obligation
Engineer A considered the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts.'
Obligation of a licensed professional engineer who has not disclosed a personal condition protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to current or prior employers to recognize that such non-disclosure does not constitute a 'deceptive act' under the NSPE Code of Ethics, provided the engineer has not made any affirmative misrepresentation about the condition and has demonstrated competent professional performance throughout the period of non-disclosure. The obligation is to correctly characterize the ethical status of the silence — i.e., to neither falsely claim an obligation to disclose nor to treat the non-disclosure as an ethical violation — and to refrain from making affirmative misrepresentations about the condition if directly and specifically asked.
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Disclosure Non-Deception Distinction Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly recognize that non-disclosure of a personal condition protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act — such as autism or Asperger's Syndrome — does not constitute a 'deceptive act' under professional codes of ethics, provided the engineer has not made any affirmative false statement about the condition, and to distinguish between the ethical obligation to avoid active deception and the absence of any affirmative duty to volunteer protected personal health information to employers or clients.
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Disclosure Permissibility Principle
Engineer A has autism and, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome.
Domain-specific principle establishing that an engineer's non-disclosure of a personal condition protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or analogous anti-discrimination legislation does not constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code of Ethics, provided the condition does not impair demonstrated professional competence, because the legal framework protecting such conditions from employer inquiry reinforces the ethical permissibility of non-disclosure and the engineer's right to professional privacy
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Discrimination Employer Dignity Obligation
Obligation of an engineering employer and of engineers in supervisory or managerial roles to treat all engineers — including those with ADA-protected conditions such as autism spectrum disorder — with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination, recognizing that the NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f explicitly requires non-discriminatory treatment of all persons in professional activities. This obligation is triggered when an engineer's ADA-protected condition becomes known to the employer, and prohibits adverse employment action, client-interaction restrictions, or career limitations based on bias or unfounded assumptions about the engineer's capabilities, particularly when the engineer's actual performance record demonstrates sustained competence.
ADA-Protected Condition Voluntary Disclosure Non-Compulsion Constraint
Legal and ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer with a disability or medical condition protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not legally or ethically compelled to disclose that condition to current or prospective employers — because the ADA affirmatively protects the right to non-disclosure of disability status, and because non-disclosure of a legally protected personal characteristic does not constitute a 'deceptive act' under the NSPE Code of Ethics absent a specific employer inquiry or a context in which the condition is directly material to the engineer's ability to perform the essential functions of the role — prohibiting the characterization of disability non-disclosure as an ethical violation when the engineer has demonstrated competent performance throughout the period of non-disclosure.
ADA Non-Discrimination Dignity Provision Application Capability
Capability of an engineering employer, engineer in a supervisory role, or ethics reviewing body to recognize and apply NSPE Code Section III.1.f — requiring that engineers treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination — to situations involving engineers with ADA-protected conditions, including the ability to identify when an employer's adverse reaction to disability disclosure would constitute a violation of this provision, and to understand that the ADA protection of a condition reinforces the engineer's right not to disclose it without ethical penalty.
AE Firm Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Obligation
Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate.
Duty of a private AE firm that recruits a former senior public official who held contracting authority over the firm to refrain from exploiting the incumbent advantage created by that recruitment — including refraining from using the former official's insider knowledge, relationships, or prior authority to gain preferential access to public contracts — and to ensure that all proposals submitted to the former official's public employer are evaluated solely on technical merit through fair competitive processes.
AE Firm Recruiting Former Public Official
Code Section II.5.b would prohibit the principals of Firm AE&R from inducing Engineer A to join the firm as a way of influencing the awarding of city contracts for improper reasons not related to Engineer A's qualifications and experience
A private architectural-engineering firm stakeholder role in which the firm recruits and employs a former senior public official who previously held contracting authority over the firm's public sector work, bearing obligations to avoid inducing the former official to join as a means of improperly influencing future contract awards, and to ensure the recruitment is based on legitimate qualifications rather than insider access.
AI-Assisted Design Comprehensive Verification Obligation
Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions. When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted.
Duty of a licensed engineer in responsible charge to conduct a comprehensive, technically substantive verification of AI-generated engineering design documents — including plans, dimensions, specifications, and safety features — at least equivalent to the scrutiny applied to human-prepared work, before affixing a professional seal or delivering those documents to a client or public authority, with particular attention to regulatory compliance and safety-critical elements.
Engineer A used AI language processing software to assist in drafting the report
A licensed professional engineering role that employs artificial intelligence tools (language processing, drafting, or design software) to assist in the preparation of engineering reports, plans, and specifications, bearing full obligations of direction, control, competency verification, confidentiality, and attribution over AI-generated outputs.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A professional engineering role providing consulting services on environmental impact assessments, ecological analyses, and environmental compliance for development projects, with obligations to report factual findings truthfully to clients and public authorities.
AI-Generated Work Product Competence Verification Obligation
The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.
Duty of a licensed engineer who uses AI tools to generate professional work product to possess sufficient understanding of the AI tool's capabilities, limitations, and failure modes to critically evaluate and verify the accuracy, completeness, and regulatory compliance of all AI-generated output before submitting it under the engineer's professional seal or delivering it to a client.
[proethica-intermediate] Requirement to perform services only in areas of competence (NSPE II.2)
AI-Generated Work Product Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that engineers disclose to clients, employers, and relevant stakeholders when AI tools have been used to generate substantive professional work product, prohibiting submission of AI-generated content without attribution when such non-disclosure creates a misleading impression of independent professional authorship.
Similarly, the facts do not indicate the AI-generated report included citations of pertinent documents of technical authority.
Capability to recognize when AI tools have made substantial contributions to professional work product and to provide appropriate attribution and citation — including citations to pertinent documents of technical authority — in accordance with professional codes requiring credit to be given for engineering work, and to distinguish between AI contributions that require disclosure and citation versus minor editorial assistance.
AI Attribution and Credit Disclosure Constraint
Per Code section III.9, engineers are required to 'give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due,' so Engineer A's ethical use of the AI software would need to include appropriate citations.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that engineers provide appropriate attribution and citation when AI tools substantially contribute to professional work product, arising from the professional obligation to give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and prohibiting submission of AI-generated content without acknowledgment of the AI's substantive role in shaping the work product.
AI Disclosure and Transparency Capability
Capability to recognize when and how to disclose the use of AI tools in the generation of professional work product, including understanding applicable professional codes, client expectations, and regulatory requirements regarding AI tool disclosure, and to accurately represent the intellectual provenance and authorship of AI-assisted deliverables to clients, employers, and other stakeholders.
Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
Technical capability to conduct substantive, domain-informed review and verification of AI-generated professional work product — including reports, design documents, plans, and specifications — sufficient to detect factual inaccuracies, hallucinated content, misaligned dimensions, omitted regulatory requirements, and other errors that AI tools may introduce, going beyond superficial or cursory review to ensure the output meets professional and regulatory standards.
Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models
Emerging professional norms and guidelines governing the disclosure of artificial intelligence tools used in the generation of professional work products, including reports and engineering design documents
AI Tool Attribution and Citation Obligation
the facts also note Engineer A appears to be operating in a compromised manner – namely, without the help of Engineer B – such that Engineer A relied on the AI-generated plans and specifications without proper oversight.
Duty of a licensed engineer who uses AI tools to generate professional work product to provide appropriate attribution to AI contributions and to ensure that AI-generated reports and documents include citations to pertinent documents of technical authority, so that the intellectual provenance of the work is accurately represented and professional standards of documentation are maintained.
[proethica-intermediate] Requirement to inform stakeholders about conflicts, limitations, or risks (NSPE II.3.a)
AI Tool Competence Assessment Capability
Capability to evaluate one's own level of familiarity and competence with a novel AI tool before relying on it to generate professional work product, including understanding the tool's functionality, limitations, accuracy characteristics, and potential failure modes, and to make an informed judgment about whether sufficient competence exists to use the tool responsibly in a professional context.
Constraint arising from a professional's lack of prior experience or verified understanding of an AI tool's functionality, accuracy, and limitations, which restricts the degree to which that tool's outputs may be relied upon without independent substantive verification before professional use or submission.
[proethica-intermediate] Boundaries defined by agent capabilities and technical limitations (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
AI Tool Direction and Control Constraint
Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints. Recommendations from the program or intern should not be blindly accepted, they should be considered and challenged and the resulting outputs should be understood.
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed engineer maintain active direction and control over AI-generated work product — including outlining solution guidelines, challenging outputs, and engaging in critical review — such that the AI tool functions as a subordinate instrument rather than an autonomous decision-maker, prohibiting passive acceptance of AI outputs as a substitute for independent engineering judgment.
Duty of a licensed engineer to disclose to clients, employers, and relevant stakeholders when artificial intelligence tools have been used in the generation of professional deliverables, including reports, design documents, or other work product submitted under the engineer's professional seal, so that recipients can appropriately evaluate the nature and provenance of the work.
Engineer A elected to only conduct a high-level review and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.
Capability to correctly calibrate the appropriate scope and depth of review required when AI tools substantially contribute to professional work product, recognizing that AI-generated technical work requires at least the same level of scrutiny as human-created work, and that a 'high-level review' is insufficient when AI tools may introduce dimensional errors, omit safety features, or fail to incorporate regulatory requirements — and to adjust review intensity accordingly before sealing or submitting deliverables.
Professional principle requiring engineers (and other professionals) to disclose their use of AI-assisted tools in generating professional work products, including the nature and extent of AI involvement, so that clients, reviewers, and the public can assess the provenance, reliability, and limitations of those products
Abnormally Low Fee Bid Public Safety Adequacy Verification Constraint
the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance for the project that the result would most likely be an inadequate design
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineering firm, before submitting a fee proposal substantially below competing firms' proposals for a public infrastructure project, verify that the proposed fee is sufficient to fund competent, code-compliant, and safe engineering performance — prohibiting the submission of a fee proposal that the firm knows or should know is inadequate to support proper engineering performance, on the grounds that such a proposal foreseeably endangers public safety and degrades the honor of the profession, as established by NSPE Code Section II.2 (competence) and Section I.6 (professional honor).
Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Through Pressure Yielding
For an engineer to bow to public pressure or employment situations when the engineer believes there are great dangers present would be an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility and obligation.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that an engineer who yields professional safety determinations to public pressure, employment pressure, or political pressure — when the engineer believes great dangers to public health and safety are present — commits an abrogation of the most fundamental professional responsibility, because the engineer's paramount public safety obligation is not subject to override by social, political, or employment forces.
[Case 175] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that an engineer who yields professional safety determinations to employment pressure or institutional authority — when the engineer believes great dangers to public health and safety are present — commits an abrogation of the most fundamental professional responsibility, because the paramount public safety obligation is not subject to override by organizational forces.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from yielding their professional safety determinations to public pressure, political pressure, or community sentiment — including petitions, rallies, or elected body pressure — when the engineer has determined that a genuine danger to public safety exists, recognizing that the engineer's professional judgment on safety matters is not subject to democratic override.
Absence of Confidentiality Agreement Affecting Disclosure Obligation State
in the present case, there is nothing to indicate under the facts that an agreement exists between any of the parties to maintain the confidentiality of all or part of any reports prepared by the engineer
State in which no explicit confidentiality agreement exists between the engineer and the client (or public agency) regarding the engineer's professional findings, such that the client cannot assert a legitimate expectation of confidentiality over information discovered through the engineer's independent professional inspection — materially distinguishing the case from precedents where a formal confidentiality agreement was in place and altering the ethical calculus around disclosure obligations.
Absence of Confidentiality Agreement Escalation Threshold Reduction Constraint
Another difference between the two cases is that in Case No. 89-7, there was a specific agreement between the engineer and the client to maintain the confidentiality of the information contained in the engineer's report.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement between a licensed professional engineer and the client — governing the engineer's report or the information contained therein — materially reduces the threshold for the engineer's disclosure and escalation obligations, prohibiting the engineer from treating an implied or assumed confidentiality expectation as equivalent to an explicit contractual confidentiality obligation when no such agreement exists; and establishing that the absence of a confidentiality agreement is a relevant distinguishing factor between cases where measured deference to client confidentiality is appropriate and cases where more direct disclosure is warranted.
Absent Formal As-Built Disclosure Process State
Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward
State in which a public agency lacks a formal, standardized process for including existing technical documents (such as as-built drawings) in bid solicitation materials or making them systematically available to all prospective contractors, such that the engineer must either informally share documents on an ad hoc basis or withhold them entirely — creating ongoing risk of inequitable information distribution and appearance of favoritism on public projects.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a public agency possesses existing technical documents (such as as-built drawings) that are materially relevant to bidders' or contractors' ability to accurately scope and price work, but those documents are not referenced or made available in bid solicitation materials — creating an information asymmetry between the agency and prospective contractors, and raising ethical questions about whether the omission is equitable, whether selective post-award disclosure advantages some contractors over others, and whether pre-bid disclosure should be standard practice.
Absent Post-Remediation Inspection Protocol State
a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a 5-ton limit
State in which infrastructure has been partially remediated and reopened but no follow-up engineering inspection protocol has been established or executed, leaving the adequacy of the remediation unverified and ongoing structural integrity unmonitored.
Absent Private Developer Work Partial Conflict Mitigation Non-Sufficiency Constraint
WXY does not perform any private work for developers or other private parties within City H and, therefore, if it were designated city engineer for City H, WXY would not be reviewing the work it performed for private clients
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineering firm's absence of private developer or private-party work within a municipality — which eliminates the specific conflict of reviewing work performed for private clients — constitutes a partial but not complete mitigation of the conflict of interest arising from the firm simultaneously holding active municipal contracts and serving as city engineer, and that the residual structural conflict created by self-oversight of the firm's own municipal contracts remains and must be independently assessed and disclosed, prohibiting the firm and the municipality from treating the absence of private work as a complete resolution of all conflict-of-interest concerns.
Absent Standards Employer Reasonableness Non-Ethical-Violation Constraint
Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
Ethical constraint establishing that when no governmental or industry standards exist to guide a company's product safety decisions, a licensed professional engineer — and professional ethics reviewing bodies — are constrained from characterizing the company's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing as an ethical violation, establishing that the absence of applicable standards creates a zone of reasonable employer discretion that the engineer must recognize and respect before escalating safety concerns externally.
Absolute Conflict Avoidance Obsolescence Constraint
At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics, including the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest.
Ethical constraint establishing that the historical engineering code standard requiring engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest — premised on the view that an engineer cannot serve two masters and must in all cases remove themselves from conflict situations — is no longer operative as an absolute rule, having been superseded by a disclosure-based standard; prohibiting the application of the obsolete absolute-avoidance framework as a basis for finding ethical violations where the evolved code requires only prompt disclosure of known or potential conflicts, and establishing that the appearance of impropriety alone, without an actual conflict, does not constitute a code violation under the current standard.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the evolved professional standard for conflict-of-interest management — requiring prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts to employers and clients — supersedes the earlier absolute-avoidance standard, prohibiting engineers from applying the outdated absolute-avoidance framework as a basis for refusing all engagements that could place them in a position adverse to a former client, while simultaneously requiring that disclosure be made promptly and completely so that the employer or client can make an informed decision about the engineer's continued participation.
Absolute Conflict Prohibition Public Service Engineer
Section 8(b) is specific in prohibiting the type of conflict of interest here involved
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer holds a public service position (as member, advisor, or employee of a governmental body) and is subject to an absolute, non-waivable prohibition against participating in any governmental consideration or action with respect to services the engineer or the engineer's organization provides in private engineering practice — distinguishable from general conflict-of-interest roles where disclosure may cure the conflict, because no disclosure or consent can excuse participation here.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which a county engineer simultaneously serves as a voting member of the county planning board, bearing obligations to avoid voting on or recommending approval of plans that the engineer prepared in a private consulting capacity, and more broadly to avoid any situation in which governmental decision-making authority is exercised over the engineer's own private work product.
Absolute Loyalty Non-Extension to Former Client Adverse Engagement Obligation
engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the recognition that the faithful agent and trustee obligation owed to a former client does not create a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity — specifically, that the engineer is not ethically prohibited from accepting engagements adverse to a former client's interests in matters entirely unrelated to prior services, provided no confidential information from the prior engagement is implicated, and that treating such engagements as categorically prohibited would impractically compromise the engineer's professional autonomy and independent judgment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the faithful agent and trustee obligation owed to a client or employer does not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity — specifically, that an engineer may, in subsequent unrelated engagements, take positions or provide services adverse to the interests of a former client without violating the NSPE Code, provided the new engagement does not involve confidential information gained from the former client, does not involve the same specific project or proceeding, and does not otherwise trigger the consent-prerequisite rule — preserving the engineer's professional autonomy and independence while maintaining appropriate boundaries.
Absolute Loyalty Prohibition Boundary Determination State
Being a 'faithful agent and trustee' to a client does not obligate an engineer to a duty of absolute devotion in perpetuity
State in which a professional engineer's post-engagement obligations to a former client are being evaluated to determine whether the 'faithful agent and trustee' standard imposes a duty of absolute, perpetual loyalty that would bar the engineer from ever taking a position adverse to that former client's interests in any matter — even one entirely unrelated to prior services. The state is resolved when the applicable code or reviewing body determines that no such absolute duty exists, and that the engineer retains professional autonomy and independence to accept engagements adverse to former clients in unrelated matters, subject to disclosure obligations and the absence of confidential information conflicts.
Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
Relational principle establishing that an engineer's duty of faithful agency and loyalty to a client or employer does not extend to a perpetual duty of absolute devotion — engineers retain professional autonomy and independence to accept engagements adverse to former clients, provided those engagements are unrelated to prior work and do not involve disclosure of confidential information or use of specialized knowledge gained in the prior relationship
Abstention-Based Conflict Mitigation Adequacy State
The Board concluded there that an engineer serving on a commission could ethically provide services to the private owners because the engineer had abstained from the discussion and vote on permit applications
State in which an engineer serving in a dual public-commission and private-practice role has abstained from discussion and voting on matters affecting their private clients, and the question is whether such abstention is sufficient to render the dual role ethically permissible — with the additional condition that the engineer must not have taken any action to influence the favorable outcome through other means.
Abstention-Based Conflict Mitigation Permissibility Principle
Relational principle establishing that an engineer serving on a governmental commission or board with permit or approval authority may ethically provide private engineering services to parties appearing before that commission — without creating an irreconcilable conflict of interest — provided that the engineer fully abstains from discussion and voting on the relevant permit applications and takes no action to influence the outcome, because the abstention removes the engineer from the decision-making chain that would otherwise create the conflict
Abstention-Conditioned Commission Member Private Services Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving on a governmental commission or board with permit or approval authority may ethically provide private engineering services to private owners subject to that commission's jurisdiction — provided that the engineer has abstained from discussion and vote on permit applications involving those private owners — but that this permissibility is conditioned on the engineer having taken no action whatsoever to influence the favorable decision on the permit, establishing that abstention is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical permissibility and that any affirmative influence on the outcome, even indirect, renders the dual arrangement impermissible, as established by BER Case 75-7.
Abstention-Conditioned Commission Member Private Services Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving on a governmental commission or board with permit or approval authority to refrain from taking any action — including discussion, vote, or informal influence — on permit applications or approvals involving private owners for whom the engineer simultaneously provides private engineering services, recognizing that abstention from the formal decision process is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical permissibility of the dual arrangement, and that any action taken to influence the favorable outcome of a permit application — even informally — eliminates the ethical permissibility that abstention would otherwise provide.
Abstention-Conditioned Commission Member Private Services Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving on a governmental commission or board with permit or approval authority to correctly assess whether providing private engineering services to private owners appearing before that commission is ethically permissible — specifically recognizing that such services may be permissible only if the engineer completely abstains from discussion and vote on permit applications involving those private owners, and that the abstention must be complete and genuine with no action taken to influence the favorable decision on the permit, and to continuously monitor compliance with this abstention condition throughout the engagement.
Accelerated Infrastructure Timeline Public Health Risk Assessment Capability
Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess, document, and formally object to a proposed accelerated implementation timeline for a public infrastructure change — such as a water source transition — where the compression of evaluation, design, and construction phases creates a foreseeable and quantifiable public health risk, including the ability to articulate the specific causal pathway from timeline compression to harm and to formally document opposition to the accelerated schedule.
Accelerated Timeline Public Health Risk Objection Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a proposed accelerated schedule for a public infrastructure change poses material public health risks — specifically by compressing or eliminating a required evaluation and construction period for protective measures — to formally object to and document opposition to the accelerated timeline, and to communicate to the decision-making authority the specific public health consequences of proceeding on the compressed schedule before that authority votes to proceed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineer to refuse to continue work on a project when a client insists on proceeding without adequate safety measures that the engineer has identified as necessary, and to not subordinate public safety obligations to client economic concerns.
Accessory Liability Through Inaction After Pattern-of-Disregard Recognition
Engineer A's inaction permitted a serious violation of the law to continue and appeared to make Engineer A an 'accessory' to the actions of City Administrator C and the others.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that an engineer who has identified a public safety threat, made repeated internal reports that were dismissed, and thereby acquired actual or constructive knowledge that responsible officials are engaged in a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law, becomes ethically complicit — an 'accessory' — in the continuing violation if they fail to escalate to proper external authorities. The principle holds that continued inaction after pattern recognition is not passive neutrality but active ethical participation in the ongoing harm.
Accessory Liability Through Inaction on Known Regulatory Violation State
the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor as well as by members of the city council
State in which a professional engineer is aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by supervisors or governing officials, has made multiple attempts to correct the situation through internal escalation, and continues to work in their role — such that continued inaction makes the engineer an 'accessory' to the ongoing violation, triggering an obligation to escalate to external proper authorities (e.g., state officials) rather than relying solely on internal channels that have proven ineffective.
Accused Engineer Accuser Identity Fairness Constraint
Arguably, Engineer B should have some idea of who made the charge against him in order to understand the context in which the charges are being made.
Procedural fairness constraint establishing that an engineer accused of professional misconduct before a licensing board has a legitimate interest in knowing the identity of the complainant in order to understand the context in which the charges are being made — grounding the policy preference for signed complaints in the fundamental principle that it is unjust not to know one's accuser, and establishing that this fairness interest, while not rendering anonymous complaints unethical, is a weighty consideration that the reporting engineer must take into account when deciding whether to file anonymously or with identification.
Accused Engineer Procedural Fairness Interest in Accuser Identity Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is considering filing a complaint against a peer to recognize that the subject of a professional conduct complaint has a legitimate procedural fairness interest in knowing the identity of their accuser — in order to understand the context of the charges — and to weigh this interest as a factor supporting the preference for a signed complaint over an anonymous one, while correctly understanding that this interest does not render anonymous complaints impermissible but does reinforce the policy preference for signed complaints.
Accused Engineer Procedural Fairness Right in Complaint Context
Relational principle recognizing that an engineer who is the subject of a professional conduct complaint has a legitimate interest in knowing the identity of their accuser and the context in which charges are being made — grounded in the general principle that it is fundamentally unfair not to know who one's accuser is — such that this interest, while not overriding the obligation to report misconduct, weighs in favor of signed rather than anonymous complaints and should be considered by engineers deciding how to report observed violations.
Acknowledged Error Uncorrected After Reasonable Period State
the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected
State in which a professional or firm has acknowledged an error in a public-facing document or representation — including marketing literature, credentials listings, or professional profiles — and committed to correcting it, but has failed to do so after a reasonable period has elapsed, leaving the misrepresentation active and creating an ongoing ethical obligation on the affected professional to escalate beyond the initial notification.
Actionable Bracing Remedial Guidance to Building Owner Obligation
Engineer A also recommended to the owners to brace the building to prevent its collapse.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a structural safety deficiency — specifically a risk of roof sag and wall lean due to insufficient lateral restraint — to provide the property owner with specific, actionable remedial guidance (such as recommending bracing to prevent collapse) rather than merely disclosing the existence of the risk, so that the owner has the information necessary to take protective action before harm occurs.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a structural safety deficiency in a building to provide the property owner with specific, actionable remedial guidance — such as recommending bracing to prevent collapse — rather than merely disclosing the existence of the risk, so that the owner has the information necessary to take protective action before harm occurs.
Actionable Remedial Guidance to Property Owner Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a structural safety deficiency in a building to provide the property owner with specific, actionable remedial guidance — such as recommending bracing to prevent collapse — rather than merely disclosing the existence of the risk, so that the owner has the information necessary to take protective action before harm occurs.
Actionable Structural Remediation Guidance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a structural safety deficiency in a building to formulate and communicate specific, actionable remedial guidance to the property owner — including interim protective measures such as bracing, shoring, or evacuation — that is proportionate to the assessed risk level, technically sound given the preliminary nature of the investigation, and sufficient to enable the property owner to take immediate protective action pending full structural assessment and permanent repair.
Active-Employment Private Contract Conclusion Prohibition Obligation
Several engineers in the employ of the U.S. Agency responsible for the basic plans negotiated with at least two engineering firms with the intent of taking part in the design and supervision of the work
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is still actively employed by a public agency to refrain from concluding — not merely discussing or planning, but actually finalizing — binding private contracts, joint venture agreements, or corporate formations for work directly related to projects within the engineer's public agency responsibilities, recognizing that: (1) concluding binding private arrangements while still employed crosses the threshold from permissible career planning to an active breach of the faithful agent duty; (2) the engineer's public employer is entitled to the engineer's undivided loyalty until the employment relationship is formally terminated; and (3) the timing of resignation immediately after concluding private negotiations does not retroactively cure the breach that occurred during active employment.
Active-Employment Private Contract Conclusion Prohibition Self-Recognition Capability
Negotiations were finally concluded between this group and a firm of consulting engineers for a cooperative project to execute the work, and the group of employees formed a corporation to be a part of a joint venture to design the hydroelectric project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is still actively employed by a public agency to recognize that concluding binding private contracts — including forming a joint venture corporation, finalizing cooperative arrangements with private consulting firms, and entering into contract with a foreign government client — while still holding the public agency position constitutes a prohibited conflict of interest and breach of faithful agent duty, regardless of the engineer's intent to resign imminently, and to refrain from such contract conclusion until after the public employment relationship has been formally terminated.
Active-Employment Private Contract Negotiation Prohibition
Relational principle establishing that engineers who are still employed by a public agency must not negotiate, conclude, or enter into private contracts for work that directly relates to the subject matter of their public employment — including work on projects for which they prepared plans or reports in their public capacity — because such conduct constitutes a simultaneous breach of the duty of loyalty to the public employer, a misuse of insider access, and an improper exploitation of the employment relationship to secure private competitive advantage before departure.
Active Client Solicitation During Continued Employment State
Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work
State in which an engineer, while still actively employed by and receiving compensation from a firm, directly contacts and solicits the firm's clients for personal competitive benefit — specifically to attract those clients to a new practice the engineer is planning to establish. This state represents a direct conflict between the engineer's ongoing faithful agent obligations to the employer and the engineer's self-interested competitive actions, and is ethically distinct from post-employment solicitation because the engineer retains full access to employer client relationships, confidential information, and goodwill at the time of solicitation.
Active Contract Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Obligation
The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to review or evaluate the work of another engineer to refrain from conducting such review without the knowledge of the engineer whose work is under review, when that engineer remains under an active, non-terminated contract with the same client — recognizing that the Code of Ethics prohibits review of another engineer's work for the same client except with the knowledge of that engineer or unless the engineer's connection with the work has been terminated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a peer review of another engineer's professional work to notify the engineer whose work is under review before commencing the review, and to refrain from conducting a covert peer review without the knowledge of the engineer whose professional reputation and work product are at stake, recognizing that procedural fairness and professional dignity require that the reviewed engineer be aware that their work is being independently evaluated.
Active Contract Incumbent Review Prohibition Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to review or evaluate the work of another engineer to recognize when that other engineer is still under an active contract with the client — meaning the connection of the engineer with the work has not been terminated — and to correctly identify that professional ethics codes prohibit conducting such a review without the knowledge of the incumbent engineer, and to act on that recognition by declining to conduct the review or ensuring the incumbent engineer is notified.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize and fulfill the procedural obligation to notify an original design engineer before conducting a peer review of their professional work — including understanding that professional courtesy, fairness, and ethical norms require advance notification and opportunity for consent, and that proceeding without notification violates professional ethics regardless of client instructions to the contrary.
Active Insistence Non-Substitution by Silent Notification Obligation
Engineer A did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has notified a client of a safety requirement — such as the need for a full-time on-site project representative — to recognize that notification alone does not discharge the paramount public welfare obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.a; the engineer must actively insist that the client comply with the safety requirement and, if the client refuses, must either continue to press the issue or withdraw from the project, rather than treating the initial notification as sufficient and proceeding without further dissent or comment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers safety code violations or hazardous conditions during professional services to recognize that passive acquiescence — going along without dissent or comment after informing the client — constitutes an independent ethical failure, separate from and in addition to any failure to report; the engineer must actively insist that the client take appropriate corrective action rather than treating client notification alone as a discharged obligation, because the NSPE Code's use of the term 'paramount' to describe the public welfare obligation requires active insistence, not silent compliance.
Active Municipal Contract Self-Oversight Scope Limitation Constraint
it would be ethical for Engineer A and his firm WXY to serve as city engineer for City H, perform general consulting services where these services do not include reviewing the work of Engineer A's firm
Ethical constraint establishing that a private engineering firm serving simultaneously as a municipality's city engineer and as a design/service contractor under active municipal contracts is prohibited from performing city engineer functions that include reviewing, approving, or overseeing the work performed under its own active contracts — establishing that the ethical permissibility of the dual arrangement is conditioned on the firm's city engineer services being scoped to exclude self-review, and that the firm must decline or recuse from any city engineer function that would require it to evaluate the adequacy, quality, or compliance of work it performed or is performing under its own contracts with the same municipality.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineering firm from simultaneously serving in a role that requires independent, objective review or regulatory oversight of work and in a role as designer, consultant, or service provider for the same work or the same client subject to that oversight — establishing that the structural conflict of interest created by self-review renders both roles ethically impermissible to hold concurrently, and requiring the firm to choose between the independent review role and the commercial service role, as established by BER Case 94-5.
Active Project Declination During Employment Before Independent Departure Obligation
Engineer A still declined an apparent offer of work by Clover City, decided not to compete directly with his former employer, ABC, and waited for a period of over a year before deciding to go into competition with his former employer, ABC
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed by a firm, is approached by the employer's client with an offer of independent work, to decline participation in that active project before departing — recognizing that accepting client work independently while still employed would constitute a direct breach of the faithful agent duty to the employer, and that the ethical path requires the engineer to either remain fully committed to the employer's interests during employment or to formally depart before accepting independent engagements from the employer's clients.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineer to act as a faithful agent or trustee for each client or employer, serving their interests loyally within the bounds of professional ethics and public welfare obligations.
Active Project Declination During Employment Faithful Agent Compliance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed by a firm, is approached by the employer's client with an offer or suggestion of independent work, to recognize the faithful agent obligation to decline participation in that active project independently while still employed — including the ability to distinguish between declining an immediate independent engagement (required) and later soliciting the client after a reasonable post-departure period (permissible), and to execute the declination in a manner that preserves the employment relationship's integrity without foreclosing future legitimate competitive opportunities.
Active Project Declination While Employed Faithful Agent Compliance Constraint
Engineer A still declined an apparent offer of work by Clover City, decided not to compete directly with his former employer, ABC
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed by a firm, is approached by the employer's client with an apparent offer of independent work or a signal of intent to award future contracts independently, must decline to participate in or accept that active project or offer while the employment relationship remains active — establishing that the faithful agent duty prohibits the engineer from accepting or advancing client work on an independent basis while simultaneously serving the employer on that client's account, and that compliance with this declination requirement is a relevant positive factor in the ethical assessment of the engineer's subsequent post-departure competition for the same client's work.
Active Risk Assessment Team Participation Obligation
Engineer A has a responsibility to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team, clearly and unambiguously express any and all concerns he has regarding the safety of the proposed autonomous vehicle operation system, and explore additional potential technical options that could mitigate the risks identified in the proposed autonomous vehicle operating system.
Professional principle requiring engineers serving as members of engineering risk assessment or risk management teams to fully and actively participate in the team's deliberative process, clearly and unambiguously express all safety concerns they hold regarding the system under evaluation, and explore additional technical options that could mitigate identified risks — prohibiting passive, incomplete, or equivocal participation that withholds professional judgment from the team's collective deliberation
Address-Implied Licensure Jurisdiction Non-Deception Constraint
Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from listing on a business card or professional materials a mailing address or office address in a state where the engineer is not licensed as a PE, without clearly and explicitly identifying the specific states in which the engineer does hold licensure — establishing that listing an address in an unlicensed state, without accompanying licensure jurisdiction disclosure, creates a false impression that the engineer is licensed in the state of the listed address, and that such implied misrepresentation violates the engineer's duty of honest representation of qualifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who distributes business cards or professional identification materials in any jurisdiction must ensure that the card clearly and unambiguously communicates the specific states or jurisdictions in which the engineer holds licensure — including by specifying a physical address state and identifying whether that state is among the licensed jurisdictions — prohibiting distribution of business cards that omit a physical address or otherwise create confusion or the appearance of deception about licensure status, as established by BER Case 04-11 and the principle that business card distribution, while conventional business etiquette, carries professional representation obligations that require geographic licensure clarity.
Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State
Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
State in which a professional engineer's business card or professional materials display a mailing or office address in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed, while listing licensure in other states, creating a reasonable inference that the engineer is available for professional services in the address jurisdiction despite lacking licensure there — thereby triggering an obligation to clarify the relationship between the listed address and the engineer's actual licensure standing.
Adjacent Domain Competence Self-Assessment Misrepresentation Non-Excuse Constraint
Doe had had some managerial and administrative experience of a minor nature in connection with his former employment but felt he could perform satisfactorily at a higher level in that related field of technical activity if given the opportunity.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who sincerely believes in good faith that they possess sufficient transferable competence to perform a role in an adjacent domain (e.g., engineering management and administration) at a higher level than their documented track record demonstrates may not use that sincere but unverified self-assessment as a justification for misrepresenting their actual experience on a resume or employment application; establishing that subjective confidence in one's ability to perform at a higher level does not transform a misrepresentation of past experience into a permissible statement, and that the engineer's duty of non-deception in professional self-representation applies independently of the engineer's personal belief in their own potential.
Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Latent Conflict State
it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A in his relations with municipality's work as a state highway employee and in his relations with the same municipalities as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports
State in which a professional engineer simultaneously holds a government position in one technical domain and performs private consulting in a different but operationally adjacent domain, such that while the immediate scopes of work do not directly overlap, the interconnected nature of the two domains creates a latent and foreseeable conflict of interest — particularly where decisions in one domain can influence outcomes in the other, or where the engineer's relationships with the same stakeholders (e.g., municipalities) span both domains.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer simultaneously holds employment or an official role with a governmental or public body and a private consulting or employment role in a substantively related domain, such that decisions, recommendations, or representations made in one role could compromise the integrity, objectivity, or faithful agency obligations of the other role — creating an ongoing structural conflict of interest that persists regardless of whether the engineer subjectively intends to act impartially.
Adjacent Domain Dual Employment Shared-Client Conflict Non-Acceptance Constraint
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency from accepting private consulting work in an adjacent technical domain when the private clients of that consulting work are the same municipalities or entities with whom the governmental employer maintains grant or contractual relationships — establishing that even where the specific subject matters (e.g., traffic signals vs. airport design) are technically distinct, the shared municipal client base creates a foreseeable conflict of interest, compromises faithful agency to the governmental employer, and generates an appearance of impropriety that renders the dual engagement ethically impermissible, as established by BER Case 02-8 and the principle that highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere can have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds a governmental employment role and a private consulting role from accepting private consulting engagements in subject matter domains that are sufficiently interrelated with the governmental role — even when the specific subject matters appear distinct — when the interrelationship creates a foreseeable potential for conflict of interest, compromised faithful agency to the governmental employer, or an appearance of impropriety in the engineer's relations with municipalities or other entities that intersect both domains, as established by BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8 and the principle that highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere can have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
Adjacent Property Safety Observation Without Client Relationship State
Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
State in which a licensed professional engineer, while performing construction observation services for a client on one property, incidentally observes potential safety issues arising from work on an adjacent, separately owned property — where neither the engineer, the engineer's firm, nor the engineer's client has any direct professional, contractual, or legal relationship with the owner of the adjacent property — creating a tension between the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public safety, the bounded scope of the existing engagement, and the absence of any formal duty-of-care relationship with the affected party.
Adjacent Role Competence Self-Assessment Without Demonstrated Track Record State
felt he could perform satisfactorily at a higher level in that related field of technical activity if given the opportunity
State in which a professional believes in good faith that they possess sufficient transferable competence to perform satisfactorily in an adjacent role (e.g., engineering management/administration) based on minor prior exposure, but lacks the documented track record that would objectively verify that belief to prospective employers or professional peers — creating an ethical tension between sincere self-assessment and the risk of overstating qualifications.
Adjacent Third-Party No-Nexus Safety Observation Scope Non-Excuse Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's contractual scope of services — which covers only construction observation for a specific client on a specific property — does not excuse the engineer from recognizing and responding to potential safety hazards observed on adjacent third-party property, prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of a contractual relationship with the adjacent property owner as a complete shield against any professional responsibility for an observed safety condition, while simultaneously acknowledging that the absence of a direct relationship constrains the form and mechanism of the required response.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's contracted scope of services does not exculpate or excuse the engineer from disclosing a known safety risk observed incidentally during performance of in-scope work — prohibiting the engineer from treating the scope boundary as a complete shield against professional responsibility for a safety condition the engineer has actually observed and is competent to assess, and establishing that scope limitation constrains the engineer's obligation to remediate the deficiency but does not constrain the obligation to disclose it.
Adjacent Third-Party Property Owner Stakeholder
a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y
A stakeholder role filled by a property owner whose property and associated construction activities are adjacent to a project being observed by an engineer, where the property owner has no direct contractual or professional relationship with the observing engineer, their firm, or the engineer's client, but whose workers or property may be subject to safety risks observable by the engineer during the course of their contracted work.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A stakeholder role filled by private property owners whose properties experience flooding or other adverse impacts attributable to nearby development activities, establishing obligations for engineers to consider downstream and adjacent impacts in design, and generating standing to raise complaints about design adequacy and conflicts of interest.
Adjacent Third-Party Property Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing contracted construction observation services for one client, incidentally observes potential safety issues arising from subcontractor work on an adjacent property belonging to a third party with whom neither the engineer, the engineer's employer, nor the client has any direct relationship, to disclose those observed safety concerns to appropriate parties — at minimum the employer/prime consultant, and potentially the adjacent property owner directly — so that corrective action can be taken before harm occurs, notwithstanding the complete absence of any contractual nexus with the affected third party.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while lawfully present at a client's property in connection with a contracted scope of work, incidentally observes a safety deficiency outside that contracted scope — particularly one the engineer is technically competent to recognize by virtue of credentials in the relevant domain — to disclose that observed safety risk in writing to the property owner or client, so that the client can take informed corrective action before harm occurs.
Adjudicated Professional Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application. Later, the engineering firm learned that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
Duty of a professional engineer completing an employment application that asks about prior disciplinary history to disclose all adjudicated findings of professional misconduct — including revocations or suspensions of any professional license held in connection with engineering practice, not only the engineering license itself — recognizing that an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing is categorically distinct from a mere allegation and cannot be withheld on privacy grounds, because it constitutes an actual demonstrated violation rather than an unproven charge.
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation State
Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing'
State in which a professional has been the subject of a formal adjudication — such as a license revocation, disciplinary finding, or judicial determination — that constitutes an actual finding of wrongdoing rather than a mere allegation or pending complaint, thereby triggering a heightened and arguably mandatory disclosure obligation when making professional representations to employers, clients, or licensing authorities, because the adjudicated fact is material and its omission would constitute a misrepresentation rather than a permissible exercise of privacy.
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Application Compelled Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer who has been the subject of an actual adjudication of wrongdoing — including revocation or suspension of any professional or occupational license, disciplinary finding, or formal sanction — must disclose that adjudicated finding on employment applications that ask about prior disciplinary history, even when the application question is narrowly worded to reference only engineering licenses, when the adjudicated wrongdoing reflects on the engineer's professional character, honesty, or fitness for practice — prohibiting the use of narrow application wording as a basis for omitting adjudicated findings that a reasonable employer would consider material, as established by BER Case 03-6.
Administrative Responsible Charge Reassignment to Unlicensed Personnel Prohibition Constraint
City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system and report directly to City Administrator C.
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting a non-engineer administrative authority from formally reassigning engineering responsible charge of a safety-critical public infrastructure system from a licensed professional engineer to an unlicensed technician — and prohibiting the licensed engineer from acquiescing to or facilitating such reassignment — establishing that responsible charge of engineering systems is a professional-legal designation that cannot be conferred by administrative fiat and that any such reassignment creates an unlicensed practice condition harmful to public safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Safety and regulatory constraint establishing that unqualified individuals providing engineering services without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer create specific, cognizable harm to public health, safety, and welfare — thereby constraining licensed engineers, firms, and agencies from permitting, facilitating, or acquiescing in arrangements where unlicensed individuals perform engineering services outside of direct PE supervision, and establishing that the absence of direct personal supervision is itself the harm-creating condition that triggers the constraint.
Adversarial Circumstance Non-Justification for Selective Data Use Constraint
It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the adversarial nature of a legal, quasi-legal, or dispute-resolution proceeding does not justify or excuse a licensed professional engineer's selective use of technical data in a professional report — prohibiting the engineer from treating adversarial context as a license to omit material facts, cherry-pick findings, or structure conclusions to favor one party, and establishing that the same completeness and objectivity standards apply regardless of whether the engineering work product is produced in a neutral, adversarial, or litigation context, as established by NSPE Code provisions requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony.
Adversarial Circumstance Non-Justification for Selective Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the principle that the adversarial nature of a legal, quasi-legal, or dispute-resolution proceeding does not justify, excuse, or mitigate selective use of technical facts in professional reports — regardless of whether the selective reporting was consciously motivated by the adversarial circumstance — recognizing that the ethical prohibition on selective omission of material technical facts applies with equal force in adversarial and non-adversarial contexts, and that the engineer's professional obligations are not diminished by the adversarial setting of the engagement.
Adversarial Context Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Constraint
As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer retained by a client in an adversarial or litigation context from producing a report that selectively omits material technical findings in a manner that disserves the client's genuine interests — establishing that a report structured to impugn the opposing engineer or support a predetermined conclusion, while omitting material facts that could redirect or qualify that conclusion, fails the engineer's faithful agent duty and potentially misdirects the client toward an unsupported legal or technical position, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and faithful agent provisions.
Adversarial Context Non-Exemption from Professional Standards
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.
Professional principle establishing that the adversarial nature of a legal, quasi-legal, or dispute-resolution proceeding does not create an exemption from, or a relaxed standard of, professional engineering ethics — the same duties of completeness, objectivity, diligent fact-gathering, and truthful reporting that apply in non-adversarial engineering practice apply with equal force in adversarial contexts, and selective or partisan use of technical data constitutes an egregious violation of professional duty regardless of the legal setting.
Adversarial Context Non-Justification Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the adversarial nature of a legal, quasi-legal, or litigation context does not justify selective use of technical facts, incomplete reporting, or omission of material findings — and to apply the same completeness and objectivity standards to reports produced in adversarial settings as to those produced in non-adversarial professional contexts, consistent with the principle that facts are not adversarial even when interests are polarizing.
Adversarial Context Report Completeness and Non-Selectivity Obligation
Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained in an adversarial legal or quasi-legal proceeding to produce reports and technical opinions that are complete, non-selective, and include all material findings — including findings that are favorable to the opposing party or adverse to the retaining client's litigation position — recognizing that the adversarial context of the engagement does not diminish the engineer's professional obligation to objectivity and completeness, and that selective omission of material findings to advantage the retaining client constitutes a violation of professional ethics regardless of the adversarial nature of the proceeding.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineer to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony submitted to public authorities, and to include all relevant and pertinent information — including findings that may be adverse to client interests — in such reports.
Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation
Professional principle requiring engineers retained in adversarial legal or quasi-legal proceedings to maintain the same standard of objectivity, completeness, and factual grounding in their technical reports and opinions as they would in non-adversarial contexts — prohibiting the selective omission of material technical findings that would favor the opposing party, even when the retaining client's litigation interests would be served by such omission, and recognizing that the engineer's duty to the profession and to truthful technical reporting is not subordinated by the adversarial nature of the engagement.
Adversarial Expert Engagement Without Peer Coordination State
At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records.
State in which a professional engineer has been retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding to evaluate the work of another engineer, and conducts that evaluation without any coordination with or notification to the engineer whose work is being assessed, despite the availability of that engineer's representatives and the existence of contested technical questions that could be clarified through direct professional communication.
Adversarial Expert Report Material Finding Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer retained as an expert in an adversarial legal or quasi-legal proceeding must include all material findings — including those that qualify, contradict, or undermine the adverse conclusions — in the expert report, prohibiting selective omission of material facts that would favor the opposing party, and establishing that the engineer's duty to produce complete and objective reports supersedes the client's adversarial interest in a one-sided expert opinion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint requiring that engineers include all relevant and pertinent factual information — including identified risks and threats — in written reports submitted to public authorities, prohibiting selective omission of known facts even when verbally communicated to the client.
Adversarial Expert Selective Data Omission State
Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal
State in which a professional engineer retained as a forensic expert in an adversarial proceeding has prepared and submitted a report that selectively omits material technical data — specifically, pile driving records indicating refusal, accepted wave equation calculations showing adequate strength, and equipment failure during testing — that would materially alter or contradict the report's conclusions, while affirmatively presenting only data supporting the retaining client's position, thereby abandoning the role of objective technical analyst in favor of partisan advocacy.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer retained as a technical expert has abandoned the role of objective fact-gatherer and analyst in favor of acting as an advocate for the retaining client — selectively using data, omitting contrary evidence, and framing conclusions to support the client's adversarial position rather than to provide a complete and impartial technical assessment, thereby conflating the role of professional engineer with that of legal advocate.
Adversarial Litigation Testing Supervisor Engineer
the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by one party in an adversarial legal or quasi-legal dispute to supervise physical testing programs (e.g., test pile driving) intended to evaluate disputed design or construction claims, bearing obligations of completeness, objectivity, and full disclosure of all material findings — including equipment failures, anomalous test conditions, and alternative analytical interpretations — even when such findings are unfavorable to the retaining client, and bearing a prohibition against selective use of technical facts to serve adversarial interests.
Adversarial Non-Advocate Forensic Engineer Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a retained forensic expert for an attorney to recognize that the faithful agent obligation owed to the retaining attorney does not extend to suppressing, delaying, or withholding correction of a discovered material data inaccuracy in a submitted forensic report — and that correcting the report, even when correction is adverse to the attorney's litigation or settlement position, constitutes the highest form of faithful agent service because it prevents the attorney from relying on and acting upon inaccurate professional conclusions that could ultimately harm the attorney's client and the attorney's own professional standing.
Adversarial Non-Participation Scope Determination Capability
Engineer A ends her employment with the government agency and accepts an engineering position with Company Y, a competitor of Company X
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, during government agency employment, gained access to confidential and proprietary information submitted by a private company, to correctly determine the scope of work at a new private employer that is adverse to that company's interests — including identifying which assignments, projects, analyses, or competitive activities would exploit or benefit from the confidential information accessed — and to refrain from participating in any such adverse work, even when the new employer's business interests would benefit from the engineer's participation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize and navigate situations in which a licensed professional engineer owes concurrent loyalty obligations to a former private employer/client and a current public employer that are adversarial parties in the same proceeding — including the ability to identify the appropriate boundary between honoring residual loyalty to the former client and fulfilling faithful agent duties to the current employer, and to implement structural mechanisms (such as isolation arrangements) that honor both obligations simultaneously.
Adversarial Proceeding Conflict of Interest Standard
Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to disclose and manage conflicts of interest when providing services in adversarial legal proceedings, including the limits of loyalty to former clients, the prohibition on representing adverse interests without consent, and the obligation to protect confidential information gained in prior engagements
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms, ethical codes, and procedural rules governing when a public official or reviewing engineer must recuse themselves from approving work due to prior employment, financial relationships, or other affiliations with the firm whose work is under review
Adversarial Proceeding Fact Polarization State
A mix of legal or quasi-legal and engineering procedural philosophies are revealed in this case
State in which an adversarial legal or quasi-legal proceeding between two parties has created a context in which technical facts are no longer treated as neutral inputs to problem-solving but are instead selectively preferred, suppressed, or framed according to the interests of the party retaining the engineer — such that the adversarial structure itself creates pressure on retained engineers to subordinate technical completeness to partisan advantage.
Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Obligation
it is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that the attorney believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable to the attorney's client.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been terminated by one party in adversarial litigation and subsequently approached by the opposing party to recognize — and act upon the recognition — that the opposing party's motivation for retention is likely the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information and the engineer's perceived ability to provide a favorable report, and to decline such retention on that basis, even if the engineer subjectively believes they could provide an independent analysis.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer to refrain from participating in or representing an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding involving that knowledge unless and until the engineer has obtained the informed consent of all interested parties — including the former employer and the former client — recognizing that the confidential and trust-based nature of the prior engagement creates a continuing prohibition on adverse participation that can only be lifted by affirmative consent from those whose interests would be compromised.
Adversarial Settlement Context Forensic Report Correction Non-Deferral Constraint
Attorney X is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant's attorney in the case
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the active status of settlement negotiations between a retaining attorney and opposing counsel does not justify deferring, suppressing, or withholding correction of a discovered material data inaccuracy in a submitted forensic engineering report — prohibiting the engineer from treating the adversarial settlement context as a basis for delaying correction of the report, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to be objective and truthful supersedes the attorney's interest in maintaining the report's conclusions during settlement negotiations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer retained by a client in an adversarial or litigation context from producing a report that selectively omits material technical findings in a manner that disserves the client's genuine interests — establishing that a report structured to impugn the opposing engineer or support a predetermined conclusion, while omitting material facts that could redirect or qualify that conclusion, fails the engineer's faithful agent duty and potentially misdirects the client toward an unsupported legal or technical position, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and faithful agent provisions.
Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Exemption from Forensic Report Correction Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert in litigation to recognize that the adversarial nature of the proceeding — including the active status of settlement negotiations — does not exempt the engineer from the obligation to correct a forensic report when the engineer discovers that the underlying data was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield materially different conclusions, and to refrain from treating the attorney's litigation strategy or settlement posture as a justification for withholding the correction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained in an adversarial legal or quasi-legal proceeding to produce reports and technical opinions that are complete, non-selective, and include all material findings — including findings that are favorable to the opposing party or adverse to the retaining client's litigation position — recognizing that the adversarial context of the engagement does not diminish the engineer's professional obligation to objectivity and completeness, and that selective omission of material findings to advantage the retaining client constitutes a violation of professional ethics regardless of the adversarial nature of the proceeding.
Adverse Interest Third-Party Commissioned Report Non-Transmission Categorical Constraint
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.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has prepared a written report commissioned by a client must refrain from voluntarily transmitting, copying, or otherwise providing that report to any party with an actual or potential adverse interest to the client — including sellers, sellers' agents, opposing negotiating parties, or any party whose interests conflict with those of the retaining client — regardless of the engineer's motivation, the magnitude of potential client harm, the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement, or the engineer's professional philosophy of openness; establishing that the existence of an actual or potential adverse interest relationship between the proposed recipient and the client is a categorical, independent basis for the non-transmission obligation, and that this principle applies universally across all engineering engagement contexts where a client commissions a report and an adverse-interest third party exists.
Adverse Interest Third-Party Commissioned Report Non-Transmission Principle Generalization Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the general principle that the same confidentiality obligation applies 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 — regardless of the specific transaction type, the magnitude of harm, or the engineer's motivation — thereby generalizing the confidentiality duty beyond the specific home inspection context to all commissioned report situations involving adverse-interest third parties.
Adverse Opinion Available Evidence Consultation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from issuing adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work without first consulting all reasonably available evidence sources — including on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and primary technical records — establishing that the failure to consult available witnesses and documentation before rendering adverse conclusions constitutes a violation of the objectivity and completeness obligations of the NSPE Code.
Adverse Retention Motivation Recognition and Ethical Response Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been terminated by one party in adversarial litigation to recognize, when subsequently approached by the opposing party, that the opposing party's motivation for retention is likely the belief that the engineer will provide a favorable opinion — and to respond ethically by declining the engagement, fully discussing the dilemma with the original client, and refraining from accepting retention that would exploit information and access gained during the prior engagement, consistent with BER Case 85-4.
Adverse Technical Conclusion Malicious Intent Non-Presumption Constraint
there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a reviewing engineer's conclusion that changes are needed in equipment or design originally specified by another engineer cannot alone — without additional evidence of malicious or false intent — constitute the kind of conduct barred by professional ethics provisions prohibiting injury to another engineer's professional reputation or practice; the constraint prohibits treating honest adverse technical findings as presumptive violations of anti-disparagement provisions, establishing that the mere fact of reaching a different technical conclusion from the original designer is insufficient to establish a Section 12-type violation, and that malicious or false intent is a necessary predicate element that must be affirmatively shown.
Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Prerequisite Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
The fact that Engineer B concluded that some changes were needed in the equipment originally specified cannot alone constitute the kind of actions barred by 12
Duty of licensed professional engineers and ethics adjudicators to recognize that an engineer's conclusion — reached in good faith following a legitimate inspection or review — that changes are needed in another engineer's originally specified equipment or design does not alone constitute the kind of reputation-injuring conduct prohibited by professional codes; the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation requires a showing of malicious or false intent, and the mere fact that an adverse technical finding reflects negatively on the original engineer's work is insufficient to establish a code violation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of professional ethics bodies and reviewing authorities to recognize that when two qualified engineers — such as a subordinate regulatory engineer and a supervising department official — reach different technical conclusions from the same set of facts (e.g., whether a fluidized boiler process adequately meets Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards), neither engineer's position is inherently unethical, because honest professional disagreement among qualified engineers is a normal and legitimate feature of engineering practice, and that the ethical question turns not on which engineer is technically correct but on whether each engineer acted with integrity, documented their position, and fulfilled their respective professional obligations.
Adverse Technical Finding Non-Equivalence to Malicious Reputation Injury Principle
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's conclusion — reached in good faith following a legitimately commissioned review — that changes or corrections are needed in another engineer's original work does not, standing alone, constitute a malicious or false attempt to injure that engineer's professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment; adverse technical findings are a normal and expected output of independent engineering review, and their existence cannot be treated as per se evidence of malicious intent.
Adverse Technical Opinion Evidence Consultation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work to identify and consult all reasonably available sources of evidence — including on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and field personnel — before issuing conclusions, recognizing that failure to consult available witnesses and records constitutes an ethical violation of the obligation to base professional opinions on established facts and completed professional analysis.
Adversely Affected Highway Route Citizens Client
A group of local citizens who believe they will be adversely affected by the proposed routing employ Engineer A to study the proposed route
A stakeholder group of private citizens who believe they will be negatively impacted by a proposed public highway routing decision, who collectively retain a professional engineer to independently study the proposed route and recommend a superior alternative, thereby establishing a provider-client relationship and generating client-side obligations for the retained engineer.
Advertising Ethics Antitrust and Commercial Free Speech Tempering Constraint
opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time
Legal and ethical constraint establishing that ethical opinions and professional code provisions governing engineering advertising must be tempered by strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations arising from legal challenges to professional society codes during the 1960s and 1970s, prohibiting professional ethics bodies from issuing guidance on advertising that would impermissibly restrict commercial free speech or constitute anticompetitive conduct, and requiring that contemporary advertising ethics questions be addressed relative to the primary considerations of truthfulness and non-deception and conformance with state registration laws rather than through broader competitive restrictions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Legal and regulatory constraint establishing that professional engineering societies such as NSPE are prohibited — as a result of U.S. Department of Justice antitrust actions and U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings — from issuing ethical or policy guidance on matters including professional selection, compensation, competitive bidding, free engineering, supplanting, and advertising, establishing that the scope of permissible professional code guidance is bounded by antitrust law and that any code provisions or BER opinions purporting to regulate such practices are legally impermissible.
Advertising Ethics BER Precedent Corpus Navigation Capability
The manner in which engineers advertise, represent themselves, or offer their services to the public has long been a subject of NSPE Board of Ethical Review opinions.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics evaluator to navigate the extensive body of NSPE Board of Ethical Review precedent on advertising ethics — including awareness that over 30 prior BER cases address advertising considerations, that key cases (e.g., 79-6, 82-1, 84-2) establish the antitrust and commercial free speech framework, and that this corpus must be consulted and synthesized when analyzing novel advertising ethics questions — enabling well-grounded, precedent-consistent ethical analysis of advertising and marketing conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant prior ethical case precedents to analyze novel professional ethics dilemmas, drawing analogical reasoning from established BER decisions and code interpretations to reach justified conclusions in current cases
Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics evaluator to recognize that professional engineering advertising ethics have evolved substantially over time — particularly as a result of legal challenges during the 1960s and 1970s and antitrust/commercial free speech constraints — and to apply contemporary standards (grounded in truthfulness, non-deception, and state registration law conformance) rather than outdated prohibitionist interpretations when evaluating the ethics of advertising and marketing activities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize and track the evolution of professional ethical standards over time — including awareness of when new code provisions have been added (such as the 2007 NSPE sustainable development provision), how BER precedent has shifted in response to new provisions, and how the profession's collective ethical perspective has evolved — and to apply current standards rather than outdated interpretations when analyzing professional obligations.
Advertising State Registration Law Conformance Constraint
such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that all engineering advertising activities — including business card distribution, brochures, websites, and direct solicitation — conform to the registration laws and rules of professional practice of each state in which the advertising occurs, establishing that compliance with state-specific licensure and solicitation rules is a non-delegable obligation that bounds all permissible advertising conduct, and that the engineer's obligation extends to satisfying not merely the letter but also the spirit of applicable state registration requirements.
[proethica-intermediate] Constraints from regulatory bodies and professional standards organizations (Taddeo et al. 2024)
Advisory Engagement Self-Interest Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to provide an advisory recommendation to a public agency client — particularly a non-engineer client — to proactively disclose any commercial, competitive, or financial interest the engineer's firm holds in the outcome of that recommendation, including the firm's qualification to perform services under one or more of the options being evaluated, before or contemporaneously with delivering the recommendation, so that the client can appropriately weigh the advisory opinion in light of the engineer's potential self-interest.
Advisory Engineer Candid Contractor Performance Assessment Capability
it is this Board's view that Engineer A did have an affirmative obligation as town engineer to call to the attention of the city Engineer A's opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal advisory engineer to provide candid, honest, and professionally grounded assessments of another contractor engineer's performance deficiencies — including calling to the municipality's attention the engineer's professional opinion that the contractor has failed to meet required standards — in a manner that is factually grounded, within professional bounds, and free from malicious or false injury to the evaluated engineer's professional reputation.
Advisory Role Design Work Eligibility Prohibition State
it is the Board's view that there are serious ethical constraints that would preclude the selection of Engineer A by the town to perform the road design work
State in which a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal or town engineer — as an officer or principal of their engineering firm — is categorically precluded by applicable professional code provisions from being selected to perform engineering design services for that same municipality on a project they have advised upon, irrespective of whether procurement laws are scrupulously followed, because the dual role creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that disclosure alone cannot cure, distinguishing this situation from cases where the advisory engineer does not review their own work.
Advisory Role to Contractor Role Transition Conflict Prohibition
With Engineer A's advice and concurrence, Smithtown selects Engineer B to provide design services for a local road project.
Relational principle prohibiting an engineer who advised or concurred in the selection of a contractor for a public project from subsequently accepting the design contract for that same project after the selected contractor is terminated — recognizing that the engineer's prior advisory role created a conflict of interest that bars direct competitive benefit from the termination outcome, regardless of whether the engineer's evaluation of the contractor's performance was technically accurate and professionally conducted
Advisory Role to Design Contractor Transition Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A offers, and Smithtown agrees, that Engineer A's firm should perform the design work for the local road project for Smithtown
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has served in a public advisory role — including advising on and concurring in the selection of a contractor — from subsequently offering or accepting design work for the same project from which that contractor was displaced, arising from NSPE Code Section II.4.e and the principle that an officer or employee of a governmental body is prohibited from being selected to perform engineering services for that body, and establishing that the advisory-to-design transition creates an irresolvable conflict of interest regardless of whether the prior contractor's termination was justified.
Advisory Role to Design Contractor Transition Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has served in a public advisory role — including advising on and concurring in the selection of a contractor for a public project — to refrain from subsequently offering or accepting the design contract for that same project after the selected contractor is terminated, recognizing that the engineer's prior advisory and evaluative role creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest that cannot be cured by the contractor's termination, and that transitioning from advisor-evaluator to beneficiary-contractor on the same project constitutes a fundamental breach of procurement integrity and public trust.
Advisory Role to Design Contractor Transition Prohibition Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has served in a public advisory role — including advising on and concurring in the selection of a contractor — to recognize that transitioning from that advisory role to offering their own firm's design services for the same project constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest, and to refrain from making such an offer regardless of the contractor's subsequent termination or the client's willingness to accept the offer.
Advisory Self-Interest Conflict Identification and Disclosure Capability
Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods
Capability to recognize when an engineer's own firm stands to benefit commercially from a recommendation being made in an ostensibly objective advisory capacity — including situations where the engineer is qualified to provide services under one or more of the delivery methods being evaluated — and to proactively disclose this conflict of interest to the client before or contemporaneously with delivering the advisory recommendation, so that the client can appropriately weight the advice received.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize the precise moment at which employment negotiations with a private firm create a conflict of interest requiring immediate disclosure to the public agency employer — including understanding that the disclosure obligation arises at the initiation of negotiations, not at acceptance of employment — and to act on that recognition by making timely, proactive disclosure before the conflict matures or becomes irreversible.
This community relies on a nearby surface water watershed as a primary drinking water source
A community stakeholder role representing members of the public whose primary drinking water source is at risk from nearby development activities, establishing the engineer's paramount public responsibility obligations.
[proethica-intermediate] A role of an involved party or stakeholder that does not itself establish professional obligations (e.g., Client, The Public, Community Member).
properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding
A stakeholder role filled by private property owners whose properties experience flooding or other adverse impacts attributable to nearby development activities, establishing obligations for engineers to consider downstream and adjacent impacts in design, and generating standing to raise complaints about design adequacy and conflicts of interest.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A community stakeholder role representing members of the public whose primary drinking water source is at risk from nearby development activities, establishing the engineer's paramount public responsibility obligations.
Affirmative Harmful Environmental Action vs. Passive Acquiescence Distinction Constraint
Instead, Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public, and also a violation of various environmental laws and regulations.
Ethical constraint distinguishing between a licensed professional engineer who passively acquiesces to a client's safety violation — as in BER 89-7 — and one who consciously and affirmatively takes actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public, establishing that affirmative harmful action constitutes a more serious ethical violation than passive acquiescence, and that the engineer who actively directs suppression of hazardous waste reporting, suggests removal without analysis, and uses vague language to obscure hazard classification is not merely failing to act but is actively participating in conduct that may constitute an unlawful action.
Affirmative Hazardous Waste Suppression Environmental Danger Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that consciously and affirmatively directing a subordinate to merely document suspected hazardous waste samples without analysis, communicating findings in deliberately vague language, and suggesting removal without analysis constitutes an affirmative act — not merely a passive omission — that creates serious environmental danger to workers and the public, and to correctly identify that such affirmative suppression conduct is categorically more serious than passive acquiescence and triggers an immediate obligation to cease and correct the conduct.
Affirmative Public Safety Reporting Action Determination Capability
In addition to their public health and safety responsibilities, professional engineers must explore the specific affirmative actions to take, to whom the information should be reported, and the responsibility to be honest and truthful in their reporting.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to determine the specific affirmative actions required to fulfill public health, safety, and welfare obligations — including identifying to whom information must be reported, what technical information must be compiled, and what form of reporting is required — recognizing that the obligation extends beyond passive awareness to active, targeted reporting to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities, even when public authorities are already aware of some aspects of the situation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether the fact that public authorities are already aware of a public safety situation — including through prior reporting by the engineer or other parties — diminishes, eliminates, or transforms the professional obligation to further report the situation to additional local, state, and/or federal authorities, and to correctly determine that awareness by some authorities does not discharge the obligation to ensure that all relevant authorities with jurisdiction are informed and that engineering standards consistent with public health, safety, and welfare are enforced.
Agency-Initiated Direct Expert Solicitation Outside Original List State
The firm of Engineer X was not on the original list of those contacted.
State in which a government procuring authority, having determined that responding firms would not make a substantial contribution to the work and would rely entirely on a specific expert not originally solicited, directly contacts that expert to determine whether they would be willing to undertake the contract as the prime professional — bypassing the original solicitation list and creating questions about procurement fairness, the expert's obligations, and the propriety of the agency's action.
Agency-Initiated Specialist Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility Obligation
The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract and asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering specialist who was arranged as a sub-consultant by one or more competing firms in a procurement, and who is subsequently contacted directly by the procuring government agency to submit qualifications for direct prime engagement, to recognize that accepting such agency-initiated direct engagement does not constitute improper supplanting of the arranging firms — because: (1) the agency independently initiated the contact; (2) the specialist did not solicit the direct engagement; and (3) the agency's decision to bypass the nominal prime firms was based on its own determination that those firms would not make a substantial contribution. The specialist's submission of qualifications in response to the agency's direct solicitation is ethically permissible, though the specialist should be transparent about the prior sub-consultant arrangements.
Agency Disclosure and Approval Obligation Before Post-Review Competitive Participation
ABC Engineering is retained by a state agency to participate in an independent external peer review of the design of a major state-funded transportation project.
Relational principle requiring engineers who completed an independent external review for a public agency to make full disclosure of that prior role to the agency and obtain the agency's informed approval before accepting an invitation to participate in a competitive procurement for the same project, recognizing that the agency — as the party whose procurement integrity is at stake — is entitled to make an informed determination about whether the prior reviewer's participation is permissible under applicable conflict-of-interest rules and fair competition principles
Agency Expression-of-Interest Response Non-Bindingness Recognition Obligation
The mere fact that some eight firms had responded to the invitation for an expression of interest and qualification did not bind the agency to select one of those firms for the contract.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a government agency procurement role to recognize that the receipt of expressions of interest and qualification statements from responding firms does not legally or ethically bind the agency to select one of those responding firms for the contract; the agency retains full authority to independently evaluate the procurement landscape, contact additional qualified specialists directly, and award the contract to the best-qualified party — including parties who did not respond to the original expression-of-interest solicitation — when the agency determines that the responding firms would not make a substantial contribution to the project.
Agency Expression-of-Interest Response Non-Bindingness Recognition and Direct Specialist Contact Authority Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a government agency procurement role to recognize that the receipt of responses to an expression-of-interest or qualification solicitation does not legally or ethically bind the agency to select one of the responding firms for the contract; and to correctly exercise the agency's authority to make direct contact with a recognized specialist — even one identified through competing firms' responses — when it becomes apparent that the responding firms would not make a substantial contribution to the project, thereby enabling the agency to pursue the most qualified direct engagement without ethical violation.
Agency Independent Procurement Judgment Non-Bindingness to Prior Expression-of-Interest Respondents
Domain-specific principle establishing that a government agency conducting a procurement for specialized engineering services is not ethically or legally bound to select its final contractor from among the firms that responded to an initial expression-of-interest solicitation, and is not obligated to award the contract to a firm merely because that firm provided information leading the agency to identify a better-qualified specialist. The agency retains independent judgment to contact and engage the most qualified engineer directly when it determines that responding firms would not make a substantial contribution to the project, provided the agency acts in good faith and within applicable procurement rules.
Agency Non-Bindingness to Original Solicitation List Upon Nominal-Contribution Determination Constraint
we perceive no reason why it should not make direct contact with Engineer X once having learned from two separate sources that he was a highly qualified specialist of the type required.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a government procurement agency is not bound to select from among the firms that responded to its original solicitation for expressions of interest and qualifications when the agency has determined, based on submitted qualifications, that the responding firms would not make a substantial contribution to the required work — establishing that the agency's receipt of expressions of interest from multiple firms does not create an obligation to award the contract to one of those firms, and that the agency may make direct contact with a specialist not on the original list when it has learned from multiple independent sources that the specialist possesses the required expertise and the responding firms would contribute little or nothing of technical substance; grounded in the principle that procurement integrity serves the public interest in obtaining the most qualified professional, not the procedural interest of firms that responded to an initial solicitation.
Agency Title Misassignment Protest Constraint
Engineer A is concerned that the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of Engineer when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers that a public agency has systematically assigned engineering-implying titles to non-licensed, non-degreed personnel — thereby creating a misleading impression of engineering authority and enabling unlicensed practice — must raise that concern with appropriate agency leadership and, if unresolved, report the systemic practice to the relevant licensure authority or professional body, prohibiting passive acquiescence in institutional title misassignment that facilitates ongoing unlicensed engineering practice at a systemic level.
If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City's agent
A conceptual framework distinguishing between an engineer acting as an agent (following client instructions) versus a trustee (exercising professional discretion on behalf of the client), used to clarify the scope and nature of professional obligations in client relationships
Agent-Trustee Loyalty Obligation Standard
the need to serve the client's interest consistent with the engineer's obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the scope and limits of an engineer's duty of loyalty to a client or employer when acting as a faithful agent or trustee, including the principle that impartial, objective performance of contractually defined duties fulfills rather than violates the loyalty obligation, even when the client prefers a partisan outcome.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A conceptual framework distinguishing between an engineer acting as an agent (following client instructions) versus a trustee (exercising professional discretion on behalf of the client), used to clarify the scope and nature of professional obligations in client relationships
issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act
Federal and state regulatory requirements governing the issuance of construction and operating permits for facilities emitting air pollutants, including sulphur dioxide, establishing technical criteria that must be met before a permit may lawfully be issued by a regulatory engineer
Air Pollution Regulatory Standard Technical Assessment Capability
Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer in an environmental regulatory role to evaluate whether proposed industrial facility plans — including specific combustion or emissions-control technologies such as fluidized boiler processes or external scrubbers — will meet applicable federal and state air pollution standards (e.g., Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission limits), including the ability to identify technical deficiencies in proposed emissions-control approaches and to reach a defensible professional conclusion about regulatory compliance.
Algorithmic Harm Distribution Ethics in Autonomous Systems
does the vehicle's system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle's passengers or does the vehicle's software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers designing autonomous decision-making systems — particularly those operating in safety-critical public environments — to explicitly analyze, disclose, and recommend ethical frameworks governing how the system allocates harm among affected parties when harm is unavoidable, recognizing that the choice of harm-distribution algorithm embeds moral values that must be subjected to professional ethical scrutiny, stakeholder deliberation, and transparent disclosure rather than being resolved unilaterally through technical design choices
Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or a conclusion of law
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's ethical obligation to disclose adverse professional history is calibrated to the legal and evidentiary status of that history: a mere allegation or unresolved complaint does not compel disclosure because it represents an unproven claim that could be false or maliciously motivated, whereas an actual adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — a formal revocation, suspension, or disciplinary determination — does compel disclosure because it constitutes a demonstrated, verified fact about the engineer's professional conduct that materially affects the legitimate expectations of employers, clients, and other relying parties
Allegation Non-Equivalence to Adjudication Disclosure Calibration Obligation
The Board found that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C.
Obligation of a professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint or allegation — not yet adjudicated — to recognize that the complaint constitutes a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law, and therefore does not automatically trigger a disclosure obligation to current clients or employers. The engineer must calibrate any disclosure decision to the distinction between allegations (which may be false, baseless, or maliciously motivated) and adjudicated findings (which are established facts requiring disclosure). The engineer retains discretion to weigh all factors and take prudent action proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the charges, which may include providing limited background information to affected parties without constituting a mandatory disclosure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint or allegation to actively weigh all relevant factors — including the nature and seriousness of the charges, the potential impact on current clients or employers, and the risk of material omission — and to take prudent action proportionate to those factors, which may include providing affected parties with appropriate background information even when automatic disclosure is not ethically required, recognizing that the right to privacy in unproven allegations must be balanced against the obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid statements omitting material facts.
Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer's obligation to disclose adverse professional history on employment applications or to current clients is calibrated by whether the adverse event constitutes a mere allegation (which does not compel disclosure) versus an actual adjudication of wrongdoing (which does compel disclosure) — prohibiting the conflation of unresolved complaints with adjudicated findings, and requiring that engineers distinguish between the two when assessing their disclosure obligations, as established by the contrast between BER Case 97-11 (pending ethics complaint, non-compelled disclosure) and BER Case 03-6 (contractor license revocation, compelled disclosure).
Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Differential State
A major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part
State in which an ethics analysis must distinguish between two materially different disclosure contexts: (1) a pending ethics complaint that is a mere allegation without adjudication, where disclosure is discretionary and weighed against privacy interests; and (2) an actual adjudicated finding of wrongdoing such as a license revocation, where the factual determination elevates the disclosure obligation from discretionary to effectively mandatory — because the adjudicated fact is no longer a potentially false or malicious allegation but a confirmed finding that is material to employer or client assessments of professional integrity and fitness.
Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
Capability of a professional engineer to correctly distinguish between a pending ethics complaint or allegation — which is a mere unproven assertion that does not compel automatic disclosure — and an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing or license revocation — which constitutes demonstrated misconduct requiring disclosure on employment applications and to clients — and to calibrate disclosure obligations accordingly, drawing on the BER's distinction between Case 97-11 (allegation, no compelled disclosure) and Case 03-6 (adjudicated revocation, disclosure required).
Already-Known-to-Authorities Escalation Threshold Assessment Capability
While it may not be necessary for Engineer A to formally report the situation to a public authority since public authorities are aware of the facts and circumstances, Engineer A has an obligation to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistent with protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether the fact that public authorities are already aware of a public safety situation — including through prior reporting by the engineer or other parties — diminishes, eliminates, or transforms the professional obligation to further report the situation to additional local, state, and/or federal authorities, and to correctly determine that awareness by some authorities does not discharge the obligation to ensure that all relevant authorities with jurisdiction are informed and that engineering standards consistent with public health, safety, and welfare are enforced.
Alternate Disposal Site Unavailability Design Intensification Ethical Boundary Constraint
The town council had sought an alternate disposal location, but had not been able to locate one.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is directed by a municipal client to intensify the use of an existing disposal site — because no alternate site is available — must recognize that the unavailability of alternatives does not eliminate or relax the engineer's obligation to hold public safety paramount, prohibiting the engineer from treating resource scarcity as a justification for accepting a design that the engineer believes creates unacceptable environmental risk to adjacent property owners or groundwater, and establishing that the engineer must either design within the bounds of what is professionally defensible or withdraw.
Altruistic Disclosure Client Interest Neglect Self-Assessment Capability
A review of the facts in this case makes clear that Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer acting as faithful agent and trustee for a client to assess whether a disclosure or action — even one not motivated by personal advantage or self-interest — constitutes a neglect of client interests, by applying the standard that the faithful agent duty requires carrying out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client regardless of the engineer's altruistic or collegial motivations, and by correctly determining that the absence of personal advantage motivation does not render a client-interest-neglecting disclosure ethically permissible.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer acting as faithful agent and trustee for a client to recognize that the duty of loyalty and fair dealing requires carrying out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client — not in a manner that serves the engineer's own personal advantage, altruistic impulses, or collegial relationships — including the ability to identify when a disclosure or action, even if not motivated by personal gain, constitutes a neglect of client interests because the benefits to other parties do not outweigh the detriments to the client.
Altruistic Disclosure Non-Justification for Client Interest Neglect Obligation
Engineer B did not appear to be motivated by personal advantage in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as faithful agent and trustee for a client to recognize that the absence of personal advantage motivation in making an unauthorized disclosure to a third party does not render that disclosure ethically permissible — and that altruistic, collegial, or professionally well-intentioned disclosure made against explicit client instructions nonetheless constitutes a neglect of the client's interests that violates the faithful agent standard, because the ethical evaluation of the disclosure turns on its effect on the client's interests rather than on the engineer's subjective motivation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the principle that altruistic, benevolent, or praiseworthy motivation — including genuine concern for the welfare of an impoverished community — does not render ethically permissible a design decision, directive, or action that violates an explicit agency policy, diverts public funds contrary to established cost-allocation rules, or requires a subordinate to participate in a policy-violating implementation, and to refrain from using benevolent intent as a justification for proceeding with conduct that would otherwise constitute an ethical violation.
Altruistic Motive Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's altruistic or collegial motivation — including the desire to inform an outgoing engineer of a new engagement or to benefit all parties — does not override or justify breach of the engineer's duty as faithful agent and trustee to a client, prohibiting the engineer from treating benevolent intent as a sufficient basis for disclosing client-confidential information or acting contrary to explicit client instructions, and establishing that the balance of benefits and detriments must be assessed from the client's perspective rather than from the engineer's personal moral calculus, as established by BER Case 93-3.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from directing, facilitating, or implementing a deliberate manipulation of an engineering design — including artificial creation of utility conflicts — to circumvent an employer's unambiguous cost-allocation policy, even when the engineer's motive is genuinely altruistic and the intended beneficiary is a financially disadvantaged municipality or community, establishing that benevolent intent does not justify covert diversion of public funds or deceptive design manipulation that violates the employing agency's explicit policy.
Altruistic Motive Policy Circumvention Prohibition Constraint
Engineer W conveys to Engineer Intern D in an indirect way that the design should be revised so that the old water main is impacted.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from directing, facilitating, or implementing a deliberate manipulation of an engineering design — including artificial creation of utility conflicts — to circumvent an employer's unambiguous cost-allocation policy, even when the engineer's motive is genuinely altruistic and the intended beneficiary is a financially disadvantaged municipality or community, establishing that benevolent intent does not justify covert diversion of public funds or deceptive design manipulation that violates the employing agency's explicit policy.
[concepts] Constraint established by ethics code provisions
Altruistic Motive Policy Violation State
The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale.
State in which a licensed professional engineer or supervisor directs a subordinate to take action that violates employer policy or diverts public funds, where the directing engineer's motivation is demonstrably altruistic — benefiting an underserved or impoverished community — rather than self-interested, creating a distinct ethical context in which benevolent intent is acknowledged but does not excuse or neutralize the underlying policy violation, deception, or breach of fiduciary duty.
Ambiguous Data Omitting Research Engineer
the engineer was performing graduate research
A professional engineering role in which an engineer conducting graduate or technical research compiles extensive data for a report, but omits ambiguous or inconsistent data points that are at variance with the report's conclusions, motivated by conviction in the soundness of the findings and concern that inclusion would distort the essential thrust of the report, bearing obligations of objectivity, completeness, and truthfulness in professional reports and statements under NSPE Code Section II.3.a.
it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf
State in which a professional engineer testifies or presents at a public or regulatory proceeding without clearly establishing the capacity in which they are appearing — such that it is unclear to the audience, the regulatory body, and potentially the engineer themselves whether the testimony is being given as a private individual, as a representative of a private client, or as an official representative of a government employer — creating fundamental uncertainty about the authority, objectivity, and interests behind the testimony.
Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter, consistent with the interests of the public.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency who has identified that the technically optimal route for public infrastructure would require condemnation of a privately held historic property — and whose client has authority to pursue eminent domain — to advise the client on feasible and reasonable alternative solutions that could achieve an amicable resolution consistent with the public interest, including creative options such as physically relocating the historic structure to another appropriate site, before recommending or acquiescing to condemnation proceedings.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer confronted with design alternatives that each carry significant disadvantages — including disproportionate harm to vulnerable communities — to explore and present creative hybrid or third-path solutions that may mitigate or resolve the ethical tension between the alternatives, rather than limiting analysis to a binary choice, consistent with the engineer's role as a trustee applying full professional knowledge and creativity to the client's problem.
Amicable Resolution Creative Alternative Exhaustion Before Condemnation Recommendation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency who has identified that the technically optimal infrastructure route would require condemnation of a historic property whose owners have expressed unwillingness to sell must advise the client on all feasible and reasonable creative alternative solutions — including physical relocation of the historic structure — before recommending condemnation proceedings, prohibiting the engineer from presenting condemnation as the only or preferred solution without first exploring and presenting amicable resolution pathways that could achieve the public infrastructure objective while minimizing harm to the historic property and its owners.
Analogical BER Precedent Triangulation Capability
In the present case, similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before. But as in Case 97-11 and Case 03-6, privacy considerations are not the whole story.
Capability of a professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases with partially overlapping fact patterns — distinguishing which precedent is most analogous to the current situation, identifying the critical factual distinctions that cause different precedents to yield different outcomes, and applying the most apposite precedent while acknowledging the nuanced differences, as illustrated by the BER's triangulation among Cases 19-1, 97-11, and 03-6 in analyzing Engineer Intern A's disclosure obligations.
Anonymous Complainant Identity Concealment Fairness State
State in which a formal complaint against a licensed professional has been filed or is being considered anonymously, such that the accused engineer does not know the identity of their accuser — creating a procedural fairness tension between the legitimate interest of the accused in understanding the context and motivation of charges against them, and the legitimate interest of the complainant in protection from retaliation or professional harm, where the anonymity may also weaken the evidentiary strength of the board's case.
Anonymous Complaint Case-Weakening Limitation Acknowledgment Obligation
not having an actual complainant involved in the board's complaint could weaken the case against an individual who may have violated the state board's rules of professional conduct
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is considering filing an anonymous complaint with a state engineering licensing board to recognize and weigh the practical limitation that an anonymous complaint — lacking an identified complainant who can be called upon to provide testimony, context, and follow-up information — may materially weaken the board's ability to investigate and prosecute the alleged violation, and that this limitation is a relevant factor in the engineer's decision about how to file, even though the anonymous complaint is not itself unethical and is preferable to filing no complaint at all.
Anonymous Complaint Case-Weakening Practical Limitation Weighing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is considering or has filed an anonymous complaint with a state licensing board to recognize and weigh the practical limitation that the absence of an identified complainant may weaken the board's ability to investigate and prosecute the case against the accused engineer — because the board cannot call upon the complainant for additional information, testimony, or clarification — and to factor this case-weakening effect into the decision about whether to file anonymously or to step forward with a signed complaint, while correctly understanding that a legitimate anonymous complaint is still preferable to no complaint at all.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether filing an anonymous complaint to a licensing board or regulatory authority — rather than a signed complaint — is ethically permissible in a given circumstance, including understanding that a signed complaint is preferable to facilitate investigation and fairness, but that an anonymous complaint may be ethically acceptable when it is better than no report at all, and to make an informed, principled judgment about the form of reporting that best fulfills professional obligations.
Anonymous Complaint Permissibility With No-Complaint Superiority Constraint
in the absence of compelling additional facts, the Board is not willing to conclude that it would be unethical to submit an anonymous complaint.
Ethical constraint establishing that in the absence of compelling additional facts requiring identified reporting, a licensed professional engineer does not act unethically by filing an anonymous complaint with a state engineering licensing board — establishing that anonymous complaint filing, while not the preferred approach, is ethically permissible and represents a meaningfully better outcome than filing no complaint at all, particularly when public health and safety is at risk, and prohibiting the use of the preference for signed complaints as a basis for concluding that anonymous filing is itself unethical or that it discharges no portion of the reporting obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer who holds an obligation to report peer or competitor misconduct to a licensing board files that report anonymously — establishing that while anonymous reporting may be procedurally permissible and may partially discharge the reporting obligation, it may be insufficient to fully satisfy the professional ethical duty when the licensing board's investigative capacity is materially limited by the absence of an identified complainant who can provide sworn testimony, documentary evidence, or follow-up cooperation, and prohibiting the engineer from treating anonymous filing as a complete substitute for identified reporting when the gravity of the misconduct and the board's investigative needs require an identified complainant.
Anonymous Complaint Permissibility With Signed Complaint Preference Obligation
Engineer A submits an anonymous complaint to the state engineering licensure board identifying Engineer B and the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is obligated to report a peer's serious professional misconduct to the licensing board to recognize that while a signed, identified complaint is the preferred and more professionally responsible form — because it facilitates investigation, is fairer to the accused, and demonstrates professional courage — an anonymous complaint that accurately identifies the alleged violator and the circumstances of the violation is ethically permissible and satisfies the minimum reporting obligation when the engineer has legitimate concerns about retaliation, competitive perception, or other circumstances that make identified reporting difficult, provided the anonymous report is factually grounded and made in good faith.
the Board is not willing to conclude that it would be unethical to submit an anonymous complaint
Professional norms and policy guidance governing whether engineers may or should file anonymous complaints with state licensing boards regarding ethical violations by other engineers, including the ethical tradeoffs between anonymity and signed disclosure in the context of professional self-policing obligations
Anonymous Professional Conduct Complaint Filer Engineer
Engineer A observes what he believes is a serious violation of the state board's rules of professional conduct by Engineer B
A licensed professional engineer who, upon observing what appears to be a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by another engineer with whom the observer has no competitive relationship and no personal acquaintance, files an anonymous complaint with the state engineering licensure board identifying the alleged violator and the circumstances of the violation. This role is distinguished by the disinterested, non-competitive motivation of the reporter and the anonymous nature of the complaint, raising obligations around truthfulness, professional duty to report genuine violations, and the ethical permissibility of anonymity in licensure board proceedings.
The Rules in both states require a licensee who has knowledge or reason to believe that a person or firm has violated those Rules to report such knowledge or belief to the Board of Licensure in writing
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer who holds an obligation to report peer or competitor misconduct to a licensing board files that report anonymously — establishing that while anonymous reporting may be procedurally permissible and may partially discharge the reporting obligation, it may be insufficient to fully satisfy the professional ethical duty when the licensing board's investigative capacity is materially limited by the absence of an identified complainant who can provide sworn testimony, documentary evidence, or follow-up cooperation, and prohibiting the engineer from treating anonymous filing as a complete substitute for identified reporting when the gravity of the misconduct and the board's investigative needs require an identified complainant.
Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B
State in which a licensed professional engineer who holds an obligation to report peer misconduct to a licensing board has filed or is considering filing that report anonymously rather than with a signed complaint, creating a secondary ethical question about whether anonymous reporting satisfies the reporting obligation — where a signed complaint would be preferable but an anonymous report is ethically permissible and superior to non-reporting.
Anonymous Reporting Ethical Permissibility Assessment Capability
In BER Case 02-11, Engineer A had provided an anonymous complaint to the engineering licensing board regarding the misconduct of Engineer B.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether filing an anonymous complaint to a licensing board or regulatory authority — rather than a signed complaint — is ethically permissible in a given circumstance, including understanding that a signed complaint is preferable to facilitate investigation and fairness, but that an anonymous complaint may be ethically acceptable when it is better than no report at all, and to make an informed, principled judgment about the form of reporting that best fulfills professional obligations.
Professional principle recognizing that while a signed complaint to a professional licensing board is preferable — because it facilitates investigation and is fairer to the complainant — an anonymous complaint that reports genuine misconduct is ethically permissible and superior to no report at all, when the engineer has a clear obligation to report but faces circumstances that make signed reporting difficult or creates legitimate concerns about retaliation or competitive perception
[Case 116] Professional principle recognizing that while a signed complaint to a professional licensing board is preferable — because it facilitates investigation and is fairer to the complainant — an anonymous complaint that reports genuine misconduct is ethically permissible and superior to no report at all, when the engineer has a clear obligation to report but faces circumstances that make signed reporting difficult or creates legitimate concerns about retaliation or competitive perception.
Anti-Supplanting Rule Non-Activation State
Section 11 (a), which prohibits one engineer from supplanting another, is no bar unless it be shown that 'definite steps' have been taken by the client to retain another engineer
State in which no definite steps have been taken by a client to retain a specific engineer for a particular engagement — meaning the professional anti-supplanting prohibition does not apply, and another engineer may accept a direct engagement from the client without violating the code. The state is defined by the absence of a formal selection commitment, a client notification of selection, or a specific intent to retain a particular engineer, distinguishing it from situations where the supplanting prohibition is triggered.
Anticipated Third-Party Funding Cost-Coverage Non-Excuse for Incomplete Deliverable Constraint
While much of the information was missing from the drawings and specifications, Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's belief or assumption that a third-party funding source — such as a federal grant — will absorb cost overruns resulting from incomplete or deficient design documents does not excuse the engineer from the duty to deliver complete work product or to disclose known incompleteness to the client — prohibiting the engineer from treating anticipated third-party cost coverage as a justification for non-disclosure of known deficiencies, and establishing that the engineer's disclosure obligation runs to the client regardless of who ultimately bears the financial consequences.
Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle
over the past 40 years, as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations (as well as medical, legal, dental, and accounting professional societies) have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
Fundamental principle recognizing that the scope of permissible NSPE ethics code guidance on professional selection, compensation, competitive bidding, advertising, and related practices is constrained by federal antitrust law and First Amendment rulings, such that professional engineering societies are prohibited from issuing ethical or policy guidance in those areas — while simultaneously affirming that federal, state, and local procurement laws governing engineering service selection remain in full force and constitute the operative legal floor within which engineering ethics must operate
Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation
over the past 40 years, as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations... have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional engineering organizations such as NSPE — to recognize that antitrust and First Amendment rulings have removed or constrained ethics code provisions governing professional selection, compensation, competitive bidding, advertising, and related practices, and that this constraint does not diminish the force of applicable federal, state, and local procurement laws; accordingly, engineers must comply with those procurement laws as a matter of legal and ethical obligation even where the ethics code itself cannot directly prescribe conduct in those areas.
Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint
as a result of a series of actions undertaken by the U.S. Justice Department, antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations...have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
Legal and regulatory constraint establishing that professional engineering societies such as NSPE are prohibited — as a result of U.S. Department of Justice antitrust actions and U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings — from issuing ethical or policy guidance on matters including professional selection, compensation, competitive bidding, free engineering, supplanting, and advertising, establishing that the scope of permissible professional code guidance is bounded by antitrust law and that any code provisions or BER opinions purporting to regulate such practices are legally impermissible.
actions by the US Justice Department, in 1977, that required NSPE and other engineering and professional organizations to remove NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) provisions related to professional selection, compensation, restrictions on competitive bidding
Court rulings and Department of Justice actions that constrain professional society codes and establish the legal boundaries within which engineering procurement and competitive practices must operate
Antitrust and Procurement Law Contextual Awareness Capability
BER Case 08-8 concluded that one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect.
Capability to understand the historical and legal context of engineering procurement law — including the 1977 US Justice Department antitrust actions, the US Supreme Court ruling in National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States (1978), and the resulting principle that federal, state, and local procurement laws remain in full force — and to apply this contextual understanding when evaluating the legality and ethics of engineering service procurement practices.
Apparent Conflict Structurally Negated by Absence of Private Client Work State
WXY does not perform any private work for developers or other private parties within City H
State in which a facially plausible conflict of interest has been formally raised but is structurally negated by a specific factual condition — namely, that the engineer or firm performs no private work for third parties within the relevant jurisdiction, eliminating the self-review or competing-loyalty mechanism that would generate an actual conflict.
Appearance of Conflict Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Ethical Violation Constraint
While reasonable persons might differ as to whether Engineer A's actions under the facts would raise either a conflict or an appearance of a conflict, the Board concludes that a conflict does not exist.
Ethical constraint establishing that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest — including the appearance arising from an engineer's sequential service on opposing sides of adversarial proceedings involving a former client across unrelated matters — does not, without more, constitute an actual conflict of interest prohibited by the NSPE Code of Ethics; prohibiting ethics review bodies and opposing parties from treating the appearance of impropriety as legally or ethically equivalent to a demonstrated actual conflict, and establishing that the determination of whether a prohibited conflict exists requires individualized factual analysis of whether the matters are related, whether confidential information is implicated, and whether the engineer's professional independence has been compromised.
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Through Isolation Obligation
Engineer A should be assigned other duties by the state, remain isolated from the State's water rights case involving Engineer A's former employer and its client—and the state should recognize and respect Engineer A's ethical obligations in this matter.
Duty of a public agency employer to assign an engineer who faces a private-to-public transition conflict — where the engineer's prior specialized knowledge and stamped work are at issue in a proceeding in which the agency is a party — to other duties and to formally isolate that engineer from the agency's involvement in the proceeding, recognizing that the engineer's dual role as former technical contributor and current agency employee creates an appearance of impropriety that could compromise the interests of all parties and call into question the engineer's professional judgment; and the corresponding duty of the engineer to accept and comply with such isolation as the ethically appropriate resolution.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a private firm to a public agency role to recuse themselves from reviewing, approving, or otherwise acting on submissions made by their former employer when the transition was recent (within approximately one year), recognizing that recent employment relationships create loyalty obligations and appearance-of-bias concerns that compromise the objectivity required of a public plan review function.
Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Public Procurement Constraint
Working through informal mechanisms on public projects can give the appearance of impropriety or favoritism.
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public agency engineer avoid not only actual favoritism or impropriety in procurement-related conduct, but also the appearance of favoritism or impropriety — establishing that informal mechanisms on public projects, even when well-intentioned and without ulterior motive, are ethically impermissible when they create a reasonable appearance of preferential treatment among competing bidders, as established by BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, and 16-3.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Legal and ethical constraint requiring that public agency engineers ensure all qualified firms have equal opportunity to compete for public engineering service contracts through open, advertised qualification-based selection processes, prohibiting contracting practices that systematically exclude qualified competitors through non-competitive awards, regardless of the incumbent firm's performance history.
Appointing Authority Competence Verification Before Public Position Appointment Obligation
The county commissioners met and decided to appoint Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering.
Duty of a governmental appointing authority (e.g., county commissioners) to verify, before appointing a candidate to a statutory public engineering or surveying position, that the candidate possesses not merely the legally required credential (e.g., PE license) but also the domain-specific competence — education, training, and experience — necessary to perform the substantive duties of the position, recognizing that a PE license in an unrelated discipline does not satisfy the competence requirement for a position whose duties fall outside that discipline.
Appointing Authority Engineering Competence Domain Verification Capability
Capability of a governmental appointing authority (e.g., county commissioners) to verify, before appointing a candidate to a statutory engineering or surveying position, that the candidate's professional competence — established through education and experience — is specifically relevant to the technical duties of the position, and not merely that the candidate holds a PE license satisfying a credential ordinance; including the ability to distinguish between a PE license as a necessary but insufficient condition and domain-relevant competence as the substantive requirement, and to conduct or commission appropriate inquiry to confirm the match between candidate expertise and position duties.
Appropriate Authority Notification After Professional Judgment Safety Override Obligation
We believe Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose professional judgment on a matter of public safety has been overruled by a client — including through a client's refusal to remediate known safety code violations or insistence on proceeding with an 'as is' sale of a hazardous property — to notify the appropriate public authority of the safety concern, recognizing that the NSPE Code's paramount public welfare obligation requires affirmative escalation to enforcement authorities when the engineer's safety judgment has been rejected and the public remains at risk, and that this notification obligation is a specific, identifiable step that the engineer must take rather than a discretionary option.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has fully disclosed a public safety risk to a client — including a disproportionate risk to a vulnerable community — and whose client has declined to act on that risk, to evaluate whether the residual risk is sufficiently serious to require escalation beyond the client relationship to appropriate regulatory, public, or oversight authorities, and to take such escalation steps when the risk to public welfare warrants it, notwithstanding the client's decision to proceed.
Appropriate Authority Notification Post-Client-Safety-Override Mandatory Escalation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer whose professional judgment on a matter of public safety has been overruled by a client — through the client's refusal to remediate known safety violations or adopt safety-protective measures — has a paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate public authority of the safety concern; prohibiting the engineer from treating the client's override as a complete discharge of the safety escalation obligation, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to notify appropriate authorities is triggered specifically when the client's refusal to act leaves the public safety risk unaddressed and the engineer's professional judgment has been effectively overruled.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated public health and safety concerns to a public board or client authority — and whose recommendations have been overridden by that authority — must escalate those concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency when the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety warrants such escalation, prohibiting passive acceptance of the client authority's override as a complete discharge of the engineer's public safety obligation, as established by BER Case 20-4 and the principle that the engineer's obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare extends beyond the immediate client relationship.
Appropriate Authority Notification When Professional Judgment Overruled on Safety
Engineer A could have taken other steps to address the situation, not the least of which was his paramount professional obligation to notify the appropriate authority if his professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety of the public is endangered.
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer's professional judgment on a matter of public safety has been overruled by a client or employer — and the engineer has been unable to prevent the safety risk through insistence or withdrawal — the engineer retains an affirmative obligation to notify the appropriate regulatory or governmental authority of the safety endangerment, because the engineer's professional responsibility to the public does not terminate upon client rejection of the safety recommendation.
Artful Misrepresentation in Negotiation Recognition Capability
Engineer Adam Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer -- Chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary who, in an effort to accelerate stalled negotiations with Engineer Baker, made an artfully misleading statement
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in business negotiations to recognize when a statement — though technically not a direct lie — is artfully constructed to create a false impression in the mind of the other party, including the ability to identify the misleading implication embedded in the statement and to correctly classify such artful misrepresentation as an ethical violation under professional codes prohibiting deceptive statements.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in professional negotiations or communications to refrain from making statements that are technically true but intentionally designed to mislead the recipient by obscuring material facts — including statements that exploit partial truths, omit decisive context, or create false impressions — recognizing that 'artfully misleading' communication violates the core engineering ethics values of honesty and truthfulness even when no outright falsehood is uttered.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing a professional report, advisory memo, or technical analysis to refrain from intentionally disregarding, selectively omitting, or failing to investigate material information that would alter or qualify the conclusions presented — including information that is adverse to the engineer's preferred conclusion or commercial interest — recognizing that intentional disregard of contrary evidence constitutes a fundamental violation of the objectivity and completeness obligations of professional engineering practice.
As-Built Drawing Disclosure Equity Capability
sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin to ask for these documents when projects are advertised, before bids are turned in
Capability of a public agency engineer who serves as custodian of existing as-built drawings to recognize when selective or informal disclosure of those drawings to some bidders but not others creates an unfair competitive advantage, and to proactively formalize disclosure procedures that ensure all prospective bidders receive equal access to material technical information on equal terms and at the same time, consistent with competitive procurement fairness obligations and faithful agent duties to the public agency.
The agency advertises for bids on major building renovation projects; the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings for the bidders' or awarded contractor's use.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conditions under which engineers in public-sector roles may or must disclose existing as-built drawings, record drawings, or construction documentation to contractors and bidders, including the timing of disclosure relative to bid advertisement, contract award, and project execution, and the equity and fairness implications of selective or post-award disclosure.
Engineer D's efforts to make as-built drawings available for reference appears to be acting in the employer's best interest
A licensed professional engineering role within a public agency responsible for managing and controlling access to existing infrastructure documentation (such as as-built drawings), bearing obligations to share such information through formal, equitable, and transparent processes rather than informally or selectively, so as to avoid favoritism, protect procurement integrity, and serve the public employer's interests.
As-Is Sale Business Decision Safety Escalation Non-Override Constraint
the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale
Ethical constraint establishing that a client's business decision to sell a property 'as is' — without remediation of known code violations — does not override or extinguish the engineer's obligation to report those violations to appropriate public authorities when they pose a risk of injury to current building occupants; prohibiting the engineer from treating the client's commercial sale strategy as a legitimate basis for suppressing safety escalation, and establishing that the 'as is' designation is a contractual arrangement between buyer and seller that does not bind the engineer's independent professional safety obligations.
As-Is Sale Business Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to assess a building that a client intends to sell 'as is' — with an explicit directive that no remedial action will be taken prior to sale — to recognize that the client's business decision about the sale terms and remediation strategy does not override, diminish, or excuse the engineer's independent professional obligation to report known safety code violations to appropriate public authorities, and to correctly distinguish between the client's legitimate authority over business decisions and the engineer's non-waivable duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
As-Is Sale Client Directive Safety Reporting Non-Override Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to assess a building that a client intends to sell 'as is' — with an explicit client declaration that no remedial action will be taken prior to sale — to recognize that the client's 'as is' sale directive does not override the engineer's obligation to report known safety code violations to appropriate public authorities, and that the client's business decision about the terms of sale is not an ethical justification for suppressing safety information that could cause injury to current occupants or future purchasers. The engineer's paramount public welfare obligation is not contingent on the client's willingness to remediate.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is operating under a client confidentiality agreement and who becomes aware of electrical, mechanical, structural, or other safety code violations that pose a risk of injury to building occupants or the public, to report those violations to the appropriate public authorities notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement, recognizing that the NSPE Code of Ethics designates the obligation to protect public health and safety as 'paramount' — a designation that expressly supersedes contractual confidentiality obligations — and that a brief mention of the hazard in a confidential report does not satisfy the engineer's duty to ensure that public authorities with enforcement jurisdiction are actually informed.
Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, joins City D's engineering department as the Assistant City Engineer, responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, and supervising private development projects
A licensed professional engineering role within a municipal engineering department responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, supervising private development projects, and ensuring compliance with procurement and contracting regulations.
At-Will Departure Competitive Firm Formation Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B, with the four engineers as the principals.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics evaluators, to recognize that the voluntary departure of employees from an engineering firm — even when multiple key employees depart simultaneously following internal policy disagreements — and the subsequent formation of a competing firm does not in itself constitute an ethics violation, provided no confidential information is misappropriated and no active contracts are supplanted; the right to depart and compete is a fundamental expression of the free enterprise system and at-will employment symmetry.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics evaluators, to recognize that an engineer's decision to depart from an employer and establish an independent competing firm is a fundamental expression of the free enterprise system and raises no general ethical proscription under the NSPE Code — and that any ethical constraints on such departure must be grounded in specific Code provisions addressing confidential information, adversarial conduct, or promotional activities, rather than in a general presumption against competitive departure; the engineer must not be deterred from exercising this fundamental right by unfounded ethical concerns, and evaluators must not impose ethical constraints beyond those specifically established by the Code.
At-Will Departure Simultaneous Group Competitive Formation Non-Violation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics evaluators, to recognize that the simultaneous voluntary departure of multiple engineers from an employer firm — even when coordinated and immediately followed by formation of a competing firm — does not in itself constitute an ethical violation, provided no active contracts are supplanted, no confidential information is misappropriated, and no deceptive or disparaging conduct accompanies the departure and subsequent solicitation, consistent with the at-will employment doctrine and free enterprise principles.
At-Will Employment Ethics Analogy Framework
This approach is in essence the 'flip side' of the standard employment relationship where an employer, with few exceptions, may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer 'at will.' While the departure of an employee is often disruptive and costly to an employer's operations as well as to a client's needs, this is the price that a free society pays in striking a balance between the rights of individual employees and the legitimate business considerations in the employment market.
A professional reasoning framework that draws an analogy between the employer's right to terminate an engineer at will and the engineer's reciprocal right to depart employment freely, used to justify the ethical permissibility of an engineer leaving a firm to join or establish a competing entity in the absence of a written restrictive agreement.
At-Will Employment Reciprocity Ethical Boundary Recognition Capability
This approach is in essence the 'flip side' of the standard employment relationship where an employer, with few exceptions, may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer 'at will.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the at-will employment doctrine — under which an employer may generally discontinue an engineer's services without cause — has a reciprocal dimension permitting engineers to freely move between positions in the absence of written agreements or restrictions, and to correctly apply this reciprocity principle to assess the ethical permissibility of accepting employment offers from competing firms, while also recognizing that this freedom does not suspend other ethical obligations such as honesty, non-disparagement, and confidentiality.
At-Will Employment Symmetry Competitive Mobility Permissibility Constraint
most engineers understand that in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another
Ethical constraint establishing that, in the absence of a formal written non-compete agreement or the acquisition of particular and specialized knowledge during employment, a licensed professional engineer has the ethical freedom to depart from an employer firm and join or establish a competing practice — including by accepting employment offers from or extending employment offers to other engineers — drawing on the symmetry principle that just as an employer may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer at will, the employed engineer may generally depart and compete at will, and prohibiting the misapplication of faithful agent or goodwill-preservation duties as a basis for claiming that engineer mobility into competition is per se unethical in the absence of these specific restricting conditions, as established by NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, and 97-2.
At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
Relational principle establishing that the freedom of an employed engineer to depart from an employer and move to a competing firm or establish independent practice is the reciprocal counterpart of the employer's general right to terminate an engineer's employment at will — recognizing that just as an employer may discontinue an engineer's services without cause (with few exceptions), an engineer may similarly depart without cause, and that the disruption and cost this causes to the employer and clients is the price a free society pays for a fair employment market; this principle constrains the ethical condemnation of departure itself while leaving intact obligations governing the manner of departure
[Case 178] Relational principle establishing that the freedom of an employed engineer to depart from an employer and move to a competing firm or establish independent practice is the reciprocal counterpart of the employer's general right to terminate an engineer's employment at will — recognizing that just as an employer may discontinue an engineer's services without cause, an engineer may similarly depart without cause, and that the disruption and cost this causes to the employer and clients is the price a free society pays for a fair employment market; this principle constrains the ethical condemnation of departure itself while leaving intact obligations governing the manner of departure
in the absence of a written agreement or other restriction, an employed engineer has the freedom to move from one engineering position to another
State in which an employed engineer has the legal and ethical freedom to move from one engineering position to another in the absence of a written agreement or other formal restriction — mirroring the employer's corresponding right to discontinue the engineer's services at will. This state reflects the baseline condition of professional employment in a free market, where both parties retain mobility rights, and establishes the default ethical framework against which post-employment competitive conduct is evaluated.
Attorney-Client Confidentiality Barrier to Imminent Danger Disclosure State
Engineer A's client was the attorney and technically Engineer A had an obligation not to reveal facts, data or other information in a professional capacity without the prior consent of attorney
State in which an engineer retained by an attorney (on behalf of a property owner) discovers an imminent structural danger to occupants, but faces a confidentiality obligation running to the attorney-client relationship that formally constrains direct disclosure to tenants or public authorities, creating a tension between professional confidentiality and the duty to warn those at risk.
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality-Bound Safety-Discovering Engineer
The owner's attorney hired an engineer to inspect the building and give expert testimony in support of the owner
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a building owner's attorney to inspect a building and provide expert testimony in litigation, discovers serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety that are not part of the existing lawsuit, reports findings to the retaining attorney, and is then instructed by the attorney to maintain confidentiality over the safety-critical findings as part of the litigation — bearing an overriding obligation to disclose the imminent danger to appropriate authorities notwithstanding the attorney's confidentiality directive.
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Imminent Danger Non-Override Constraint
Upon reporting the findings to the attorney, the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential because it was part of the lawsuit.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained as an expert witness by an attorney who discovers conditions constituting an immediate and imminent threat to the safety of building occupants or the public is not legally or ethically bound by attorney-imposed confidentiality instructions to conceal those conditions — prohibiting the engineer from complying with attorney directives to maintain confidentiality about discovered safety defects when those defects pose an immediate danger, and establishing that any attorney-client privilege or litigation confidentiality obligation is superseded by the engineer's paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare through notification of appropriate authorities.
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Occupant Safety Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as an expert witness by an attorney who discovers structural defects or safety conditions constituting an immediate threat to building occupants to notify appropriate public authorities of the danger notwithstanding the attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality, recognizing that any attorney-imposed duty of confidentiality is superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants, and that the paramount public welfare obligation pre-empts attorney-client privilege instructions when the safety risk is immediate and serious.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as an expert witness or forensic consultant under a confidentiality agreement — whether express or implied by the attorney-client relationship — who discovers structural defects or safety conditions constituting an immediate threat to the safety of building occupants or the public, to notify the affected parties and appropriate public authorities of the danger notwithstanding the confidentiality obligation, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare pre-empts contractual confidentiality obligations when the safety risk is immediate and serious.
Attorney-Directed Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure
Upon reporting the findings to the attorney, the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential because it was part of the lawsuit. The engineer complied with the request.
Relational principle establishing that an attorney's instruction to an engineer retained as an expert witness to maintain confidentiality over discovered structural defects does not legally or ethically bind the engineer when those defects constitute an immediate and imminent threat to building occupants, because the purported legal duty of attorney-client confidentiality does not extend to suppress an engineer's paramount public safety obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that a contractual or attorney-directed confidentiality obligation assumed by an engineer does not supersede — and is legally and ethically overridden by — the engineer's professional duty to disclose conditions that constitute an immediate and imminent danger to the safety of building occupants or the public, recognizing that any purported legal duty of confidentiality in such circumstances yields to the paramount public safety obligation.
Attorney-Directed Safety Concealment in Litigation State
the engineer was told he must maintain this information as confidential because it was part of the lawsuit
State in which a professional engineer retained as an expert witness in litigation discovers safety defects that constitute an immediate threat to occupants or the public, and is directed by the retaining attorney to maintain confidentiality over those findings on the grounds that they are legally privileged litigation materials — creating a direct conflict between attorney-client privilege claims and the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public safety, where the attorney's claimed legal authority to impose silence is superseded by the imminence and severity of the identified danger.
Attorney-Engineered Advocacy Parallel Imputation State
the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession
State in which an attorney in an adversarial proceeding attempts to impute to an engineer the same advocacy obligations and side-loyalty norms that govern attorneys — specifically, the institutionalized plaintiff's bar / defense bar distinction — thereby implying that an engineer who switches sides between unrelated matters has violated professional norms analogous to attorney conflict-of-interest rules. The state is ethically significant because engineers are not advocates and are not bound by attorney-specific loyalty norms; the imputation is a litigation tactic that mischaracterizes the engineer's professional obligations and threatens the engineer's independence and credibility.
Attorney Advocacy Norm Parallel Imputation Resistance Constraint
opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer serving as an expert witness in adversarial litigation affirmatively resist and correct any attempt by opposing counsel to impute attorney-style side-loyalty obligations to the engineer — establishing that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not bound by rules of professional conduct that prohibit representing opposing parties sequentially, and that the engineer's duty is to the truth and to the trier of fact rather than to the retaining party, prohibiting the engineer from acquiescing to the false equivalence between attorney advocacy norms and engineering expert witness independence standards, and requiring the engineer to assert and maintain professional independence when subjected to cross-examination implying impropriety based on sequential service to opposing parties in unrelated matters.
Attorney Client Directing Confidentiality
Engineer was retained as an expert by Attorney for the landlord-defendant
A legal professional client role that retains an engineer as an expert witness or forensic consultant in litigation, bears authority to direct the scope of the engagement, and instructs the engineer to maintain confidentiality over findings that implicate public health and safety, thereby generating a conflict between the engineer's duty of confidentiality to the client and the paramount obligation to protect public welfare.
Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
A legal professional client role in which an attorney retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert or consultant to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in legal proceedings, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations regarding licensure compliance and accurate representation of qualifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A legal professional client role that retains an engineer as an expert witness or forensic consultant in litigation, bears authority to direct the scope of the engagement, and instructs the engineer to maintain confidentiality over findings that implicate public health and safety, thereby generating a conflict between the engineer's duty of confidentiality to the client and the paramount obligation to protect public welfare.
Attorney Confidentiality Instruction Imminent Safety Override Recognition Capability
Upon reporting the findings to the attorney, Engineer A is told he must maintain this information as confidential as it is part of a lawsuit.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness by an attorney to recognize that an attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality over discovered structural defects does not override the paramount professional obligation to notify appropriate public authorities and directly affected occupants when those defects constitute an immediate threat to life safety, and to act on that recognition notwithstanding attorney-client privilege instructions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer operating under a confidentiality obligation — whether arising from attorney-client privilege, client instruction, or contractual confidentiality — to recognize when a discovered safety deficiency is sufficiently serious that the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare pre-empts the confidentiality duty, and to act on that recognition by notifying affected parties and appropriate public authorities despite the confidentiality obligation, consistent with BER Case 90-5 precedent.
Attorney Instruction Imminent Structural Danger Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
Engineer A discovers serious structural defects in the building which he believes constitute an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants.
Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness by an attorney cannot treat the attorney's confidentiality instruction as a bar to disclosing an imminent structural danger to tenants or appropriate public authorities — prohibiting the engineer from complying with attorney-imposed confidentiality when the discovered condition constitutes an immediate threat to the safety of building occupants, and establishing that the attorney's authority over litigation strategy does not extend to suppressing safety-critical findings that implicate the paramount public welfare obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.
Attribution and Citation Integrity in AI-Assisted Work
Professional principle requiring engineers who use AI tools to provide appropriate attribution and citations in AI-assisted work products, including citing pertinent documents of technical authority and acknowledging AI's material contribution to the work, so that the intellectual and technical provenance of the work product is accurately represented
Authority-Permitted Equal-Access Procurement Modification State
with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired
State in which a public procurement authority, having received a request from one competing firm to modify its qualification submission mid-process, grants that request on the explicit condition that all other competing firms are equally permitted to revise their submissions — creating a procedurally equalized but substantively contested modification environment where the legal permissibility of the modification has been confirmed but its ethical permissibility with respect to procurement intent remains disputed by public stakeholders.
Automobile Manufacturer Autonomous Vehicle Developer Client
Engineer A is a professional engineer working as a consultant to an automobile manufacturer that is considering the development of a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system
A private automobile manufacturing company stakeholder role that retains or employs engineering consultants to develop and evaluate autonomous or driverless vehicle operating systems, bearing authority over product development scope and deployment decisions, and subject to the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public safety—including third parties such as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists—even when commercial interests favor expedited deployment.
Autonomous System Harm Allocation Design State
State in which a professional engineer is engaged in designing or evaluating the decision logic of an autonomous system — such as a driverless vehicle operating system — that must be pre-programmed to allocate harm among identifiable parties (passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, bystanders) in unavoidable crash scenarios, where the system's algorithmic choices constitute irreversible, pre-committed moral decisions about whose safety is prioritized, activating obligations to evaluate the ethical frameworks underlying those choices, disclose tradeoffs to the client, and consider public welfare implications beyond the immediate client relationship.
Autonomous System Moral Framework Transparency Obligation
Professional principle requiring engineers and firms that develop autonomous decision-making systems to publicly disclose the moral framework — including the ethical theory, value hierarchy, and harm-distribution logic — embedded in the system's decision algorithms, so that regulators, the public, and affected parties can assess whether the embedded values are consistent with societal norms, legal requirements, and public welfare, and can provide informed input before the system is deployed
Autonomous Vehicle Ethical Decision Framework
A structured framework or methodology for analyzing the ethical trade-offs embedded in autonomous vehicle software decision logic, particularly regarding how the vehicle's system should prioritize outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios involving competing harms to passengers versus third parties
Autonomous Vehicle Further Study Recommendation Before Deployment Obligation
Engineer A is assigned to an engineering risk assessment team whose members are being asked to make a recommendation relating to potential situations that could arise in connection with the operation of driverless/autonomous vehicles
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team who has identified unresolved ethical, safety, or technical questions regarding the crash-avoidance algorithm's harm-distribution logic — including unresolved questions about the appropriate moral framework — to recommend that further study be conducted before the operating system is deployed for public use, so that all foreseeable safety and ethical risks are identified and addressed before the system is released.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a team developing an autonomous vehicle operating system — particularly one tasked with programming harm-minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios — to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team, to express clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the operating system's harm-minimization logic, and if necessary to recommend further study before the operating system is deployed, so that all foreseeable safety risks are identified and addressed before the system is released for public use.
Autonomous Vehicle Harm Allocation Algorithmic Pre-Commitment Ethical Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer is tasked with recommending the decision logic for an autonomous vehicle operating system that must pre-commit to a harm-allocation algorithm — establishing that the engineer cannot recommend a system that categorically prioritizes passenger safety over third-party safety without disclosing the moral framework embedded in that choice, and prohibiting the engineer from treating the harm-allocation decision as a purely technical matter devoid of ethical content, requiring instead that the engineer surface the moral trade-offs, recommend transparency to the public, and ensure that the algorithm's ethical premises are disclosed and subject to public scrutiny.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a team developing an autonomous vehicle operating system must fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team — including expressing clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the operating system — and must, if necessary, recommend further study before the operating system is utilized, prohibiting passive participation or silence about identified safety concerns in the risk management process, as established by BER Case 16-5 and the principle that engineers must hold paramount the safety of all persons who may be affected by the system.
Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Algorithm Completeness Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team to ensure that all harm-distribution frameworks — including both passenger-protective and total-harm-minimizing approaches — are completely and objectively presented to the automobile manufacturer client, so that the client can make a fully informed decision about the moral framework embedded in the crash-avoidance algorithm, without selective omission of either framework's advantages or disadvantages.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability through carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability for vulnerable populations — to explicitly acknowledge and address that conflict in any advisory report or board presentation, presenting the tradeoffs between the competing goods completely and objectively so that decision-makers can make an informed policy choice rather than proceeding on a selectively favorable presentation of one good at the expense of the other.
Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Algorithm Ethical Framework Selection Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team to identify, analyze, and evaluate competing ethical frameworks — including passenger-priority (utilitarian self-interest) versus least-harm (broader utilitarian) versus deontological approaches — for encoding harm minimization decisions into autonomous vehicle operating system algorithms, and to recommend a defensible ethical framework that balances passenger safety, third-party welfare, and public transparency obligations.
Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation Capability
BER Case 16-5 is also instructive; it deals with an engineer working on a team developing a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a team developing an autonomous vehicle operating system to fully and actively participate in the engineering risk management process for harm minimization — including clearly and unambiguously expressing concerns regarding the safety of the operating system, contributing to the deliberation about harm minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios, and recommending further study before the operating system is deployed when safety concerns remain unresolved.
Autonomous Vehicle Harm Minimization Risk Management Participation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a team developing an autonomous vehicle operating system — particularly one tasked with programming harm-minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios — to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team, to express clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the operating system's harm-minimization logic, and if necessary to recommend further study before the operating system is deployed, so that all foreseeable safety risks are identified and addressed before the system is released for public use.
Autonomous Vehicle Moral Algorithm Public Transparency Advocacy Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team to recognize that the moral framework encoded in an autonomous vehicle's harm minimization algorithm constitutes information of significant public interest, and to recommend that the automobile manufacturer publicly disclose the ethical framework and decision logic embedded in the operating system — enabling consumers, regulators, and the public to make informed decisions about the technology — consistent with professional obligations of transparency and public welfare.
Autonomous Vehicle Moral Framework Public Transparency Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team to recommend that the automobile manufacturer publicly disclose the moral framework embedded in the crash-avoidance algorithm — including whether the system prioritizes passenger safety or total-harm minimization — so that the public, regulators, and prospective purchasers can make informed decisions about the autonomous vehicle system and so that the embedded ethical choices are not concealed within opaque software.
Autonomous Vehicle Moral Framework Undisclosed Pre-Commitment Non-Deception Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team must not permit the deployment of an autonomous vehicle operating system whose harm-allocation decision logic embeds a moral framework — such as passenger-priority or aggregate-harm-minimization — without recommending that the manufacturer publicly disclose that moral framework to consumers and regulators, prohibiting the engineer from treating the moral pre-commitment as a proprietary design detail that need not be disclosed, and establishing that non-disclosure of the embedded moral framework constitutes a form of deception toward the public who will interact with or be affected by the system.
Autonomous Vehicle Risk Assessment Active Participation and Concern Expression Obligation
Engineer A has a responsibility to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team, clearly and unambiguously express any and all concerns he has regarding the safety of the proposed autonomous vehicle operation system
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a consultant on an autonomous vehicle engineering risk management team to fully and actively participate in the team's deliberations, clearly and unambiguously express all concerns regarding the safety of the proposed autonomous vehicle operating system — including concerns about harm-distribution logic in crash-avoidance algorithms — and explore additional technical options that could mitigate identified risks, recognizing that passive participation or muted expression of safety concerns fails the paramount public welfare obligation.
Autonomous Vehicle Risk Assessment Team Engineer
Engineer A is assigned to an engineering risk assessment team whose members are being asked to make a recommendation
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serves as a member of a formal engineering risk assessment team retained by or employed within an automobile manufacturer developing an autonomous or driverless vehicle operating system, bearing obligations to fully and actively participate in risk evaluation, articulate safety concerns clearly and unambiguously across all identified risk scenarios—including algorithmic decision-making in unavoidable crash situations—and recommend further study or design constraints before deployment when the safety of the operating system or its embedded ethical decision logic is in question.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer participates as a member of a development team creating autonomous or driverless vehicle operating systems, bearing obligations to fully and actively participate in risk management, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before deployment when safety of the operating system is in question.
Autonomous Vehicle Risk Management Active Participation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a team developing an autonomous vehicle operating system must fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team — including expressing clearly and unambiguously any concerns regarding the safety of the operating system — and must, if necessary, recommend further study before the operating system is utilized, prohibiting passive participation or silence about identified safety concerns in the risk management process, as established by BER Case 16-5 and the principle that engineers must hold paramount the safety of all persons who may be affected by the system.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer participates as a member of a development team creating autonomous or driverless vehicle operating systems, bearing obligations to fully and actively participate in risk management, express safety concerns clearly and unambiguously, and recommend further study before deployment when safety of the operating system is in question.
Technical standards, professional norms, and regulatory requirements governing the safety design, risk assessment, and operational parameters of autonomous and driverless vehicle systems, including software decision logic, fail-safe behaviors, and acceptable risk thresholds for automated driving systems
Autonomous Vehicle Third-Party Fatal Harm Passenger Priority Non-Subordination Constraint
Ethical and safety constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team from recommending or acquiescing in a harm-allocation algorithm that categorically subordinates the safety of third parties — including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcycle riders — to the safety of vehicle passengers, when the foreseeable consequence of that subordination is fatal or serious injury to identifiable third-party classes, establishing that the paramount obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount constrains the engineer from endorsing a passenger-first algorithm without at minimum recommending further study, public disclosure of the moral framework, and regulatory engagement.
Autonomous Vehicle Third-Party Harm Minimization Safety Consideration Obligation
having the car crash into a stationary object (e.g., telephone pole, etc.) with the probability of causing some passengers serious but non-life-threatening injuries instead of striking and potentially causing a fatal injury to a pedestrian, cyclist, or motorcycle rider
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving on an autonomous vehicle risk assessment team to ensure that the welfare of third parties — including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcycle riders — is explicitly identified, assessed, and presented as a material safety consideration in the team's recommendation regarding crash-avoidance algorithm design, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare extends beyond the vehicle's passengers to all persons foreseeably affected by the autonomous system's operation.
Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Forensic Opinion
Professional principle requiring engineers retained as forensic experts who are forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work to make reasonable efforts to consult all available evidence sources — including on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and primary records such as pile driving logs — before rendering conclusions, and prohibiting the deliberate or negligent disregard of accessible evidence that could confirm or refute the engineer's preliminary hypothesis
[Case 169] Professional principle requiring engineers retained as forensic experts who are forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work to make reasonable efforts to consult all available evidence sources — including on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and primary records such as pile driving logs — before rendering conclusions, and prohibiting the deliberate or negligent disregard of accessible evidence that could confirm or refute the engineer's preliminary hypothesis.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who are forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work — particularly in litigation or quasi-legal contexts — to make reasonable efforts to consult available evidence sources, including on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and primary records, before rendering conclusions, and prohibiting the deliberate or negligent disregard of accessible evidence that could confirm or refute the engineer's preliminary hypothesis.
Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work — particularly in a litigation or adversarial context — to consult all reasonably available evidence, including pile driving records, on-site representatives, contractors, and workers, before publishing conclusions adverse to that engineer's professional standing, recognizing that rendering adverse opinions without consulting available corroborating or refuting evidence constitutes a fundamental failure of objectivity and completeness in professional engineering practice.
Available Evidence Consultation Obligation Before Adverse Technical Opinion
Professional principle requiring engineers who are forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work — particularly in litigation or quasi-legal contexts — to make reasonable efforts to consult available evidence sources, including on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and primary records, before rendering conclusions, and prohibiting the deliberate or negligent disregard of accessible evidence that could confirm or refute the engineer's preliminary hypothesis.
Available Witness Non-Consultation State
State in which a professional engineer preparing a technical report or evaluation has failed to consult available on-site representatives, contractors, workers, or other knowledgeable parties who could have verified, refuted, or contextualized the engineer's technical theories — resulting in a report based on incomplete information when accessible sources of clarification were deliberately or negligently bypassed.
Axiomatic Professional Loyalty Non-Division Obligation
it is axiomatic that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client.
Foundational duty of a licensed professional engineer, grounded in the axiomatic principle of professional loyalty, to refrain from taking any action or making any decision that would divide the engineer's loyalties or interests from those of the employer or client the engineer is serving in a given role — recognizing that divided loyalty is not merely a conflict of interest but a fundamental betrayal of the professional relationship, and that this principle applies regardless of whether the specific conflict is addressed by an explicit code provision, because it is axiomatic to the professional relationship itself.
Axiomatic Professional Loyalty Non-Division Principle Self-Application Capability
it is axiomatic that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide his loyalties or interests from those of his employer or client. (Case No. 60-5)
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize, internalize, and self-apply the foundational axiomatic principle of professional ethics — established in BER Case 60-5 — that a professional person may not take action or make decisions which would divide their loyalties or interests from those of their employer or client; including the ability to identify when a proposed course of action (such as simultaneously serving as private designer, public recommender, and approval body member for the same plans) constitutes a paradigmatic division of professional loyalty, and to correctly refrain from such action on the basis of this axiomatic principle even in the absence of explicit code provisions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer simultaneously employed by a governmental agency and performing private consulting work to recognize that the private consulting activities — particularly when conducted in the same domain as the governmental employment — constitute a breach of the fundamental duty to serve as a faithful agent and trustee for the governmental employer, including the ability to identify that this breach occurs regardless of whether both employers are aware of the dual employment and regardless of whether explicit policies prohibit it.
BER Case 77-11 Current-Client vs. Former-Client Factual Distinguishability Constraint
Although at first glance the facts in Case 77-11 appear to be quite similar to the instant case, they are distinguishable on two very important points: (l) In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them. (2) Engineer A was still employed by Engineer B when Engineer A notified the clients and others of the offer of professional services.
Analytical and ethical constraint establishing that BER Case 77-11 — which held that engineers who founded a new firm did not violate the Code by generally seeking work from former clients of their previous employer after severing all ties — is factually distinguishable from cases involving solicitation of current (not former) clients while the engineer is still employed (not departed), and that the two-factor distinguishing test (current vs. former clients; employed vs. departed status) must be applied before BER Case 77-11's permissive holding is invoked as precedent; prohibiting the mechanical application of BER Case 77-11 to situations where either or both distinguishing factors are present, as established by BER Case 82-5.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and analytical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from mechanically applying a prior BER case precedent to a current situation without first conducting a rigorous factual comparison — establishing that where the prior precedent involved a scheduled public hearing, personal involvement in the engineering decision, domain expertise, and confirmed findings, while the current situation involves none of those triggering factors, the precedent's escalation mandate does not automatically apply, and the engineer must calibrate obligations to the actual facts rather than the precedent's conclusion.
BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Precedent Cross-Domain Safety Application Constraint
We believe much of the same reasoning applies in the present case. Under the reasoning of Case 84-5, the engineer had an obligation to go further.
Ethical and analytical constraint establishing that the principle from BER Case 84-5 — that an engineer who 'goes along' with a client's rejection of a safety-protective measure without insistence or withdrawal commits an independent ethical violation — applies by analogy across different factual domains, including cases involving client-confided out-of-scope safety violations in occupied buildings; prohibiting the limitation of the Case 84-5 going-along principle to its specific construction-phase factual context, and establishing that the underlying ethical principle — that passive acquiescence to a client's safety refusal is itself an ethical violation — is a general professional obligation applicable wherever an engineer identifies a genuine public safety concern and the client refuses to act.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and analytical constraint establishing that when a professional ethics review body applies prior BER precedent cases to a current situation, it must acknowledge factual dissimilarities between the precedent cases and the current case while still recognizing that the same underlying Code provisions govern both, prohibiting both mechanical application without factual comparison and wholesale rejection of precedent guidance solely because the factual contexts differ — establishing that dissimilar facts do not nullify the bearing of precedent cases that address the same Code provisions, as demonstrated by the Board's explicit acknowledgment in BER Case 94-8 that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 involved 'quite dissimilar' facts to BER Case 85-3 yet 'do have some bearing upon the Board's consideration of those provisions.'
BER Case 84-5 Going-Along Principle Cross-Context Analogical Application Capability
Case 84-5 involved a client who planned a project and hired an engineer to furnish complete engineering services for the project
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve BER Case 84-5 (engineer who recommended a full-time on-site project representative for a dangerous construction phase, was refused by the client on cost grounds, and proceeded without dissent), identify the core ethical principle — that an engineer who has genuine safety concerns must insist on corrective action or withdraw rather than 'going along' — and correctly apply that principle by analogical transfer to a factually distinct case involving a different type of safety hazard (electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied building) and a different type of client directive (as-is sale with no remediation), recognizing that the shared normative structure (client safety refusal followed by engineer acquiescence) makes the precedent directly applicable.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to recognize when the ethical principles established in a prior BER case — even one involving a different technology domain — are analogically transferable to a novel technology case, including the ability to identify the shared normative structure across cases (e.g., new standard awareness in software testing and harm minimization in autonomous vehicles), articulate the points of similarity and difference, and apply the transferable principles to reach justified conclusions in the novel case.
The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has a rich history of cases dealing with environmental issues like the one Engineer L faces.
Documented case decisions from the NSPE Board of Ethical Review providing precedential ethical reasoning patterns for analogical application to similar professional situations
[proethica-intermediate] Concrete instances that exemplify principle application
BER Dual-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has had the opportunity to review at least two similar cases as the one presently before it.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to retrieve and triangulate between BER Case 83-1 (terminated key employee listed post-departure with intent to enhance qualifications — violation) and BER Case 90-4 (departing non-key engineer listed without highlighting or intent — no violation) to correctly locate a novel brochure personnel misrepresentation scenario on the spectrum from permissible to impermissible, identifying the critical factual distinctions — including key-employee designation, intent to enhance qualifications, degree of highlighting, and uniqueness of expertise — that determine which precedent governs and what corrective obligations arise.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to triangulate between BER Case 72-11 (permissible selective emphasis of minor managerial experience) and BER Case 86-6 (impermissible implied sole authorship of team-designed products) to correctly locate a novel resume or qualification misrepresentation case on the spectrum from permissible emphasis to impermissible deception, identifying the key factual distinctions — including whether the statement obscures truth, implies sole responsibility for joint work, or merely emphasizes genuine experience — that determine which precedent governs.
BER Dual-Precedent Climate Safety Synthesis Capability
In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize two or more BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 07.6 (objective and complete reporting of environmental threats in public authority submissions) and 18-9 (graduated escalation and withdrawal in coastal climate risk contexts) — that together establish the ethical framework governing an engineer's obligations when climate-related public safety risks are identified during infrastructure design, including the ability to apply the synthesized framework to determine the correct sequence of actions: complete reporting, client engagement, graduated escalation, and conditional withdrawal.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases with partially overlapping fact patterns — distinguishing which precedent is most analogous to the current situation, identifying the critical factual distinctions that cause different precedents to yield different outcomes, and applying the most apposite precedent while acknowledging the nuanced differences, as illustrated by the BER's triangulation among Cases 19-1, 97-11, and 03-6 in analyzing Engineer Intern A's disclosure obligations.
BER Dual-Precedent Confidentiality-Safety Factual Distinction Synthesis Capability
An example of this basic ethical dichotomy was considered by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review in Case No. 89-7 (which the Board also applied in Case No. 97-5).
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve two BER precedent cases involving the confidentiality-versus-public-safety dilemma (Case No. 89-7 and Case No. 97-5), identify the material factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case — including the presence or absence of a confidentiality agreement, the mode of information conveyance, the speculative versus confirmed nature of the safety concern, and the past-harm versus future-risk distinction — and synthesize those distinctions into a calibrated ethical conclusion about the appropriate professional response in the present case.
BER Dual-Precedent Cross-Context Factual Distinction Application Capability
Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to retrieve two BER precedent cases with different fact patterns (BER 65-9 and BER 79-2), identify the factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, recognize that despite those distinctions the precedents remain instructive for the present analysis, and correctly apply the synthesized ethical framework — specifically that engineers may reach different conclusions from the same facts and that environmental issues involve subjective trade-offs — to a present case involving a single engineer's disclosure obligations at a public hearing.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize two or more BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 65-9 (consulting engineer public criticism of highway route cost estimates and proposal of alternative route) and 79-2 (town engineer and consulting engineer landfill redesign with resident engineer public challenge) — that together establish the ethical framework governing an engineer's obligations when publicly debating technical and public policy decisions, including the ability to apply the synthesized framework to determine: (1) that engineers may ethically reach different conclusions from the same facts, (2) that public policy engineering debates are subject to open public resolution, and (3) that post-decision acceptance of the outcome is ethically required of all involved engineers.
BER Dual-Precedent Hazardous Waste No-Confidentiality Factual Distinction Application Capability
Turning to the facts in this case, we believe the basic principles enunciated in BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 are applicable here as well except in a different context.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 — both involving confidentiality-bound engineers who discovered safety violations — identify the critical factual distinction that the present case involves no confidentiality agreement and business-relationship-motivated suppression rather than confidentiality-motivated suppression, and apply that distinction to reach the calibrated conclusion that the present engineer's conduct is ethically worse than the conduct condemned in those precedents, while still applying the same underlying principle that public safety paramountcy overrides all competing considerations.
BER Dual-Precedent Municipal Engineer Dual-Role Permissibility Synthesis Capability
In an early case, BER Case No. 63-5, a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewing body, or municipal client to identify, retrieve, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 63-5 (part-time city engineer also providing design services) and 74-2 (consulting firm principal serving as municipal engineer under state law) — to correctly assess the ethical permissibility of a proposed dual-role municipal engineer arrangement, identifying the factual conditions under which such arrangements are permissible (no private-client review conflicts, no self-review of own publicly-contracted work) and the conditions that would render them impermissible.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewing body, or municipal client to identify, retrieve, and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 63-5, 74-2, and 01-11 — that establish the permissible scope of dual-role municipal engineer arrangements, and to correctly distinguish those permissible precedents from the impermissible fact pattern in the instant case, identifying the critical factual distinctions (e.g., prior advisory role, evaluative role, self-review risk) that cause the instant case to fall outside the permissible precedent range.
BER Dual-Precedent Public Policy Debate Synthesis Capability
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has had occasion to consider earlier cases relating to the role and obligation of engineers testifying before public agencies or making public statements affecting public policy issues.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize two or more BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 65-9 (consulting engineer public criticism of highway route cost estimates and proposal of alternative route) and 79-2 (town engineer and consulting engineer landfill redesign with resident engineer public challenge) — that together establish the ethical framework governing an engineer's obligations when publicly debating technical and public policy decisions, including the ability to apply the synthesized framework to determine: (1) that engineers may ethically reach different conclusions from the same facts, (2) that public policy engineering debates are subject to open public resolution, and (3) that post-decision acceptance of the outcome is ethically required of all involved engineers.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize two or more BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 07.6 (objective and complete reporting of environmental threats in public authority submissions) and 18-9 (graduated escalation and withdrawal in coastal climate risk contexts) — that together establish the ethical framework governing an engineer's obligations when climate-related public safety risks are identified during infrastructure design, including the ability to apply the synthesized framework to determine the correct sequence of actions: complete reporting, client engagement, graduated escalation, and conditional withdrawal.
BER Dual-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Spectrum Triangulation Capability
the Board is of the view that the two earlier cases and the present case are different in a variety of ways.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to triangulate between BER Case 72-11 (permissible selective emphasis of minor managerial experience) and BER Case 86-6 (impermissible implied sole authorship of team-designed products) to correctly locate a novel resume or qualification misrepresentation case on the spectrum from permissible emphasis to impermissible deception, identifying the key factual distinctions — including whether the statement obscures truth, implies sole responsibility for joint work, or merely emphasizes genuine experience — that determine which precedent governs.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to analyze multiple BER precedent cases — including BER 65-12 (product safety refusal), BER 82-5 (defense industry whistleblowing), and BER 88-6 (city engineer environmental compliance) — identify the key factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, and correctly determine that those distinctions alter the applicable ethical obligations, specifically recognizing that the absence of professional scope of responsibility over the observed hazard is a key factual distinction that changes the mandatory/permissible character of the safety response.
BER Dual-Precedent Safety-Confidentiality Conflict Factual Distinction Synthesis Capability (84-5 and 82-2)
Given these two cases, it is clear that there may be facts and circumstances in which the ethical obligation of engineers in protecting the public health and safety conflict with the ethical obligation of engineers to maintain the right of confidentiality in data and other information obtained on behalf of a client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve BER Case 84-5 (cost-pressure safety recommendation abandonment) and BER Case 82-2 (altruistic home inspection report disclosure), identify the material factual distinctions between those two precedents and the present case — including the presence or absence of a conflict of interest between the nominal client and the beneficial owner, the nature of the safety threat (construction phase risk versus structural defect), and the motivation for disclosure (altruistic versus mandatory safety duty) — and synthesize those distinctions into a calibrated ethical conclusion about the appropriate professional response in a case involving attorney-directed confidentiality over discovered imminent structural danger.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve two BER precedent cases involving the confidentiality-versus-public-safety dilemma (Case No. 89-7 and Case No. 97-5), identify the material factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case — including the presence or absence of a confidentiality agreement, the mode of information conveyance, the speculative versus confirmed nature of the safety concern, and the past-harm versus future-risk distinction — and synthesize those distinctions into a calibrated ethical conclusion about the appropriate professional response in the present case.
BER Dual-Precedent Safety-vs-Business-Decision Factual Distinction Application Capability
In Case 65-12 we dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe, and we determined that so long as the engineers held to that view they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve two BER precedent cases with contrasting fact patterns — one involving a genuine public health or safety concern (Case 65-12: unsafe product) and one involving a purely business/commercial dispute without safety implications (Case 61-10: commercial product redesign) — correctly identify the critical factual distinction between them (presence or absence of public health or safety endangerment), and apply that distinction to determine whether the present case falls within the mandatory ethical duty zone or the personal conscience zone, recognizing that the safety/non-safety boundary is the operative normative threshold.
BER Dual-Precedent Supplanting Prohibition Threshold Triangulation Capability
the mandate of Section 11 (a) does not come into play unless '... the engineer has been informed by the client that he has been selected to negotiate an agreement for a specific project,' (Case 62-10) or that it be shown that '... the client specifically intended to retain the engineer for the ... work' (Case 62-18).
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics adjudicator to retrieve and synthesize two or more prior BER cases establishing the threshold conditions for the supplanting prohibition — specifically Case 62-10 (engineer informed of selection for negotiation on specific project) and Case 62-18 (client specifically intended to retain the engineer) — and to apply the synthesized threshold test to a current factual situation to determine whether the supplanting prohibition is triggered, including correctly concluding that the prohibition does not apply when neither threshold condition is satisfied.
BER Dual-Role Precedent Triangulation for Municipal Engineer Permissibility Capability
in an earlier case, BER Case No. 63-5, a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewing body, or municipal client to identify, retrieve, and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 63-5, 74-2, and 01-11 — that establish the permissible scope of dual-role municipal engineer arrangements, and to correctly distinguish those permissible precedents from the impermissible fact pattern in the instant case, identifying the critical factual distinctions (e.g., prior advisory role, evaluative role, self-review risk) that cause the instant case to fall outside the permissible precedent range.
BER Epistemic Restraint Technical Adequacy Non-Determination Obligation
This board has not been presented with technical analysis of the engineering requirements for the facility at issue, and expresses no view as to whether any or all of the bids are consistent with professional standards.
Duty of a professional ethics review body — and by analogy, of any engineer rendering an ethical opinion on a competitor's fee proposal — to refrain from making technical determinations about whether a specific fee level is or is not sufficient for competent engineering performance when the body has not been presented with a technical analysis of the engineering requirements for the facility at issue, recognizing that ethical review bodies operate within their epistemic competence and that technical adequacy determinations require project-specific engineering analysis that goes beyond the scope of an ethics opinion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to evaluate or criticize another engineer's work — when the engineer lacks full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, and decision-making context under which the other engineer performed that work — to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about that work, recognizing that opinions formed without complete situational knowledge may be inaccurate even when subjectively believed to be truthful, and that such incomplete critique can unjustly injure the other engineer's professional reputation.
BER Escalating Dual-Role Precedent Severity Triangulation Capability
This Board has examined situations involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to identify, retrieve, and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases involving dual government-private employment conflicts — specifically BER Case 67-1 (county engineer/planning board member self-approval), BER Case 02-8 (state DOT engineer/airport consultant adjacent-domain conflict), and the present case (DOE coal bed methane employee/private coal bed methane consultant exact same-domain conflict) — recognizing that these cases form an escalating severity spectrum, and correctly applying the most severe precedent framework to the most extreme fact pattern while articulating the factual distinctions that place each case at its appropriate point on the severity spectrum.
BER Five-Precedent Dual-Role Municipal Engineer Conflict Spectrum Synthesis Capability
The Board has considered cases similar to this type on other occasions.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, compare, and synthesize five BER precedent cases — BER 62-7 (county commission engineer/developer conflict), BER 74-2 (small municipality consulting firm municipal engineer permissibility), BER 82-4 (multi-jurisdiction dual-role review-recommendation non-decision boundary), BER 75-7 (commission member abstention-conditioned private services permissibility), and BER 67-12 (part-time county engineer private plan approval recommendation prohibition) — identifying the consistent normative thread that dual-role permissibility depends on whether the engineer actually participates in decisions affecting self-interest, whether abstention is feasible and complete, and whether the structural conflict is irreconcilable, and applying that synthesized framework to determine that a firm simultaneously preparing developer drawings, reviewing those drawings as city agent, and inspecting construction at developer expense for city benefit cannot adequately represent all clients.
BER Moonlighting Precedent Permissibility Boundary Distinction Capability
The Board noted in Case 97-1 that these cases frequently raise the question of whether an engineer can ethically devote sufficient attention to the responsibilities involved.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to identify, retrieve, and correctly apply BER precedent cases governing moonlighting (concurrent dual employment) — specifically the ability to distinguish between precedent cases where dual employment was found permissible (e.g., BER Case 97-1, where both employers were aware and no substantive conflict existed) and the present case where structural conflicts arising from shared clients and interrelated domains render the dual employment impermissible despite similar employer awareness — including the ability to articulate the critical factual distinctions (shared municipal clients, interrelated highway-airport domains, faithful agent obligation) that place the present case outside the permissible precedent range established by Case 97-1.
BER Multi-Case Precedent Factual Distinction Analysis Capability
The facts in the present case are somewhat different from the earlier cited cases, notably because the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to analyze multiple BER precedent cases — including BER 65-12 (product safety refusal), BER 82-5 (defense industry whistleblowing), and BER 88-6 (city engineer environmental compliance) — identify the key factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, and correctly determine that those distinctions alter the applicable ethical obligations, specifically recognizing that the absence of professional scope of responsibility over the observed hazard is a key factual distinction that changes the mandatory/permissible character of the safety response.
BER Multi-Precedent Brochure Personnel Misrepresentation Synthesis Capability
The Board has reviewed a number of factual situations over the years relating to the question of misleading clients through the misrepresentation of professional qualifications.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases addressing engineering firm brochure personnel misrepresentation — specifically BER Case 83-1 (key employee listed during notice period and after termination) and BER Case 90-4 (non-key employee listed after departure notice) — identify the critical factual distinctions between those precedents (key vs. non-key employee status; materiality of departure to firm qualification profile; intent to enhance qualifications), extract the transferable normative principles (dual-element pertinent fact test; valence-neutral deception standard; totality of circumstances analysis), and apply the synthesized framework to reach a justified ethical conclusion in a novel case involving a different type of potentially misleading omission (pending ethics complaint non-disclosure).
BER Multi-Precedent Building Inspection Code Enforcement Safety Synthesis Capability
While in many instances, the obligation is often clear and obvious, in other instances, there could be an obligation on the part of the engineer to balance competing or concurrent obligations
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, compare, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER 92-4 (environmental permit refusal), BER 65-12 (product safety refusal), BER 82-5 (defense industry whistleblowing personal conscience), and BER 88-6 (city engineer environmental escalation) — identifying the consistent normative thread across all cases that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount, must insist vociferously that public officials take corrective steps, and must distinguish between mandatory safety duties and personal conscience rights, and applying that synthesized framework to a building inspection code enforcement context involving political bargaining.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, compare, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases from different professional domains — specifically BER 92-6 (hazardous material disclosure), BER 89-7 (confidentiality-bound structural safety), and BER 90-5 (attorney-directed confidentiality override) — identifying the consistent normative thread across all cases that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare supersedes business relationship maintenance, client confidentiality, and attorney-directed nondisclosure, and applying that synthesized framework to a current case involving public pressure and employment pressure on a bridge safety determination.
BER Multi-Precedent Canons-to-Code Transition Conflict Standard Evolution Synthesis Capability
Our previous decisions in cases of this type (60-5, 62-7, 62-21, 63-5) were decided under the then-prevailing Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases decided under prior Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct — specifically cases 60-5, 62-7, 62-21, and 63-5 — recognize that those cases established foundational principles (including the axiomatic principle that a professional may not divide loyalties) under the then-prevailing Canons, and correctly determine that the subsequently promulgated Code of Ethics supersedes those Canons as the controlling document while being more explicit on the conflict-of-interest point, thereby applying the current Code's more stringent and explicit provisions rather than the prior Canons' more general formulations.
BER Multi-Precedent Competence Domain Obligation Synthesis Capability
Over the years, the Board of Ethical Review has examined the issue of professional competency on numerous occasions under a variety of factual situations.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases addressing professional competence domain obligations — specifically BER Case 94-8 (out-of-discipline structural footing design), BER Case 71-2 (prime professional specialist retention duty), and BER Case 78-5 (consulting firm qualification alteration prohibition) — identify the shared normative principle across those cases (engineers must seek work only in areas of established competence or retain qualified specialists), and apply that synthesized framework to reach a justified ethical conclusion in a novel competence-domain case such as CD-ROM-induced facilities design expansion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents — including BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 02-5 — to analyze and resolve novel professional competence determinations, drawing analogical reasoning from established Board decisions to correctly classify whether an engineer's conduct in accepting or performing out-of-competence work constitutes an ethical violation, and to distinguish cases where competence was adequate from cases where it was not.
BER Multi-Precedent Cross-Domain Public Safety Synthesis Capability
A review of the cases decided over the years by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review demonstrates a consistent approach regarding this fundamental obligation on the part of professional engineers.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, compare, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases from different professional domains — specifically BER 92-6 (hazardous material disclosure), BER 89-7 (confidentiality-bound structural safety), and BER 90-5 (attorney-directed confidentiality override) — identifying the consistent normative thread across all cases that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare supersedes business relationship maintenance, client confidentiality, and attorney-directed nondisclosure, and applying that synthesized framework to a current case involving public pressure and employment pressure on a bridge safety determination.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 00-5, 07-10, 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6 — that collectively establish the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare in structural safety contexts, and to apply that synthesized precedent framework to determine the step-by-step path forward when an engineer's structural safety concerns have been identified, including calibrating the response to the imminence and breadth of the danger.
BER Multi-Precedent Employment Transition Ethics Synthesis Capability
The issue of employed engineers breaking off from their employer and going into business for themself is certainly not a new issue and has been examined by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review on earlier occasions.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases addressing engineer employment transitions — including cases on departing engineers founding competing firms (BER 77-11), engineers offering services during firm wind-down (BER 79-10), client-solicited staff engineers (BER 86-5), and client-impetus mitigating cases (BER 97-2) — identify the factual distinctions among those precedents, extract the transferable normative principles, and apply the synthesized framework to reach a justified ethical conclusion in a novel employment transition case.
BER Multi-Precedent Forensic Side-Switching Conflict Synthesis Capability
In BER Case 76-3, a decision involving an engineer appearing as an expert witness for a private development company before a county board while serving as a paid consultant to the county, this Board noted that the Code of Ethics requires an engineer to endeavor to avoid a conflict of interest
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, compare, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases bearing on the forensic expert side-switching problem — specifically BER Case 74-2 (part-time consultant dual loyalty permissibility), BER Case 76-3 (paid advocate conflict of interest), BER Case 82-2 (confidential report release without client consent), and BER Case 82-6 (dam failure investigator retained by adverse contractor) — identifying the consistent normative thread across all cases that engineers who gain access to confidential information and case knowledge from one party in an adversarial proceeding cannot subsequently represent the opposing party in the same matter, and applying that synthesized framework to a current case involving a forensic expert who was terminated by plaintiff's counsel and subsequently retained by defense counsel in the same personal injury proceeding.
BER Multi-Precedent Hazardous Material and Structural Safety Cross-Domain Synthesis Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to synthesize the accumulated body of BER precedent across multiple domains — including environmental hazardous material cases (BER 92-6), confidentiality-bound structural safety cases (BER 89-7), and attorney-directed confidentiality cases (BER 90-5) — to identify the consistent normative thread that public safety paramountcy overrides confidentiality, business relationship preservation, and attorney-directed non-disclosure obligations across all domains, and to apply that synthesized principle to novel cases involving public pressure and employment pressure on bridge safety determinations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer confronting a public health, safety, or welfare situation to recognize and apply the accumulated body of BER precedent — including BER 00-5 (failing bridge reopened under public pressure), BER 07-10 (post-construction modifications risking structural failure), BER 10-5 (safety violation on adjacent property), and BER 12-11 (commercial driver endangerment from road repair) — to correctly identify the first and foremost obligation to protect the public, determine the specific affirmative actions required, identify to whom information must be reported, and fulfill the obligation to be honest and truthful in reporting, drawing on the full body of precedent rather than any single case.
BER Multi-Precedent International Corrupt Payment Cross-Case Synthesis Capability
NSPE recently considered a similar set of facts in BER Case 96-5.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases addressing corrupt payments, kickbacks, and improper compensation arrangements in international engineering practice — including cases spanning different factual configurations (direct kickback, indirect 'encouragement to associate', gift-giving customs) — and to apply the consistent principle emerging from that precedent corpus to novel international ethics fact patterns. This capability includes the ability to distinguish factual variations across precedents while recognizing the uniform normative conclusion they support.
BER Precedent Application to Competitive Critique Ethics Capability
In BER Case 93-3, Engineer A was retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services...
Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents — specifically BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 — to analyze professional ethics obligations arising when an engineer is solicited to critique a competitor's work in a competitive procurement context, drawing analogical reasoning from established Board decisions to correctly classify whether the engineer's conduct constitutes an ethical violation under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7.
BER Precedent Building Safety to Environmental Hazard Cross-Domain Application Constraint
Ethical and analytical constraint establishing that BER precedents developed in the context of building safety code violations and structural defects — specifically BER Cases 89-7 and 90-5 — are applicable by analogy to environmental hazardous waste discovery situations, prohibiting engineers and ethics reviewers from treating the building-safety context of those precedents as limiting their application to non-building environmental hazard scenarios, and establishing that the underlying principle — that the paramount public safety obligation supersedes confidentiality and business relationship considerations — applies across engineering domains whenever a licensed professional engineer discovers conditions posing serious danger to workers and the public.
BER Precedent Confidentiality Violation Key Predicate Distinguishability Constraint
Unlike the facts presented in BER Case 82-2, there is not any conflict or potential conflict of interest that exists between owner and attorney with regard to the information.
Ethical constraint establishing that when applying a prior BER precedent finding an ethical violation based on unauthorized disclosure of client information, the engineer must assess whether the key predicate facts upon which the violation was found are present in the current situation — prohibiting mechanical application of a prior confidentiality violation finding to a factually distinguishable situation where the predicate condition (such as a conflict of interest between the client and the third-party recipient) is absent, and establishing that the absence of the key predicate fact in the current situation removes the basis for the prior precedent's violation finding and may affirmatively support disclosure rather than confidentiality.
BER Precedent Cross-Domain Analogical Application Constraint
After considering the two earlier cases, the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor, noting that while the facts of the two aforementioned cases were quite dissimilar to BER Case 85-3, those two cases related to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon the Board's consideration of those provisions.
Ethical and analytical constraint establishing that when a professional ethics review body applies prior BER precedent cases to a current situation, it must acknowledge factual dissimilarities between the precedent cases and the current case while still recognizing that the same underlying Code provisions govern both, prohibiting both mechanical application without factual comparison and wholesale rejection of precedent guidance solely because the factual contexts differ — establishing that dissimilar facts do not nullify the bearing of precedent cases that address the same Code provisions, as demonstrated by the Board's explicit acknowledgment in BER Case 94-8 that BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5 involved 'quite dissimilar' facts to BER Case 85-3 yet 'do have some bearing upon the Board's consideration of those provisions.'
BER Precedent Factual Distinction Public-Funds vs Safety Context Discrimination Capability
In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts...
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve a BER precedent case (BER 82-5) involving public-funds misconduct without a public safety dimension, identify the factual distinctions between that precedent and the present case — specifically that the present case involves affirmative design completion obligations and deceptive acts rather than a whistleblower's discretionary reporting decision — and correctly apply the precedent's transferable principles (ethics code applies beyond narrow safety grounds; engineer has right but not always duty to escalate) while distinguishing the present case's additional affirmative obligations that the precedent did not address.
BER Precedent Factual Distinction Public Hearing Trigger Recognition Capability
In the present case, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 76-4, Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing at which he believed he had an obligation to correctly report information that was within his personal knowledge and for which the failure to report could result in a direct and demonstrable harm to the public.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to recognize the critical factual distinction between a BER precedent case in which a public hearing creates a direct, demonstrable obligation to report known contrary information (BER 76-4) and a present case in which no public hearing is scheduled — correctly determining that the absence of a public hearing trigger materially alters the applicable ethical obligation, and that the engineer's duty to report externally is therefore not yet activated in the same mandatory way as in the precedent case.
BER Precedent Faithful Agent Principle Cross-Context Application Capability
While the facts in BER Case No. 93-3 are somewhat different than the facts in the present case, Case No. 93-3 makes an important point which is relevant to the case at hand—the role of the engineer in serving the legitimate needs of the client and the role of the engineer as the employer or client's 'faithful agent and trustee.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to recognize when the faithful agent and trustee principle established in a prior BER case — even one involving a different factual context (e.g., replacement design engineer confidentiality) — articulates a normative principle that is relevant and applicable to a structurally different present case (e.g., public procurement FOIA competitor review), and to correctly extract and apply the transferable principle while acknowledging the factual differences between the cases.
BER Precedent Impossible Standard Non-Imposition Constraint
The rendering of the Board's opinion in BER Case 86-2, raised a considerable degree of discussion within the engineering community because to many it appeared to be inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession and would therefore place a significant number of practitioners in conflict with the provisions of the Code.
Meta-ethical and interpretive constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics and BER precedent interpretations must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard upon engineers that is inconsistent with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession; where a prior BER ruling is found to conflict with actual prevailing professional practice and would place a significant number of practitioners in ethical violation for conduct that is otherwise reasonable and standard, the BER is constrained to clarify or modify that ruling to reflect a rational and achievable benchmark of practice — prohibiting the perpetuation of interpretive standards that undermine the Code's credibility and practical adherence.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Interpretive and ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics must be read and applied in light of current conditions within professional practice rather than the conditions that prevailed at the time a particular code provision or amendment was adopted, requiring the Board of Ethical Review to interpret code provisions consistently with the current professional practice environment and reserving the Board's authority to modify its interpretive positions as professional practice circumstances change; prohibiting the static application of code provisions in ways that are disconnected from the current practice environment, and establishing that the living-document character of the Code imposes an ongoing interpretive obligation on the Board to maintain the Code's credibility and currency.
BER Precedent Intent-Differentiated Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Constraint
In BER Case 90-4, the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent. While the Board has in the past found that unethical conduct occurred in the absence of intentional actions, the Board did not consider the facts of BER Case 90-4 to be of a nature to make such a finding.
Ethical and analytical constraint establishing that when applying BER precedent cases to marketing misrepresentation situations, the reviewing body or engineer must calibrate the severity of the ethical violation finding to the degree of intent demonstrated — distinguishing between cases where the engineer acted with clear 'intent and purpose' to enhance firm qualifications (BER Case 83-1, constituting a clear violation) and cases where the action appears more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent (BER Case 90-4, not constituting a violation under the totality of circumstances) — prohibiting mechanical application of the more severe precedent to inadvertent situations while also prohibiting use of inadvertence as a blanket shield against all ethical scrutiny.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a violation of the prohibition against misrepresentation of professional qualifications in marketing materials requires the concurrent presence of two elements: (1) an actual misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts' — defined as facts of clear and decisive relevance, or those that are 'relevant and highly significant' to the matter at hand — and (2) the intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications or work through that misrepresentation; constraining engineers and firms to ensure that both elements are assessed before a violation is found, and equally constraining them to refrain from any communication where both elements are present, as established by BER Case 83-1.
BER Precedent Irreconcilability Acknowledged Non-Automatic Resolution Constraint
In all honesty, it is difficult to reconcile these two cases, as the two cases were based in pertinent part on identical language.
Ethical and analytical constraint establishing that when a professional ethics review body explicitly acknowledges that two or more of its prior precedent decisions are difficult to reconcile despite being based on identical or substantially similar code language, the body is not relieved of its obligation to reach a principled conclusion in the present case — prohibiting the body from using the acknowledged irreconcilability as a basis for avoiding a determination, and requiring the body to identify the factual distinctions, policy considerations, or code evolution that justify the resolution adopted, as demonstrated by the Board's acknowledgment that 'in all honesty, it is difficult to reconcile these two cases' (BER Cases 62-7 and 74-2) while nonetheless proceeding to apply the cumulative weight of precedent to reach a conclusion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when assessing the ethical permissibility of a novel conflict-of-interest arrangement, a licensed professional engineer and the relevant ethics body must integrate and apply the cumulative guidance from multiple prior BER precedent cases addressing analogous arrangements — rather than applying any single precedent in isolation — establishing that the weight of accumulated BER decisions on a recurring conflict type constitutes the operative ethical standard, and that a city official's or engineer's conflict-of-interest conclusion that contradicts the cumulative weight of multiple BER precedents is ethically unsupported, as demonstrated by the Board's citation of BER Cases 63-5, 74-2, and subsequent decisions in reaching its conclusion in the present case.
BER Precedent Multi-Case Conflict Assessment Integration Constraint
Both the previously cited BER cases, as well as subsequent BER decisions, do not agree with the city official's conclusion
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when assessing the ethical permissibility of a novel conflict-of-interest arrangement, a licensed professional engineer and the relevant ethics body must integrate and apply the cumulative guidance from multiple prior BER precedent cases addressing analogous arrangements — rather than applying any single precedent in isolation — establishing that the weight of accumulated BER decisions on a recurring conflict type constitutes the operative ethical standard, and that a city official's or engineer's conflict-of-interest conclusion that contradicts the cumulative weight of multiple BER precedents is ethically unsupported, as demonstrated by the Board's citation of BER Cases 63-5, 74-2, and subsequent decisions in reaching its conclusion in the present case.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer confronting a public safety situation explicitly calibrate the required response against the spectrum of BER precedent cases — including BER Case 00-5 (imminent bridge collapse requiring full-bore multi-authority campaign) and BER Case 07-10 (non-imminent barn structural risk requiring graduated written notification) — to determine the appropriate scope, urgency, and form of escalation, prohibiting both the application of the most aggressive escalation standard to all situations regardless of imminence and the application of the most deferential standard to situations involving significant foreseeable danger, and establishing that the calibration must account for the engineer's employment context, custodial responsibility, and the breadth of potential harm.
BER Precedent Public Safety vs Non-Safety Factual Threshold Distinguishing Constraint
This, unlike BER Case 82-5 did not involve a matter of personal conscience, but rather a matter which had a direct impact upon the public health and safety.
Ethical and analytical constraint requiring that when a professional ethics review body applies prior BER precedent cases to a current situation, it must systematically distinguish between precedent cases involving direct public health and safety danger — which establish mandatory escalation obligations — and precedent cases involving only financial impropriety or administrative concerns without public health and safety impact — which establish only personal conscience rights — prohibiting the mechanical application of non-safety precedent to safety-critical situations and vice versa, and establishing that the public health and safety threshold is the operative factual distinction that determines which precedent line governs the current case.
BER Precedent Rationale Cross-Factual Relevance Constraint
While the facts of Case 79-7 are different from those in the instant case in that in the instant case the client clearly discharged Engineer A from his services, we think that many of the reasons for Section III.8.a. as stated in Case 79-7 are relevant to the discussion of the facts present in this case.
Analytical and ethical constraint establishing that when a prior BER precedent case involves factual circumstances that differ from the current case, the underlying rationale and policy reasons articulated in the precedent may still be relevant and applicable to the current case even where the specific factual holding does not directly control — prohibiting ethics adjudicators and engineers from dismissing the guidance of prior BER cases solely because the facts differ, while simultaneously requiring acknowledgment of the factual differences; establishing that the reasons articulated in a precedent for a particular Code provision's purpose can inform the analysis of a current case even when the precedent's specific outcome does not apply.
BER Prior Case Reserved Question Identification and Synthesis Capability
In Case No. 62-14, dealing with the disbarment of an engineer by the United States Patent Office for advertising to solicit patent business in violation of the rules of the Patent Office, we held that the engineer's action was a violation of the then-prevailing language of the Canons of Ethics... However, we noted in that case: 'We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.'
Capability of a professional ethics reviewing body to systematically identify, retrieve, and synthesize prior cases in which a jurisdictional or interpretive question was explicitly reserved — noted as undecided with a caveat — and to use that accumulated record of reservations to frame the current case's significance as the occasion for definitive resolution; including the ability to quote the precise reservation language from prior cases and explain why the current case squarely presents the previously reserved question.
BER Three-Precedent Consulting-Employment Competence Flexibility Spectrum Synthesis Capability
The Board has had occasion to consider cases involving ethical issues that are somewhat related to the issues involved in this case.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize three BER precedent cases addressing professional competence domain obligations across consulting and employment contexts — specifically BER Case 71-2 (prime professional specialist retention duty in consulting), BER Case 78-5 (consulting firm qualification alteration prohibition), and BER Case 85-3 (county surveyor out-of-competence employment appointment) — identify the shared normative principle (engineers must seek work only in areas of established competence or retain qualified specialists), recognize the critical distinction between consulting practice flexibility and employment context rigidity, and apply the synthesized three-precedent framework to reach a justified ethical conclusion in a novel case involving a sole-purpose retained consulting engineer assigned an out-of-competence structural task.
BER Three-Precedent Employment Transition Triangulation Capability
In reaching its conclusion in Case No. 86-5, the Board reviewed two earlier BER cases, Nos. 77-11 and 79-10.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, analyze, and triangulate among three BER precedent cases addressing engineer employment transitions — specifically BER 77-11 (departing engineers founding competing firm, specialized knowledge constraint), BER 79-10 (winding-down firm engineer offering independent services), and BER 86-5 (client-solicited staff engineers disclosing to employer before resignation) — identify the factual distinctions among those three precedents and the present case, extract the transferable normative principles from each, and apply the synthesized three-precedent framework to reach a justified ethical conclusion in a novel employment transition case involving client-suggested departure without employer disclosure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases addressing engineer employment transitions — including cases on departing engineers founding competing firms (BER 77-11), engineers offering services during firm wind-down (BER 79-10), client-solicited staff engineers (BER 86-5), and client-impetus mitigating cases (BER 97-2) — identify the factual distinctions among those precedents, extract the transferable normative principles, and apply the synthesized framework to reach a justified ethical conclusion in a novel employment transition case.
BER Three-Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Triangulation Capability
As early as case BER 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve and systematically triangulate among three BER precedent cases — BER 65-12 (unsafe product refusal, ethical justification for non-participation), BER 82-5 (public-funds misconduct without direct public health danger, personal conscience right but no mandatory duty to escalate), and BER 88-6 (city engineer sewage overflow, mandatory duty to escalate to state authorities when local officials are unresponsive) — identifying the critical factual variable that determines whether escalation is a mandatory ethical duty versus a permissible personal conscience right: namely, whether the situation involves a direct danger to public health and safety. The capability includes applying this triangulated framework to a current case to determine the correct normative category and corresponding obligation level.
BER Three-Precedent Resume Misrepresentation Progressive Code Tightening Synthesis Capability
In Case 72-11, John Doe...was not in violation of the Code for rewriting his employment resume in this manner
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve, analyze, and synthesize three BER precedent cases addressing the progressive tightening of NSPE Code provisions on resume and qualification misrepresentation — specifically Case 72-11 (permissible selective emphasis under old Code 3(e)), Case 79-5 (diploma mill PhD impermissible under expanded 'misleading, deceptive or false' language), and the current case (implied sole authorship of team work impermissible under Section II.5.a) — to trace the historical trajectory of increasingly restrictive code language, identify the factual distinctions that place each case on the spectrum, and correctly apply the most current and restrictive code standard to novel resume misrepresentation scenarios.
Bait-and-Switch Fee Deception Prohibition Constraint
the initial fee which is 'too good to be true' may in reality represent the bait-and-switch deception of an unethical practitioner
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer or firm from submitting an initial fee proposal that is 'too good to be true' — i.e., so far below realistic project costs as to be economically infeasible for competent service delivery — as a mechanism of bait-and-switch deception, whether by intending to later demand additional fees, to deliver substandard work, or to use the low initial fee to displace competitors and then renegotiate, establishing that the submission of a facially inadequate fee proposal in a public procurement context constitutes a form of deceptive practice that engineers are prohibited from engaging in and that competitors are permitted to report to appropriate authorities, as established by the BER's recognition that 'the initial fee which is too good to be true may in reality represent the bait-and-switch deception of an unethical practitioner.'
Balanced Adverse-and-Favorable Finding Inspection Report Completeness Capability
The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating
Capability of a licensed professional engineer conducting an inspection or review of another engineer's work to produce a report that is complete and balanced — affirmatively including both adverse findings (design inadequacies identified) and favorable findings (systems found to be adequate) — recognizing that selective reporting of only adverse findings, or only favorable findings, constitutes a material omission that violates professional obligations of objectivity, completeness, and honest reporting, and that a complete report serves the client's genuine interests and the public interest more effectively than a selectively framed one.
Barricade Removal Safety Closure Enforcement Escalation Constraint
On the following Monday, the barricades were in the river and the 'Bridge Closed' sign was in the trees by the roadway.
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has ordered safety closure of infrastructure and discovers that closure barriers have been removed or displaced — whether by vandalism, public action, or official inaction — must immediately escalate to supervisory and law enforcement authorities to restore the closure, install more permanent barriers, and formally document the breach, prohibiting passive acceptance of barrier removal as a de facto reopening and establishing that the engineer's safety closure obligation persists until the closure is formally and professionally rescinded through proper engineering channels.
Baseless Peer Complaint Self-Serving Motivation Recognition and Abstention Capability
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information
Capability of a licensed professional engineer whose prior work has been reviewed and found deficient by another engineer to recognize when a contemplated registration board complaint against the reviewing engineer is motivated primarily by reputational self-protection and competitive self-interest rather than genuine professional misconduct — and to abstain from filing such a complaint, recognizing that using the regulatory complaint mechanism to retaliate against honest technical criticism constitutes an improper use of the professional disciplinary system and violates obligations of fairness and collegial respect.
Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Technically Compliant Peer Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose prior work has been reviewed and found deficient by another engineer to refrain from filing a formal registration board complaint against the reviewing engineer when the reviewing engineer's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned inspection, participating in a joint review, and issuing an honest technical report — does not constitute an actual ethics or licensure violation; recognizing that weaponizing the professional regulatory system to suppress legitimate peer critique, protect professional reputation, or punish honest technical disagreement constitutes an independent ethics violation by the complaining engineer.
Battery Storage Alternative Client Education Obligation
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather, but the cost of installing the solar panels is essentially the same as the cost to rebuild the generator.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified that a proposed energy system replacement lacks storage capability that would resolve identified reliability and grid-stress risks to educate the organizational client about the battery storage alternative as a means of achieving both the sustainability goal and adequate reliability, even when capital constraints have been cited, so that the board can make a fully informed decision that considers all technically viable paths rather than only the two options originally framed.
Benevolent Motive Does Not Cure Ethical Violation
benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's altruistic, benevolent, or praiseworthy motivation for taking an action that violates applicable professional standards, employer policy, or ethical obligations does not render that action ethically permissible — the ethical evaluation of conduct is determined by the nature of the act and its conformity with professional duties, not by the subjective goodness of the actor's intentions
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's benign or constructive motivation for taking an action that violates proper professional procedure does not render that action ethically permissible — procedural integrity in public procurement and information management must be maintained regardless of the engineer's subjective intent
Benevolent Motive Non-Cure of Unauthorized Client Confidentiality Breach Obligation
although it did not appear from the facts that Engineer A had acted with some ulterior motive or intention to cause the client any harm, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominated.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the absence of an ulterior motive or intention to harm the client does not render ethically permissible an unauthorized disclosure of client information to a third party — and that the principle of client confidentiality predominates over the engineer's subjective good intentions, so that a well-intentioned but unauthorized disclosure (such as sending a carbon copy of a client report to a third party without consent) constitutes an ethical violation regardless of the engineer's benevolent purpose.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as faithful agent and trustee for a client to recognize that the absence of personal advantage motivation in making an unauthorized disclosure to a third party does not render that disclosure ethically permissible — and that altruistic, collegial, or professionally well-intentioned disclosure made against explicit client instructions nonetheless constitutes a neglect of the client's interests that violates the faithful agent standard, because the ethical evaluation of the disclosure turns on its effect on the client's interests rather than on the engineer's subjective motivation.
Benevolent Motive Non-Justification Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that altruistic, praiseworthy, or benevolent motivations — including genuine desire to help impoverished communities or achieve efficient project outcomes — do not render ethically impermissible conduct ethical, and to correctly apply this principle when evaluating whether a proposed course of action is professionally permissible regardless of the actor's good intentions.
Benevolent Motive Non-Justification for Policy Violation Obligation
The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the principle that altruistic, benevolent, or praiseworthy motivation — including genuine concern for the welfare of an impoverished community — does not render ethically permissible a design decision, directive, or action that violates an explicit agency policy, diverts public funds contrary to established cost-allocation rules, or requires a subordinate to participate in a policy-violating implementation, and to refrain from using benevolent intent as a justification for proceeding with conduct that would otherwise constitute an ethical violation.
Bid Disparity Inference Non-Automatic Unethical Activity Constraint
These facts, in and of themselves and in the abstract, give rise to no inference of unethical activity.
Epistemic and ethical constraint establishing that the mere fact of a significant fee disparity between competing engineering proposals — in and of itself and in the abstract — gives rise to no automatic inference of unethical activity, prohibiting engineers, agencies, and ethics bodies from treating fee disparity alone as sufficient evidence of ethical violation without additional analysis of the engineering requirements, the firm's capacity, and the economic feasibility of competent service delivery at the proposed fee, as established by the BER's observation that 'these facts, in and of themselves and in the abstract, give rise to no inference of unethical activity' regarding Firm A's $70,000 lower bid.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is competing for a contract from offering specific critical opinions about the incumbent engineer's professional decisions — even when the critiquing engineer believes those opinions to be truthful — when the critiquing engineer lacks full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, and professional judgment factors that informed the incumbent's decisions, establishing that truthful belief alone is insufficient to render specific criticism ethically permissible in a competitive procurement context, and that the engineer must limit responses to general observations or decline entirely.
Bid Document Completeness and Material Information Disclosure
the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings for the bidders' or awarded contractor's use
Domain-specific principle requiring public agency engineers responsible for preparing bid documents to ensure those documents include or reference all material technical information — including existing system drawings, site conditions, and constructability constraints — that a competent contractor would need to prepare an accurate and complete bid, so that bids reflect true project costs and conditions rather than assumptions that may lead to disputes, change orders, or unsafe work
Bid Document Material Information Inclusion Capability
Capability of a public agency engineer responsible for preparing bid documents to recognize when material technical information — including the existence and availability of as-built drawings, existing system documentation, or other constructability-relevant records — has been omitted from bid documents, and to ensure that bid documents are complete and include all references to existing technical information that prospective bidders would need to prepare accurate, competitive bids, consistent with obligations of objective and complete reporting and faithful agent duties to the public agency.
Bid Document Material Information Inclusion Obligation
Duty of a public agency engineer responsible for preparing bid documents for renovation or modification projects involving existing systems to identify all existing technical documentation — including as-built drawings, system specifications, and record drawings — that is material to accurate bid preparation and safe performance of the work, and to reference and make available that documentation in the bid package so that bidders can prepare complete and accurate proposals.
Bid Document Technical Completeness Assurance Capability
Board-Imposed Licensure Restriction Complete Disclosure Obligation
Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
Duty of an engineer intern who, following a third or subsequent PE examination failure, becomes subject to board-imposed additional requirements before being permitted to re-sit the examination — such as additional experience hours or new professional references — to disclose the full scope of those restrictions to their employer, including both the fact of the failure and the nature and likely duration of the board-imposed impediments, so that the employer can make fully informed decisions about project staffing and the feasibility of the original licensure condition.
Board-Imposed Re-Examination Bar Employer Notification Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that an engineer intern who, following a threshold number of PE examination failures, becomes subject to a licensing board rule imposing additional prerequisites before re-examination eligibility — such as additional experience hours or new professional references — must disclose the full scope of that regulatory bar to the employer, not merely the fact of the most recent failure, prohibiting partial disclosure that conveys only the examination result while concealing the regulatory consequence that materially extends the licensure timeline beyond the employer's contractual expectation.
Board Certification Engineering Title Licensure Prerequisite Disclosure Obligation
the most cursory inquiry would show that a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering is required to be a licensed Professional Engineer.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who holds a board certification whose title incorporates the word 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' — such as 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' — to recognize and disclose that such certification presupposes and implicitly invokes professional engineering licensure, and therefore to refrain from using that certification title in jurisdictions where the engineer is not licensed, or to affirmatively disclose the absence of jurisdiction-specific licensure when using such a title, so that courts, clients, and regulatory bodies are not misled about the engineer's legal authority to provide engineering services in that jurisdiction.
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Forensic Engineering Competence
Engineer A is a professional engineer with expertise in mechanical engineering who also serves as a forensic engineering expert
Domain-specific technical competence to conduct forensic engineering investigations of boiler and pressure vessel failures — including analysis of explosion causation, pressure vessel design standards compliance, material failure modes, operating condition reconstruction, and applicable boiler code requirements — sufficient to render defensible expert opinions in litigation and regulatory proceedings.
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Standard
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
Technical codes and standards governing the design, fabrication, inspection, and safety requirements for boilers and pressure vessels, developed and maintained by engineering society standards committees, establishing minimum safety requirements and professional benchmarks for pressure vessel engineering practice
Bridge Closure Initiating Local Government Engineer
Engineer A was an engineer with a local government
A licensed professional engineer employed by a local government who, upon receiving credible safety information about a bridge, takes immediate unilateral action to close the structure to traffic, coordinates with consulting engineers on inspection and remediation, and bears ongoing obligations to monitor compliance with the closure and escalate violations — including unlicensed engineering practice — to appropriate authorities even under public and political pressure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role employed by a local government with specific assigned responsibility for bridge infrastructure, bearing obligations to enforce safety closures, escalate violations of safety restrictions to supervisors and state/federal transportation authorities, coordinate with consulting engineers on remediation adequacy, and report unlicensed engineering practice — even under public pressure or contrary direction from non-engineer supervisors.
Bridge Inspection Program Engineer Intern
Engineer Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT's bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B
An unlicensed engineer intern working within a public agency bridge inspection program under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer, bearing obligations to accurately and completely report all observed defects and inspection findings—including the duration and history of known defects—to supervising engineers, and to refrain from selective or incomplete disclosure that could compromise public safety or conceal systemic inspection failures.
inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member
Professional norms, regulatory requirements, and technical standards governing the documentation, completeness, and accuracy of bridge inspection reports, including the obligation to report all observed defects regardless of their apparent severity or prior inspection history, and the duty of supervising engineers and inspection program directors to ensure the integrity of inspection records over time.
an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member
A field-level inspector working under the supervision of an engineer intern within a public agency bridge inspection program, bearing obligations to accurately observe and report all visible defects in bridge members in inspection reports, and whose repeated omissions of known defects over multiple inspection cycles constitute a systemic failure with public safety implications.
Bridge Replacement Multi-Agency Authorization Coordination Capability
Within three weeks, Engineer A had obtained authorization for the bridge to be replaced.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to promptly pursue and coordinate authorization for permanent replacement of condemned safety-critical bridge infrastructure, including navigating the review and task-completion requirements of multiple state and federal transportation departments necessary before replacement funds can be released, and managing the timeline of environmental, geological, right-of-way, and other prerequisite studies.
Bridge Structural Condition Field Observation and Alarm Recognition Capability
Engineer A observes that traffic is flowing and the movement of the bridge is frightening.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to observe and interpret in-field behavioral indicators of structural distress in bridge infrastructure — such as visible movement of the bridge deck under traffic, the presence of overweight vehicles on a weight-restricted structure, and the pattern of avoidance by safety-conscious operators such as school bus drivers — and to recognize these observations as alarm signals requiring immediate professional action, even in the absence of a formal inspection report.
Bridge Structural Repair Authorization Standard
a non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open the bridge with a 5-ton limit
Professional norms and regulatory requirements governing the authorization process for structural repairs to public bridges, including the obligation to obtain licensed engineering review and approval before reopening condemned infrastructure, and the prohibition on authorizing reopening based solely on inspection by non-licensed personnel.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and regulatory requirements governing the authority and obligation of engineers to order immediate closure of structurally compromised bridges, including criteria for emergency closure decisions, barricade installation, and the prohibition on reopening without licensed engineering authorization.
Bridge Structural Safety Closure Standard
Engineer A received a telephone call from the bridge inspector stating this bridge needed to be closed due to the large number of rotten piling
Professional norms and regulatory requirements governing the authority and obligation of engineers to order immediate closure of structurally compromised bridges, including criteria for emergency closure decisions, barricade installation, and the prohibition on reopening without licensed engineering authorization.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms, regulatory requirements, and technical standards governing the documentation, completeness, and accuracy of bridge inspection reports, including the obligation to report all observed defects regardless of their apparent severity or prior inspection history, and the duty of supervising engineers and inspection program directors to ensure the integrity of inspection records over time.
Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Constraint
In his report, Engineer A made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies. However, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party.
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of safety code violations posing a risk to building occupants does not discharge the obligation to notify appropriate public authorities by making only a brief mention of those violations in a confidential report that is not transmitted to public authorities — prohibiting the engineer from treating internal or confidential documentation of a safety concern as a substitute for direct notification to the relevant regulatory or public authority, and requiring that the notification be directed to an entity with the authority and mandate to act on the safety concern.
Brief Report Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Obligation
In his report, Engineer A made a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of safety code violations posing a risk to building occupants or the public to recognize that a brief, incidental mention of those violations within a confidential client report does not constitute adequate discharge of the engineer's obligation to notify appropriate public authorities, and that the engineer must take affirmative steps to ensure that the relevant regulatory or enforcement authority — not merely the client — receives actual notice of the safety hazard, because the purpose of the public safety reporting duty is to trigger enforcement action, which cannot occur if the only record of the hazard is buried in a confidential document that public authorities never receive.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally mentioned a material environmental or safety concern to a client to recognize that verbal mention to the client alone does not satisfy the obligation to include that concern in a written report submitted to a public regulatory authority — and to ensure that all material findings communicated verbally to the client are also documented in written reports submitted to public authorities when those authorities are relying on the report for regulatory decision-making.
Broad Instrument of Service Interpretation Activation State
It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c)
State in which a professional ethics body or regulatory authority has interpreted a code provision referencing 'plans and specifications' expansively to encompass all engineering instruments of service — including verbal findings, study results, and advisory communications — thereby activating the full scope of the engineer's public safety reporting obligation regardless of whether a formal written document was produced.
Broad Negligence Indemnification Provision Active State
Engineer A, a civil engineer, requires a broad indemnification provision in all of his agreements where he provides pollution-related services
State in which an engineer's standard contract requires the client to indemnify and hold harmless the engineer for damages and legal costs arising from the engineer's own negligence in performing professional services, creating a contractual risk-transfer arrangement that shifts liability for the engineer's professional errors to the client rather than to the engineer or an insurer.
Broad Philosophical Ethics Principle Narrow Factual Applicability Non-Limitation Constraint
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.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a professional ethics case raises an ethical principle not previously addressed in BER precedent — even if the immediate economic stakes appear relatively small compared to larger commercial or industrial engineering matters — the principle warrants full consideration on its broader philosophical dimensions, prohibiting the dismissal or minimization of an ethics question solely on the basis of the modest scale of the immediate economic harm at issue, and establishing that the ethical significance of a case is determined by the novelty and breadth of the principle implicated rather than by the magnitude of the immediate financial consequences.
Brochure-Misrepresented Departing Engineer
an engineer who, as a principal in an engineering firm, terminated an engineer but continued to distribute a previously printed brochure listing the terminated engineer
A licensed professional engineer who has given notice of departure or has been terminated from an engineering firm, whose name and credentials continue to appear in the firm's marketing brochures and resumes without accurate disclosure of their departure status, creating a potential misrepresentation of the firm's available expertise to prospective clients. Distinguished from 'Terminated Staff Engineer Subject to Credential Misuse' by encompassing both voluntary departures (giving notice) and involuntary terminations, and by focusing on the ethical obligations of the firm rather than the individual engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineer who has been terminated or is departing from an engineering firm, whose name and qualifications continue to be listed in the firm's promotional materials without consent or accurate disclosure of their departure status, creating a misrepresentation of the firm's available expertise to prospective clients.
Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
A licensed professional engineer who is a principal or owner of an engineering firm and who, after issuing a termination notice to a staff engineer, continues to distribute marketing brochures listing that engineer as a current key employee — both during the notice period and after actual termination — thereby misrepresenting the firm's available personnel to prospective clients and the public.
Brochure-Relying Engineering Services Consumer
People reading and relying on the information in an engineering brochure would assume the title 'engineer' means one educated or registered as such.
A member of the public or prospective client who reads and relies upon an engineering firm's marketing brochure to assess the qualifications of its personnel, reasonably assuming that any individual titled 'Engineer' holds an engineering degree or professional license, and who is therefore harmed by misrepresentative use of the title for non-degreed or unlicensed staff.
Brochure Distribution Intent-and-Purpose Evidence Assessment Capability
a second point we considered was whether it was the 'intent and purpose' of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work' by including Engineer A's name in the promotional brochure after Engineer A left the firm.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to assess whether the distribution of a promotional brochure containing a personnel misrepresentation was motivated by the 'intent and purpose' to enhance the firm's qualifications and work — examining circumstantial evidence such as the distributor's actual knowledge of the personnel change, the timing of distribution relative to that knowledge, and the content emphasis of the brochure — and to use this intent assessment as the second required element of the dual-element misrepresentation test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
Brochure Misrepresentation Case-by-Case Pertinence Calibration Capability
While we freely acknowledge that this is sometimes a difficult line to draw, we believe that the best method of determining whether the line is violated is by reviewing each individual matter on a case-by-case basis.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, firm principal, or ethics reviewer to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether a specific personnel listing inaccuracy in a firm's promotional brochure constitutes a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts' — evaluating factors including whether the listed engineer is designated as a key employee, whether their expertise is unique within the firm, whether the area of practice constitutes a significant portion of firm services, and whether the listing was accompanied by highlighting or emphasis — and to calibrate corrective obligations proportionately to this pertinence determination rather than applying a categorical rule.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to correctly apply the two-part test for determining whether a brochure or promotional material violates NSPE Code Section II.5.a: (1) assessing whether the representation or omission concerns 'pertinent facts' — those with clear, decisive, and highly significant relevance to the matter at hand, such as the current employment status of a named key employee — and (2) assessing whether the distribution of the material was motivated by the 'intent and purpose' to enhance the firm's qualifications and work, recognizing that both elements must be present simultaneously for a violation to exist, and applying this dual-element framework to distinguish permissible from impermissible promotional conduct.
Brochure Personnel Credential Differentiation Obligation
Some are licensed professional engineers; others are not.
Duty of an engineering firm distributing marketing materials that list key personnel to clearly differentiate between licensed professional engineers, degreed engineers, and non-degreed technical staff by assigning accurate, non-misleading titles to each category, so that readers of the brochure can accurately assess the composition and qualifications of the firm's professional staff without inferring a greater proportion of licensed engineers than actually exists.
Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
The Board ruled that it was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee, providing Engineer B apprised the prospective client, during negotiation, of Engineer A's pending termination.
Relational principle establishing that when an engineering firm distributes promotional materials listing a named individual as a key employee, and that individual's employment status has materially changed (e.g., termination notice given, departure imminent), the firm bears an obligation to apprise prospective clients of the changed status during active negotiation — such that the firm may permissibly continue using previously printed brochures during the notice period only if it provides contemporaneous corrective disclosure of the pending departure; absent such disclosure, continued distribution of the brochure constitutes misrepresentation of a pertinent fact.
Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Modeling Capability
Capability of an engineering firm and its licensed professional engineers to model and anticipate the reasonable expectations of members of the public who read and rely upon the firm's marketing brochure — specifically, the expectation that any individual listed with the title 'Engineer' or 'Design Engineer' holds an engineering degree or professional registration — and to use that modeled expectation as the standard against which the accuracy and potential misleading effect of brochure personnel listings are evaluated.
Brochure Reader Reasonable Expectation Non-Deception Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineering firm's marketing brochure must not create a false impression in the mind of a reasonable reader — who would assume that any individual listed with the title 'engineer' or 'design engineer' holds an engineering degree or professional registration — prohibiting the use of engineering-implying titles for personnel who lack those qualifications on the grounds that such usage constitutes a gross misrepresentation of the firm's qualifications and effectively falsifies them, regardless of whether the firm intends to deceive.
Broker-Only Prime Engineering Firm Recommending Specialist Referral
Their ethical position in that event was to recommend to the agency that it directly contact Engineer X as the better qualified engineer for the services required.
A licensed professional engineering firm role in which a firm, recognizing that it can contribute only brokerage or administrative services and no substantive technical work to a specialized project, bears an ethical obligation to refrain from offering to serve as prime contractor and instead to recommend directly to the procuring agency that it contact the qualified specialist. This role captures the ethical duty of honest self-assessment and referral when a firm's only substantive contribution would be arranging for another engineer's expertise.
Broker-Only Prime Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm that recognizes it can contribute only brokerage, administrative, or nominal coordination services to a highly specialized procurement — with all substantive technical work falling within a single specialist's expertise — to affirmatively disclose its broker-only role to the procuring agency and, where appropriate, to recommend that the agency engage the specialist directly rather than through the firm as a nominal prime. This obligation arises when: (1) the firm's own technical contribution would be nominal; (2) the entire substantive scope falls within a single specialist's domain; and (3) the firm's prime role would add no genuine value to the client. The obligation reflects the principle that engineering firms must not interpose themselves as unnecessary intermediaries in procurement processes when doing so misleads the client about the team's actual capability structure.
Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist-Direct Referral Obligation
Relational principle establishing that when an engineering firm recognizes it can contribute only brokerage or administrative services — and that the entire substantive technical work falls within the expertise of a specialist it intends to sub-consult — the firm's ethical obligation is to transparently disclose its brokerage-only role to the procuring agency and, where appropriate, to recommend that the agency engage the specialist directly rather than routing the engagement through an intermediary that adds no substantive value. Interposing a nominal prime for brokerage purposes alone undermines procurement efficiency, honest dealing, and the agency's ability to obtain the best qualified services.
Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, having withdrawn from or completed a project due to inadequate design standards, proactively contacts local government officials to advocate for the adoption and implementation of updated, region-wide building codes appropriate to the geographic hazard environment, bearing obligations to use technical expertise in service of broader public safety beyond the immediate client engagement.
[Case 87] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who have identified a public safety risk arising from the absence of applicable building codes or the inadequacy of existing codes — particularly in the context of climate-sensitive coastal development — to advocate for adoption or updating of those codes with appropriate local government authorities, as a component of their professional obligation to protect public welfare beyond the immediate client engagement
Building Code Advocacy for Coastal Storm Surge Protection Capability
The geographic area in which Client A is planning to build the project currently has no building code in place.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk arising from the absence of applicable building codes addressing storm surge elevation requirements to recognize the professional opportunity and obligation to advocate to local government officials for adoption of building codes that address those requirements, and to pursue such advocacy through appropriate institutional channels as a complement to project-level safety recommendations.
Building Code Advocacy for Storm Surge Protection Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk arising from the absence of applicable building codes governing storm surge elevation in a coastal development area to consider advocating to local government officials for adoption of building codes that address 100-year storm surge elevation requirements, so that future development in the area is subject to enforceable minimum safety standards protecting residents from foreseeable climate-driven storm surge risk.
Building Code Inspection Adequacy Standard
Engineer A believes that there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day
Professional norms and regulatory standards governing the minimum requirements for adequate building code inspections, including the number of inspections that can be competently performed per inspector per day, staffing levels necessary to ensure thorough enforcement of applicable code requirements, and the professional obligations of the supervising engineer-director responsible for signing off on inspection reports.
Building Code Selective Enforcement Bargain State
Engineer A could arguably rationalize a decision to permit the inconsistent application of a building code in order to accomplish the larger objective
State in which a public-sector engineer has been offered or is considering an arrangement in which selective non-enforcement of an updated building code is permitted for certain developers or projects in exchange for political or resource concessions — creating a direct conflict between the engineer's duty to enforce codes consistently and the short-term operational benefit of the concession, and raising the appearance of compromising public safety for political gain.
Building Department Code Official Inspector
Each code official member of Engineer A's staff is often required to make as many as 60 code inspections per day
A municipal code enforcement staff role responsible for conducting building inspections to verify compliance with applicable building codes, operating under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer director, and bearing obligations to perform thorough and adequate inspections within resource and time constraints imposed by the employing municipality.
Building Inspection Program PE Under Political Pressure
Engineer A, a PE responsible for the City's building inspection program, was pressed between reductions in staff due to budget cuts and implementation of new, more rigid code requirements
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for a municipal building inspection program who faces political pressure from elected officials to make concessions on code enforcement standards in exchange for resources needed to fulfill public safety obligations, bearing obligations to refuse to sign inadequate inspection reports and to decline agreements that compromise code enforcement integrity, even when such refusal may result in continued resource constraints.
Building Inspection Program Structural Adequacy Escalation Capability
Engineer A has been concerned that as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, the city has been unable to provide a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform adequate and timely building inspections.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer directing a municipal building inspection program to recognize when the program's structural conditions — including inspector-to-inspection ratios, budget constraints, and staffing levels — render adequate and thorough inspections impossible, and to formally escalate that systemic inadequacy to appropriate institutional authorities, documenting the specific structural deficiencies and their implications for public health and safety, rather than acquiescing to the inadequate program conditions.
Building Inspection Program Structural Adequacy Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer directing a municipal building inspection program who recognizes that the program's staffing and workload structure makes adequate inspection impossible — such as requiring 60 inspections per day per inspector under rigorous code requirements — to escalate that structural inadequacy through appropriate institutional channels, including formal written notification to city administration, city council, and if necessary external regulatory authorities, rather than acquiescing in the inadequacy or trading concurrence with safety-compromising measures for administrative relief.
Building Owner Attorney-Represented Litigation Client
Although Attorney retained Engineer A directly, he did so on behalf and for the benefit of the owner
A stakeholder role borne by a building owner who is represented by an attorney in litigation and on whose behalf the attorney retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert, where the owner's interests are served indirectly through the attorney-engineer engagement — and where the absence of conflict between owner and attorney over the safety information is a key factor distinguishing the ethical obligations from cases involving direct client-engineer confidentiality agreements.
Building Owner Safety Recommendation Recipient
A property owner stakeholder role whose building has been identified as structurally unsafe by an investigating engineer, receiving direct safety recommendations (e.g., bracing) to prevent collapse, and whose cooperation with those recommendations bears on public safety outcomes.
Building Owner Selling As-Is with Known Code Violations Client
the client made it clear to the engineer that the building was being sold 'as is,' and the client was not planning to take any remedial action
A client stakeholder role in which a building owner planning to sell an occupied property retains an engineer under a formal confidentiality agreement, explicitly states the building will be sold 'as is' with no remedial action, and discloses to the engineer known deficiencies in building systems (electrical, mechanical) that violate applicable codes and standards and pose injury risks to occupants — thereby generating an ethical conflict between the engineer's contractual confidentiality obligation and the paramount duty to protect occupant safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A client stakeholder role in which a building owner planning to sell an occupied property retains an engineer under a formal confidentiality agreement, explicitly states the building will be sold 'as is' with no remedial action, and discloses known code violations in building systems to the engineer — thereby generating an ethical conflict between the engineer's contractual confidentiality obligation and the paramount duty to protect occupant safety.
Engineer A completes his design which is later incorporated in the plans and specifications for the building and the building is built
A client stakeholder role borne by the owner or developer who commissions the design and construction of a building, receiving engineering services and bearing the consequences of design decisions, including structural performance under environmental conditions.
[proethica-intermediate] Service delivery relationship with duties of competence and care
Engineer A was hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss
A client role that retains a professional engineer to conduct a forensic or investigative assessment of a building for purposes such as fire origin/cause determination, bearing authority over the engagement scope but subject to the engineer's overriding obligations to report structural safety hazards to appropriate authorities regardless of client instructions or interests.
Building Sale Confidentiality-Imposing Client
the structural report written by the engineer was to remain confidential
A client stakeholder role in which a building owner planning to sell an occupied property retains an engineer under a formal confidentiality agreement, explicitly states the building will be sold 'as is' with no remedial action, and discloses known code violations in building systems to the engineer — thereby generating an ethical conflict between the engineer's contractual confidentiality obligation and the paramount duty to protect occupant safety.
a structural engineer inspected a building that was about to be sold, and was apprised confidentially by the owner that, although the building was structurally sound, there were mechanical and electrical code violations
A property owner client role that retains a structural engineer to inspect a building prior to sale, and who confidentially discloses known code violations to the engineer while seeking to limit the scope of the engineer's reporting, bearing authority over the inspection engagement but subject to the engineer's overriding obligation to report known safety violations to appropriate authorities.
Building Structural Safety Investigation Standard
Engineer A, who was also a structural engineer, observes that the building is structurally unstable
Professional norms and technical standards governing the conduct of structural safety investigations, including the identification of structural instability, assessment of collapse risk, and obligations to notify relevant parties when dangerous conditions are discovered during forensic or investigative engineering work
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical standards and methodologies governing the calculation of tributary loads, structural member sizing, and adequacy assessments for building structural elements, including beams, columns, and load-bearing walls
Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
The Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to organizations as such.
Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that the organizational or business form through which engineering services are delivered — whether a corporation, government agency, consulting firm, joint venture, or other entity — neither negates nor influences the obligation of individual engineers within that organization to conform to the NSPE Code of Ethics; establishing that because professional services must be performed by real persons, and real persons establish and implement policies within business structures, the Code applies to the engineer as an individual, and it is incumbent on every NSPE member to endeavor to live up to its provisions regardless of the organizational wrapper through which services are delivered; derived from the NSPE Board of Directors directive adopted January 1971 and applicable to all pertinent code sections.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies universally to all NSPE members and to firms with licensed professional engineers in supervisory or ownership roles, regardless of whether the specific services being provided constitute traditional engineering design, calculation, or judgment work — prohibiting the interpretation that sub-professional or communication services performed by such firms fall outside the Code's ethical requirements.
Business-Relationship-Preserving Hazardous Waste Supervisor Engineer
Engineer B told Technician A only to document the existence of the samples
A licensed professional engineering role in which a supervising engineer, upon receiving field evidence of likely hazardous waste on a client's property, prioritizes the firm's business relationship with the client over regulatory compliance and public safety — communicating the finding only obliquely, directing a subordinate technician merely to document samples, and failing to recommend proper analysis, regulatory notification, or lawful disposal, thereby becoming an accomplice to potential environmental law violations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer supervising environmental field work receives evidence of likely hazardous waste on a client's property but, motivated by business relationship preservation, communicates the finding to the client only obliquely and takes no further action — failing to recommend proper analysis, regulatory notification, or lawful disposal — thereby becoming an accomplice to potential environmental law violations and abdicating the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety.
Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Safety Reporting State
Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client
State in which a professional engineer's primary motivation for suppressing or minimizing a safety or regulatory disclosure is the preservation of a business relationship with a client, rather than a genuine confidentiality obligation — causing the engineer to communicate hazard information in a deliberately vague or indirect manner that falls short of the explicit, actionable notification required by professional ethics codes, and making the engineer a de facto accomplice to potential legal violations.
Business Card Dual-Purpose Personal-Professional Function Recognition Capability
this Board openly acknowledges and celebrates the fact that engineers are persons engaged in the business of engineering, and thus, the business card has multiple purposes.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics evaluator to recognize that business cards serve two simultaneous functions — a personal identification/calling-card function and a business promotion/contact facilitation function — and that this dual nature means business cards are legitimately used in both business and social contexts, such that distributing a card in a social setting does not automatically constitute a professional solicitation or an offer to perform engineering services.
Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E. The business card states NO physical address. The BER found this to be unacceptable
State in which a licensed professional engineer distributes business cards or professional identification materials that create ambiguity about the jurisdictions in which the engineer holds licensure — either through absence of a physical address (preventing inference of licensure jurisdiction), through address-licensure mismatch without clarification, or through omission of the states of licensure — such that a reasonable recipient could form a false impression about the engineer's licensure standing, triggering an obligation to provide clarity sufficient to prevent deceptive inference.
Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability
Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E. The business card states NO physical address. The BER found this to be unacceptable, because, although handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not automatically become an offer to do work, the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who distributes business cards or marketing materials in jurisdictions where they may or may not hold a license to present licensure status information with sufficient clarity to avoid creating confusion or the appearance of deception — including correctly identifying the states in which a license is held, ensuring that the physical address listed does not imply licensure in the address state when no such license is held, and recognizing that the absence of a physical address creates ambiguity about licensure status that constitutes an ethical deficiency.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in business negotiations to recognize when a statement — though technically not a direct lie — is artfully constructed to create a false impression in the mind of the other party, including the ability to identify the misleading implication embedded in the statement and to correctly classify such artful misrepresentation as an ethical violation under professional codes prohibiting deceptive statements.
Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who distributes business cards or professional identification materials in any jurisdiction must ensure that the card clearly and unambiguously communicates the specific states or jurisdictions in which the engineer holds licensure — including by specifying a physical address state and identifying whether that state is among the licensed jurisdictions — prohibiting distribution of business cards that omit a physical address or otherwise create confusion or the appearance of deception about licensure status, as established by BER Case 04-11 and the principle that business card distribution, while conventional business etiquette, carries professional representation obligations that require geographic licensure clarity.
Business Card Licensure Representation Standard
the absence of a physical address creates confusion and the appearance of deception about licensure
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the accurate representation of licensure status on business cards and other professional identification materials, including requirements to identify the specific states in which a license is held and to avoid creating confusion or the appearance of deception about licensure status through omission of address or jurisdictional information
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms, statutory provisions, and regulatory standards governing the lawful and accurate use of the title 'Engineer' by individuals and organizations, prohibiting use of the title by unlicensed persons in contexts that imply licensure or engineering competence, and establishing obligations for organizations to accurately represent the qualifications of staff performing engineering functions
Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation in Multi-State Practice
The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed.
Professional principle requiring that a licensed engineer's business card used in professional contexts include a mailing address, so that recipients can identify the geographic base of the engineer's practice and cross-reference licensure status — the omission of a mailing address on a business card used in a state where the engineer is not licensed may compound the misleading impression created by an unqualified PE designation.
Business Card Non-Offer-to-Work Scope Limitation Constraint
This Board does not take the position that handing out a business card, in whatever setting, is tantamount to offering to do work
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that the act of distributing a business card — in either a business or social context — does not, by itself, constitute an offer to perform engineering work or a solicitation of engineering services, and therefore does not ipso facto trigger state solicitation prohibitions or licensure-based advertising restrictions, establishing that the scope of business card distribution is bounded by its nature as accepted business etiquette rather than as a formal offer to do work, and that formal offers to do work are made through documents expressly designed for that purpose such as statements of qualifications, proposals, and contracts.
Business Card Non-Solicitation Character Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that the act of an engineer handing out a business card — in either a business or social context — does not ipso facto constitute an offer to perform engineering work or a solicitation of professional services, because business cards serve the dual function of personal identification and general business introduction; formal solicitation of work is accomplished through purpose-specific instruments such as statements of qualifications, proposals, and contracts, not through the exchange of contact information
Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Discrimination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, engineering firm, and ethics evaluator to correctly distinguish between the act of distributing a business card — which constitutes accepted business etiquette and personal identification, not an offer to perform engineering work — and formal instruments of business solicitation such as statements of qualifications, proposals, and contracts, which do constitute offers to do work; including the ability to apply this distinction when assessing whether distributing a business card in a given state triggers state engineering licensure solicitation prohibitions.
Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who distributes a business card bearing the PE designation in a professional context must include a physical mailing address on the card, so that recipients can identify the geographic jurisdiction associated with the engineer's practice and licensure — prohibiting distribution of PE-designated business cards that omit any physical address, as such omission creates ambiguity about the engineer's licensure jurisdiction and may mislead recipients about the scope of the engineer's licensed authority.
Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation
it is the opinion of this Board that, to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who uses the PE designation on a business card distributed in any professional context to include a physical (mailing) address on that card, so that recipients can apply the conventional presumption that the engineer is licensed in the state indicated by the address, and so that the absence of an address does not create unresolvable ambiguity about which jurisdiction's licensure the PE designation reflects. When the engineer's physical address is in a state where the engineer is not licensed, the card must additionally identify the specific state(s) of licensure to rebut the conventional address-licensure presumption and avoid deception.
this was a business decision for management and did not entitle the engineers to question the decision on ethical grounds
An organizational management role within an engineering employer that bears authority over product design, procurement, and project direction decisions that are characterized as business rather than engineering-ethics matters, and whose decisions engineers are not ethically entitled to override on professional grounds when no public health or safety issue is implicated.
Business Decision Boundary Between Management Authority and Engineering Ethics Jurisdiction
In Case 61-10 we distinguished a situation in which engineers had objected to the redesign of a commercial product, but which did not entail any question of public health or safety. On that basis we concluded that this was a business decision for management and did not entitle the engineers to question the decision on ethical grounds.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that management's authority to make 'business decisions' is bounded by the domain of engineering ethics: where a decision involves no question of public health or safety and concerns only commercial or operational matters, it falls within legitimate management prerogative and engineers have no ethical grounds to override it; but where the decision implicates public welfare — including unjustified expenditure of substantial public funds — the decision crosses into the domain of engineering ethics and is no longer insulated from professional ethical scrutiny by characterization as a 'business decision.'
Business Decision Boundary Non-Extension to Public Safety Engineering Judgment Obligation
In Case 61-10, we held that engineers assigned to the redesign of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but had an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design. In that case, however, the redesign of the product involved only a question of a lower quality product and did not raise the problem of the product endangering public health or safety
Duty of engineers and ethics reviewing bodies to recognize that while engineers should not question a company's legitimate business decisions (such as decisions to redesign a product at lower quality for commercial reasons), this deference to business judgment does not extend to decisions that endanger public health or safety — and that when a production or manufacturing decision crosses from a business quality decision into a public safety endangerment decision, the engineer's obligation to hold public welfare paramount supersedes the obligation to defer to management's business judgment.
it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state
A representative of an engineering firm — who may or may not be personally licensed in a given state — who engages in business development activities such as distributing business cards and attending business or social functions on behalf of the firm, bearing obligations to ensure the firm holds valid licensure in any state where work is solicited and to avoid deceptive representations about the firm's or their own licensure status.
Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure-Backed Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a business development representative of an engineering firm — including an engineer who focuses on business development but is not personally licensed in a given state — may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development activities in that state, provided that the firm the representative represents has engineers who are duly licensed in that state and who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there, and conversely prohibiting such business development activities when the firm does not have duly licensed engineers in the state, as such unlicensed-firm solicitation constitutes deception that goes beyond the act of tendering a business card and fails to satisfy the intent of state engineering laws and regulations.
Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Compliance Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm and its business development representatives to refrain from engaging in business development activities — including tendering business cards and soliciting work — in a state unless the firm itself holds valid licensure in that state through duly licensed engineers who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there. A business development representative who is not personally licensed in a state may ethically conduct business development only if the firm they represent is duly licensed in that state. Conducting business development for an unlicensed firm in a state where licensure is required constitutes deception and violates the intent of state engineering laws and regulations.
Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Verification Capability
Capability of an engineering firm and its business development representatives to verify, before engaging in business development activities in a given state, that the firm employs engineers who are duly licensed in that state and who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there — recognizing that a business development representative who is not personally licensed may ethically tender business cards and prospect for work only when the firm itself has licensed engineers in that state, and that prospecting without such firm licensure constitutes deception and violates state engineering laws.
Business Negotiation Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer acting as a negotiator or representative in a professional business transaction from making statements that are technically grounded in a past or partial fact but are structured or delivered in a manner designed to create a materially false impression in the counterparty's mind — including statements that reference a third party's prior interest without disclosing that the interest has definitively been withdrawn — establishing that the duty of non-deception encompasses not only affirmative false statements but also artfully misleading technically-true statements that exploit selective framing, omission of material updates, or ambiguous phrasing to induce false beliefs, and that this prohibition applies with full force in commercial and business negotiation contexts regardless of the adversarial or competitive nature of the negotiation, as established by NSPE Code provisions requiring engineers to be truthful and not engage in deceptive or misleading statements in professional dealings.
Business Negotiation Competitive Pressure Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A wants to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal but Engineer B has been stalling.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is acting as a negotiator or representative in a professional business transaction to refrain from fabricating, exaggerating, or misrepresenting competitive pressure — including falsely implying that a third party is an active competing bidder when that party has definitively withdrawn — as a tactic to accelerate or coerce the counterparty's decision. This obligation recognizes that professional ethics obligations apply fully to commercial negotiations conducted by engineers in their professional capacity, and that using deceptive competitive pressure tactics violates the engineer's duty of honesty regardless of the business context.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in professional negotiations or communications to refrain from making statements that are technically true but intentionally designed to mislead the recipient by obscuring material facts — including statements that exploit partial truths, omit decisive context, or create false impressions — recognizing that 'artfully misleading' communication violates the core engineering ethics values of honesty and truthfulness even when no outright falsehood is uttered.
Business Negotiation Honesty Standard Non-Exemption Recognition Capability
The obligation of professional engineers to be honest, truthful, and forthcoming in their professional dealings is a critical ethical principle to which all engineers should adhere.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the professional obligation of honesty and truthfulness applies with equal force to commercial business negotiations — including firm acquisitions, contract negotiations, and business transactions — as it does to technical reports, public testimony, and other professional activities, and that the commercial or adversarial nature of a negotiation does not exempt the engineer from professional ethics obligations prohibiting deceptive statements and artful misrepresentation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the adversarial nature of a legal, quasi-legal, or litigation context does not justify selective use of technical facts, incomplete reporting, or omission of material findings — and to apply the same completeness and objectivity standards to reports produced in adversarial settings as to those produced in non-adversarial professional contexts, consistent with the principle that facts are not adversarial even when interests are polarizing.
Business Negotiation Non-Exemption from Professional Honesty Obligations
Engineer A is acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer B.
Principle establishing that an engineer's professional ethical obligations — particularly honesty and non-deception — apply in full force to business negotiations, commercial transactions, and firm acquisition discussions, and are not suspended or relaxed by the adversarial or competitive character of such negotiations; the fact that deception may be commercially advantageous or conventionally tolerated in arms-length business dealings does not exempt a licensed professional engineer from the higher ethical standards of the profession
Business Pressure Technical Recommendation Separation Constraint
it would seem that these nontechnical considerations were factors that needed to be given weight separate and apart from the decision as to whether the additional testing should be recommended by Engineer A.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is asked to make a technical recommendation in a context involving significant financial pressures — including costs to the employer, clients, and the public — must formulate and deliver that recommendation based solely on technical findings, treating business and financial considerations as factors to be weighed separately by the employer rather than as inputs that modify the technical recommendation itself, prohibiting the subordination of technical judgment to business pressure and requiring that the engineer present complete technical findings so that the employer can make an informed decision that appropriately weighs both technical and business factors.
Business Relationship Non-Justification for Hazardous Waste Reporting Suppression Capability
Engineer B tells Technician A only to document the existence of the samples.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the existence of an ongoing commercial relationship between the engineer's firm and a client does not constitute an ethical justification for withholding, minimizing, or suppressing required regulatory reporting of likely hazardous waste, and to correctly identify that prioritizing business relationship preservation over mandatory hazardous waste disclosure makes the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the desire to maintain good business relations with a client — including a client who provides ongoing business to the engineer's firm — does not constitute an ethical justification for withholding, minimizing, or euphemistically communicating information about potential environmental hazards or safety risks, and to correctly identify that prioritizing business relationship maintenance over candid hazard disclosure constitutes an ethical violation making the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful action.
Business Relationship Non-Justification for Regulatory Reporting Suppression Obligation
Technician A is then told by Engineer B that since the client does other business with the firm, Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the existence of an ongoing commercial relationship between the engineer's firm and a client does not constitute a legitimate justification for suppressing, delaying, or limiting the engineer's legally and ethically required response to the discovery of likely hazardous waste on the client's property — including the duty to analyze samples, notify the client clearly of legal obligations, and notify proper regulatory authorities — and to refrain from allowing business relationship preservation to override these paramount public welfare duties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers or receives evidence that a client's property contains potentially hazardous materials to refrain from limiting disclosure to vague, oblique, or euphemistic language motivated by a desire to preserve ongoing business relations with the client, and instead to communicate the hazard clearly, recommend appropriate analysis, and advise the client of applicable legal obligations — recognizing that business relationship preservation does not constitute a legitimate justification for inadequate safety communication.
Business Relationship Non-Subordination of Hazardous Material Disclosure Obligation
it appeared that Engineer B's primary concern was not so much maintaining the client's confidentiality as it was in maintaining good business relations with a client.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers or receives evidence that a client's property contains potentially hazardous materials to refrain from limiting disclosure to vague, oblique, or euphemistic language motivated by a desire to preserve ongoing business relations with the client, and instead to communicate the hazard clearly, recommend appropriate analysis, and advise the client of applicable legal obligations — recognizing that business relationship preservation does not constitute a legitimate justification for inadequate safety communication.
Business Relationship Preservation Non-Excuse for Safety Communication Adequacy
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's interest in maintaining ongoing business relations with a client does not constitute an ethical justification for providing inadequate, vague, or incomplete communication of safety or legal risks discovered in the course of professional engagement — recognizing that the engineer's primary concern must be the client's legal compliance and public welfare, not the preservation of commercial relationships, and that business motives that compromise safety communication adequacy constitute an independent ethical violation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who are asked to make technical recommendations — including recommendations about safety testing, system deployment readiness, or risk mitigation — to formulate those recommendations based solely on technical findings and professional judgment, maintaining strict separation between the technical recommendation and the business, financial, competitive, or political considerations that may bear on the ultimate organizational decision, so that decision-makers receive an uncontaminated technical assessment and can then apply business judgment to that assessment independently
Business Relationship Preservation Safety Reporting Non-Subordination Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from subordinating a public safety or environmental reporting obligation to the desire to preserve an ongoing business relationship with a client — establishing that the engineer's paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare supersedes commercial relationship interests, and that structuring communications to avoid triggering legal reporting obligations in order to maintain client goodwill constitutes an ethical violation equivalent to active suppression of safety information, as established by BER Case 92-6 and the principle that engineers must not allow business considerations to make them accomplices to potentially unlawful actions.
Business Relationship Safety Disclosure Non-Subordination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the desire to maintain good business relations with a client — including a client who provides ongoing business to the engineer's firm — does not constitute an ethical justification for withholding, minimizing, or euphemistically communicating information about potential environmental hazards or safety risks, and to correctly identify that prioritizing business relationship maintenance over candid hazard disclosure constitutes an ethical violation making the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful action.
CADD-Competence Prerequisite for Technology-Assisted Sealing Principle
The change to CADD provides the BER with concerns that require assurance that the professional engineer has the requisite background, education and training to be proficient with the dynamics of CADD including the limitations of current technology.
Professional principle requiring that an engineer who uses Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) or similar advanced design-generation systems in the preparation of documents to be signed and sealed must possess sufficient background, education, and training to understand both the capabilities and the limitations of those systems — and must not rely on system-generated outputs that the engineer neither prepared nor fully understands, even when the engineer has general confidence in the system's reliability. Proficiency with the technology is a prerequisite to its ethical use in professional engineering practice.
CADD-Reliant Technology-Dependent Design Engineer
It is critical for engineers to fully understand the role that new technologies such as CADD will play in the performance of professional services.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer employs Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) or analogous computational design tools to prepare engineering documents, plans, and specifications, bearing obligations to maintain sufficient technical competence to understand and critically evaluate tool outputs, to exercise genuine professional judgment rather than deferring uncritically to system-generated solutions, and to ensure that the technology serves as an aid to — not a substitute for — professional expertise and responsible charge.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role that employs artificial intelligence tools (language processing, drafting, or design software) to assist in the preparation of engineering reports, plans, and specifications, bearing full obligations of direction, control, competency verification, confidentiality, and attribution over AI-generated outputs.
CADD Competence Prerequisite Seal Authorization Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer may not sign and seal engineering documents produced using a CADD system — whether self-prepared or prepared by supervised personnel — unless the engineer possesses the requisite background, education, and training to be proficient with the dynamics of the CADD system, including an understanding of the limitations of current technology; general engineering licensure does not substitute for CADD-specific competence, and the absence of such competence renders sealing ethically impermissible regardless of the engineer's confidence in the system or prior experience with it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint arising from a professional's lack of prior experience or verified understanding of an AI tool's functionality, accuracy, and limitations, which restricts the degree to which that tool's outputs may be relied upon without independent substantive verification before professional use or submission.
CADD Direction-and-Control Responsible Charge Sufficiency Calibration Capability
The key requirement is that an engineer possesses sufficient competence, assumes full responsibility for the work product and carefully directs, controls and reviews the material prepared under the engineer's responsible charge.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents prepared by other personnel using a CADD system to correctly calibrate what level of direction, control, and review satisfies the responsible charge standard — recognizing that the engineer need not personally prepare every document, but must check and review the work in some detail, establish design concepts and requirements, respond to technical questions, and monitor design progress — and to distinguish this workable standard from both the overly strict requirement of personal preparation and the insufficiently rigorous standard of mere general supervision without detailed review.
Engineer A, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents he prepared using a CADD system
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the signing and sealing of engineering documents produced using Computer-Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) systems, whether prepared by the signing engineer directly or by others working under their direction and control
CADD Personal Preparation Seal Permissibility Constraint
Turning to the circumstances of the two instant questions, based upon our discussion clarifying BER Case 86-2, we believe logic would dictate that in either case it would not be unethical for an engineer to sign and seal the drawings in question as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system is ethically permitted to sign and seal those documents, provided the engineer possesses sufficient competence in the CADD system; personal authorship of CADD-produced documents satisfies the direction-and-control requirement of NSPE Code II.2.b without requiring that the engineer also conduct a separate detailed review, because the act of personal preparation inherently constitutes the requisite direction and control — distinguishing self-prepared CADD documents from CADD documents prepared by supervised subordinates.
CADD Self-Authored Document Seal Validity Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system is ethically permitted — and professionally responsible — to sign and seal those documents, provided the engineer possesses sufficient competence in the CADD system to evaluate the technical accuracy and completeness of the output; the self-authorship satisfies the responsible charge requirement, but does not eliminate the competence prerequisite for the tool used.
CADD Self-Authored Document Seal Validity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who personally prepares engineering documents using a CADD system to recognize that affixing their professional seal to those self-authored documents is ethically valid and fully satisfies the responsible charge requirement — and that the use of CADD as a drafting or design tool does not diminish, qualify, or undermine the legitimacy of the seal — because the engineer's personal authorship of the work product is the operative basis for seal authority, regardless of the technological medium used to produce it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who affixes their professional seal to engineering plans, reports, analyses, or similar documents to have either personally prepared those documents or to have conducted a detailed, substantive review of those documents sufficient to constitute responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision) — and to refrain from sealing documents prepared by others under general direction or supervision alone, without detailed review — recognizing that the professional seal certifies personal accountability for the technical content and that general supervisory involvement without detailed review is insufficient to satisfy the responsible charge requirement.
CADD Self-Authored Document Seal Validity Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that signing and sealing engineering documents that the engineer personally prepared using a CADD system is ethically valid and professionally appropriate — understanding that the ethical legitimacy of sealing derives from personal authorship and technical accountability, not from the medium or tool used to produce the document, and that CADD is a drafting tool that does not alter the fundamental seal-validity analysis when the engineer is the document's author.
CADD Supervisory Direction-and-Control Competence Verification Capability
Engineer B, a registered professional engineer signs and seals documents which are the results of the efforts of others using a CADD system working under Engineer B's direction and control.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents produced by other personnel using a CADD system to verify, before sealing, that those documents were prepared under the engineer's genuine direction and control — including the ability to assess whether the engineer exercised sufficient supervisory engagement over the CADD-based work process to satisfy the responsible charge standard, and to distinguish between nominal supervision and the substantive direction-and-control required to ethically affix a professional seal to work produced by others.
CADD Supervisory Direction-and-Control Seal Authorization Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer may sign and seal engineering documents produced by other personnel using a CADD system only when the engineer exercised genuine direction and control over the preparation of those documents — including outlining solution guidelines, making or directly supervising all engineering decisions, and conducting a detailed substantive review sufficient to construct or reconstruct the work — prohibiting sealing based on general supervision or post-hoc cursory review alone.
CADD Supervisory Direction-and-Control Seal Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents produced by other personnel using a CADD system to ensure, as a prerequisite to sealing, that those personnel worked under the engineer's genuine direction and control — meaning the engineer actively directed the technical approach, reviewed intermediate work product, exercised substantive supervisory judgment over the CADD-produced output, and maintained the level of engagement necessary to constitute responsible charge — and to refrain from sealing CADD-produced documents prepared by others absent such direction and control, regardless of whether the engineer holds a supervisory title or organizational authority over the preparers.
CADD Supervisory Seal Detailed Review Sufficiency Constraint
Were we to decide BER Case 86-2 today, we would conclude that the it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail.
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents produced by other personnel using a CADD system must have checked and reviewed those documents in some detail — a standard that is less than personal preparation of every element but more than general supervision or cursory post-hoc review; the engineer must have been sufficiently involved in directing, controlling, and reviewing the work to be able to assume full professional responsibility for the work product, prohibiting sealing based solely on confidence in subordinates' abilities or general oversight of project progress without substantive technical engagement with the documents themselves.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Regulatory and legal constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who affixes their seal to engineering work product — including AI-generated documents — must have exercised active, substantive review and direction over that work product sufficient to establish genuine responsible charge, prohibiting sealing of documents reviewed only cursorily or superficially.
CADD System Output Technical Evaluation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to evaluate the technical accuracy, completeness, and professional adequacy of engineering documents produced using a CADD system — whether self-authored or prepared by supervised personnel — including sufficient understanding of the CADD system's functionality, output characteristics, and potential error modes to conduct a substantive technical review, and to recognize when CADD-generated outputs require additional verification before a professional seal may be affixed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to evaluate one's own level of familiarity and competence with a novel AI tool before relying on it to generate professional work product, including understanding the tool's functionality, limitations, accuracy characteristics, and potential failure modes, and to make an informed judgment about whether sufficient competence exists to use the tool responsibly in a professional context.
CADD Technology Crutch Substitution Prohibition Constraint
As night follows day one can be assured that CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement.
Foundational ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from employing CADD or similar computer-aided design systems as a replacement for, or substitute for, independent professional engineering judgment and competence; the engineer must use CADD strictly as a tool assisting in the performance of professional services, and may not incorporate a CADD-generated solution that the engineer has neither prepared nor fully understands merely on the basis of confidence in the system or prior experience with it — such passive acceptance constitutes an impermissible delegation of professional judgment to a technological system and creates both liability exposure and an ethical violation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Foundational ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting engineers from using any technological tool — including AI, CADD, or CD-ROM-based design systems — as a replacement or substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring that technology serve only as a supplement to professional expertise and that all outputs be evaluated against the engineer's own professional standards before acceptance.
CADD Technology Non-Crutch Professional Judgment Preservation Obligation
CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who employs CADD or similar computer-aided systems in the preparation or supervision of engineering documents to ensure that those systems are used strictly as tools that assist the engineer's own professional judgment — and never as substitutes for, or replacements of, that judgment — recognizing that CADD systems used beyond their capacity as tools have a propensity to become crutches that displace engineering competence, and that any solution incorporated from a CADD system that the engineer has neither independently prepared nor fully understands constitutes an abdication of professional responsibility, regardless of the engineer's confidence in the system or prior experience with it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from treating any software tool, CD-ROM library, design template, or automated system as a substitute for the domain-specific education, training, and experience required to practice competently in a technical field, and to independently verify — through review of professional standards, consultation with qualified peers, or other reliable means — that any tool adopted for engineering practice genuinely supports rather than replaces the engineer's own competence. This obligation applies regardless of vendor claims about the tool's capabilities and regardless of the engineer's general engineering credentials in other domains.
CADD Tool Competence Prerequisite for Sealing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents produced using a CADD system — whether personally prepared or prepared by supervised personnel — to possess sufficient understanding of the CADD system and its outputs to evaluate the technical accuracy, completeness, and compliance of the resulting documents, recognizing that CADD tools may introduce systematic errors, modeling assumptions, or output artifacts that require domain-competent review, and that the professional seal certifies the engineer's personal accountability for the technical content regardless of the tool used to generate it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to treat computers, CD-ROMs, software libraries, technical databases, and all other technological tools as supplements to — and never as replacements or substitutes for — time-tested professional experience and independent engineering judgment, recognizing that professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon technology and technical information in lieu of substantive domain expertise, and that any technological tool adopted in practice must be used in conjunction with, not instead of, the engineer's own competence in the relevant technical domain.
Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Personality-Avoidance Obligation
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the engineering work, conclusions, or analyses of another engineer — whether before a legislative committee, public hearing, court, commission, or other public body — to apply due restraint by: (1) avoiding personalities and personal abuse directed at the criticized engineer; (2) basing criticism exclusively on the engineering conclusions or the application of engineering data; and (3) offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than mere personal attacks, recognizing that Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism but only requires that it be conducted with professional restraint and objectivity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer — particularly at hearings on an engineering project or in public forums — in the interest of the public to offer such criticism on a high level of professional deportment: avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or the application of engineering data, and offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks, recognizing that public criticism of a peer's work is ethically permissible only when conducted with due restraint and professional objectivity.
Canon 24 Due-Restraint Public Criticism Personality-Avoidance Constraint
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.'
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer — including before legislative committees, public hearings, courts, commissions, and other tribunals — must apply due restraint by avoiding personalities and abuse, and must base the criticism on engineering conclusions or the application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses, prohibiting malicious or false attacks on the other engineer's professional reputation while permitting substantive engineering-grounded critique, and establishing that Canon 24's due-restraint requirement does not prohibit public criticism of another engineer's work but only regulates the manner in which such criticism is offered, as established by Canon 24 and the BER's interpretation that 'due restraint' means avoiding personalities and abuse while grounding criticism in engineering data.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer — particularly at public hearings on engineering projects in the interest of the public — must offer that criticism on a high level of professional deportment, prohibiting personalities, abuse, and malicious or false attacks on the other engineer's professional reputation, and requiring that the criticism be grounded in engineering conclusions or the application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses, as established by NSPE Code Section 12 and BER Case Nos. 63-6 and 65-9.
Canon 24 Forum Limitation Legislative Duty Non-Interference Self-Application Capability
Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for acts of public importance.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics bodies interpreting Canon 24 — to correctly recognize that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press does not and should not be interpreted as interfering with the engineer's duty to clients, employers, or the public to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance, and to apply this purposive interpretation when deciding whether to offer technical criticism before legislative committees, commissions, courts, or other public tribunals.
Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Duty Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics bodies interpreting Canon 24 — to recognize that while Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should ordinarily be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press, this forum limitation should not be interpreted as interfering with the engineer's duty to the client, employer, or the public to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies (including legislative committees, courts, commissions, and public hearings) that bear responsibility for acts of public importance; the engineer's duty to serve public bodies with expert testimony takes precedence over the forum preference expressed in Canon 24.
Canon 24 Forum Limitation Non-Interference with Public Body Testimony Duty Constraint
Canon 24 implies that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press.
Ethical constraint establishing that Canon 24's implication that engineering criticism should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press must not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to the client, employer, or the public to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance — prohibiting the use of Canon 24's forum-preference language to bar or discourage engineers from testifying before legislative committees, courts, commissions, and other public tribunals on engineering matters of public significance, and establishing that Canon 5's recognition of engineering opinion testimony before courts, commissions, and other tribunals extends to public hearings and procedures generally, as established by the BER's interpretation of Canon 24 in conjunction with Canon 5.
Capacity Clarity Obligation in Dual-Role Regulatory Testimony
At the same time, it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Professional principle requiring engineers who simultaneously hold government employment and private consulting relationships to unambiguously establish and disclose the specific capacity — governmental or private — in which they are testifying at any regulatory or administrative proceeding, so that the regulatory body, opposing parties, and the public can accurately assess the authority, independence, and potential bias of the testimony; the obligation applies regardless of whether the engineer subjectively believes the distinction is clear
Capital-Constrained Resilience Gap State
Capital constraints prevent the organization from installing a system of batteries to store energy for use at night or in bad weather
State in which a proposed engineering design or system is technically capable of meeting normal operational requirements but lacks a critical resilience component — such as energy storage, redundancy, or backup capacity — because capital constraints prevent its inclusion, and the absence of that component creates a foreseeable vulnerability under non-normal conditions (e.g., extreme weather, grid stress events), requiring the engineer to disclose the resilience gap and its implications to the decision-making authority.
Capital-Constrained Storage Gap Board Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified that capital constraints prevent installation of battery storage — thereby creating a material reliability gap in the proposed solar energy system — must disclose both the capital constraint and its operational consequence (inability to supply energy at night or in bad weather) prominently in the advisory report to the decision-making authority, prohibiting the engineer from presenting the capital-constrained solar system as equivalent to the replaced generator without disclosing the storage gap and its reliability implications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a capital-imposed resilience gap in a proposed design — such as the absence of battery storage in a solar energy system due to budget limitations — must disclose that resilience gap and its operational consequences to the decision-making authority in the advisory report, prohibiting the engineer from presenting the capital-constrained design as fully equivalent to the replaced system without disclosing the performance limitations created by the capital constraint, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to provide complete and accurate information extends to the consequences of resource limitations that shape the proposed design.
Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a capital-imposed resilience gap in a proposed design — such as the absence of battery storage in a solar energy system due to budget limitations — must disclose that resilience gap and its operational consequences to the decision-making authority in the advisory report, prohibiting the engineer from presenting the capital-constrained design as fully equivalent to the replaced system without disclosing the performance limitations created by the capital constraint, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to provide complete and accurate information extends to the consequences of resource limitations that shape the proposed design.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Resource constraint arising from a client's financial limitations that restricts the scope of protective measures, safeguards, or design features that can be implemented, creating tension between economically feasible solutions and professionally required standards of protection.
Carbon Footprint Advocacy Pressure Resistance in Technical Reporting Capability
Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable and will satisfy those stakeholders interested in reducing the organization's carbon footprint.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing a technical advisory report to recognize when stakeholder advocacy for carbon footprint reduction — or other sustainability objectives — is creating implicit or explicit pressure to present a proposed energy system as unambiguously favorable, and to resist that pressure by ensuring that the report includes complete disclosure of identified risks, limitations, and adverse systemic effects, even when such disclosure may undermine the stakeholders' preferred outcome.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to maintain independent professional judgment and fulfill disclosure and reporting obligations even when client preferences, institutional pressures, or project timeline considerations create pressure to minimize, omit, or downplay identified risks — including environmental justice risks, long-term lifecycle risks, and climate policy misalignment findings — and to resist the temptation to allow client preferences to shape the completeness or objectivity of professional reports and recommendations.
stakeholders have expressed interest in reducing the organization's carbon footprint
A stakeholder role filled by individuals or groups affiliated with an organization who advocate for reducing the organization's environmental impact—particularly carbon emissions—by proposing transitions from fossil-fuel-based energy systems to renewable alternatives, bearing no direct professional obligations but establishing the preference context that engineers must faithfully represent while also disclosing countervailing technical and public safety considerations.
Career-Phase Ethics Continuity Recognition Capability
the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of engineering work apply throughout all phases of an engineer's career, starting with engineering school, emerging through the intern phase, and continuing through practice
Capability of a professional engineer at any career stage — including engineering student, intern, and licensed practitioner — to recognize that professional ethical obligations apply continuously across all phases of an engineering career, that the intern phase is not exempt from ethical scrutiny, and that the Board of Ethical Review's jurisdiction extends to employment ethics and conduct throughout the full arc of professional development.
Career-Phase Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of professional engineering ethics apply throughout all phases of an engineer's career — from engineering school through the intern phase and continuing through licensed practice — prohibiting the treatment of pre-licensure or intern status as a basis for reduced ethical obligation, and establishing that the ethics of an engineer's employment, including pre-employment representations, disclosure obligations, and conduct toward employers and clients, fall squarely within the scope of professional ethics review.
Case-By-Case Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Non-Finite-Answer Constraint
There is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about Case No. 79-2 environmental dangers for particular projects.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who designs a project with significant environmental trade-offs — such as a landfill expansion that balances waste disposal necessity against methane migration and groundwater contamination risk — must apply case-by-case professional judgment to the specific site conditions, prohibiting the engineer from treating any single regulatory guideline, federal standard, or published technical criterion as a universally controlling or dispositive answer to the environmental trade-off question, and establishing that the absence of a finite, universally applicable answer to such trade-offs does not relieve the engineer of the obligation to exercise and document sincere professional judgment calibrated to the particular circumstances of each project, as established by EPA Solid Waste Disposal Guidelines (Federal Register, March 26, 1979) and BER Case No. 79-2.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer has designed a project that complies with applicable state and local environmental laws but presents residual environmental risks — such as methane gas migration or groundwater contamination — the engineer's professional judgment serves as the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs and unavoidable environmental degradation, prohibiting external actors from characterizing the engineer's compliance-based design decision as unethical solely because residual environmental risks remain, and establishing that the absence of a finite answer to environmental trade-offs does not render the engineer's judgment-based decision an ethical violation.
Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation
we believe that the best method of determining whether the line is violated is by reviewing each individual matter on a case-by-case basis
Duty of an engineering firm and its principals, when evaluating whether continued listing of a named engineer in promotional materials constitutes an ethical violation, to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts and circumstances — including whether the engineer is highlighted as a 'key employee,' whether the engineer's departure materially alters the firm's qualifications in the relevant practice area, whether the practice area constitutes a significant portion of firm services, and whether there is intent to enhance firm qualifications — rather than applying a categorical rule. This obligation reflects the Board's consistent methodology of individualized pertinence analysis rather than bright-line rules for brochure personnel listing.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional engineer or engineering firm distributing promotional materials to ensure that any representation of personnel or qualifications satisfies both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) the fact represented must be 'pertinent' — having clear and decisive relevance to a client's selection decision — and (2) the representation must not be made with the intent and purpose of enhancing the firm's qualifications or work beyond what is accurate. When both elements are present, the representation constitutes a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a. Engineers and firms must affirmatively evaluate promotional content against both prongs before distribution, and must refrain from distributing materials that satisfy both elements simultaneously.
Case-by-Case Environmental Site Analysis Obligation
each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment
Domain-specific principle establishing that engineering judgments about environmental impacts of infrastructure projects — particularly land disposal and landfill facilities — cannot be resolved by generic or universal criteria alone, but require site-specific, case-by-case analysis of the particular circumstances found at each location, accounting for local environmental conditions, regulatory guidelines, and the specific balance between societal need and environmental degradation at that site.
Case 61-10 Business Decision Non-Safety Public Health Distinguishability Constraint
Ethical and analytical constraint establishing that the BER Case 61-10 holding — that engineers assigned to redesign a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision but had an obligation to point out safety hazards — is distinguishable from cases involving public health and safety endangerment, because Case 61-10 involved only a lower quality product without public health or safety implications; prohibiting the mechanical application of the Case 61-10 business-decision deference principle to situations where the engineering work would endanger public health or safety, and establishing that the public health and safety threshold is the operative factual distinction that removes the case from the business-decision deference domain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and analytical constraint requiring that when a professional ethics review body applies prior BER precedent cases to a current situation, it must systematically distinguish between precedent cases involving direct public health and safety danger — which establish mandatory escalation obligations — and precedent cases involving only financial impropriety or administrative concerns without public health and safety impact — which establish only personal conscience rights — prohibiting the mechanical application of non-safety precedent to safety-critical situations and vice versa, and establishing that the public health and safety threshold is the operative factual distinction that determines which precedent line governs the current case.
Case 85-3 Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite Cross-Context Application Capability
in the recent Case 85-3 where an engineer with experience and background solely in the field of chemical engineering accepted a position as a county surveyor, we noted that although the duties of the position included oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement but did not include actual preparation of engineering and surveying documents, nevertheless the engineer was unethical in accepting the position.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics adjudicators to apply the principle established in BER Case 85-3 — that an engineer may not ethically accept an oversight role whose primary function is oversight of technical work in domains where the engineer lacks the qualifications and experience to perform that work competently — across different factual contexts, including the context of a chief engineer sealing plans across multiple technical disciplines; including the ability to distinguish the Case 85-3 scenario (out-of-discipline county surveyor) from the present scenario (large-firm chief engineer sealing delegated work) and to correctly identify which aspects of the precedent principle apply and which do not.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to retrieve two BER precedent cases with different fact patterns (BER 65-9 and BER 79-2), identify the factual distinctions between those precedents and the present case, recognize that despite those distinctions the precedents remain instructive for the present analysis, and correctly apply the synthesized ethical framework — specifically that engineers may reach different conclusions from the same facts and that environmental issues involve subjective trade-offs — to a present case involving a single engineer's disclosure obligations at a public hearing.
Causal Nexus Establishment Before Design Failure Ethical Culpability Finding Obligation
It is determined that had Engineer A followed the severe weather design parameters, the structural failure would not have occurred
Duty of a professional ethics board or reviewing authority evaluating an engineer's design failure to establish, before finding an ethical violation, that a demonstrable causal nexus exists between the specific conduct alleged to be deficient (e.g., failure to apply newly published design standards) and the adverse outcome (e.g., structural failure), such that the failure would not have occurred had the engineer performed the allegedly required conduct. Where the causal link is established — as when it is determined that application of the updated standards would have prevented the failure — the ethical culpability finding is supported. Where the causal link is absent or speculative, the ethical violation finding is not warranted even if the conduct fell short of best practice.
Causal Nexus Establishment for Design Failure Culpability Assessment Capability
Capability of a professional ethics board or reviewing authority to establish, before finding ethical culpability for a design failure, a demonstrable causal nexus between the engineer's specific conduct — such as failure to apply newly published design standards — and the resulting structural failure, including the ability to distinguish cases where the failure was causally linked to the engineer's omission from cases where the failure would have occurred regardless, and to apply this causal analysis as a prerequisite to any ethical culpability finding.
[proethica-intermediate] Ability to trace complex causal chains and establish responsibility relationships (Sarmiento et al. 2023, Wright's NESS test)
Causal Nexus Requirement for Design Failure Ethical Culpability
Engineer A, who has experience with structural designs in this area of the country, designs the structural system based upon what Engineer A believes constitutes sound structural engineering principles
Principle governing the ethical evaluation of engineering design failures: moral culpability for a structural or systems failure requires not only that the engineer made a suboptimal technical choice, but that a causal nexus exists between that choice and the harm, and that the choice fell below the applicable standard of professional care at the time of design — distinguishing ethical violations from mere technical errors, hindsight criticism, or outcomes attributable to unforeseeable events.
Causation Complexity Disclosure Constraint
One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or reviewing firm, when conducting or reporting on an independent technical analysis of harm causation, disclose all identified contributing factors — including third-party actions that complicate or attenuate the causal chain — prohibiting reports that present a single-cause narrative when the technical evidence supports multiple contributing causes, and requiring that the relative contribution of each identified factor be communicated to the extent technically determinable.
Certificate of Authority Consequence Explanation Collegial Duty Constraint
part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement (e.g., identifying the professional engineers present in the state and their licensure status, office location(s), engineers in responsible charge)
Ethical constraint requiring that when a licensed professional engineer counsels a professional colleague about the colleague's failure to obtain a required certificate of authority to practice engineering in a jurisdiction, the counseling engineer must explain the substantive legal and professional consequences of the non-compliance — including impairment of the colleague's ability to seek judicial redress, inability to enforce contracts, and inability to collect payment for engineering services — so that the colleague can make an informed decision about remediation, prohibiting a superficial notification that omits the material consequences of the violation.
Certificate of Authority Consequence Explanation Collegial Duty Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who counsels a professional colleague about the colleague's failure to obtain a required certificate of authority to practice engineering in a jurisdiction to explain, as part of that collegial counsel, the substantive reasons for and consequences of the certificate of authority requirement — including the purpose of identifying licensed engineers present in the state, their licensure status, office locations, and engineers in responsible charge — and the practical legal consequences of non-compliance, such as impaired ability to seek judicial redress, inability to enforce contracts, and inability to obtain payment for engineering services rendered in that jurisdiction, so that the colleague can make a fully informed decision to remedy the violation.
Certificate of Authority Practical Consequence Articulation Capability
the failure by Engineer X to obtain the certificate of authority would impair Engineer X and his firm in their efforts to seek redress in the courts of State P, and might result in XYZ's inability to enforce its contracts and obtain payment for engineering services
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand and clearly articulate the concrete practical and legal consequences that flow from a firm's failure to obtain a required certificate of authority in a state where it performs engineering services — including the firm's impaired ability to seek legal redress in state courts, potential inability to enforce contracts, risk of being unable to collect payment for engineering services rendered, and reputational and regulatory exposure — and to communicate these consequences effectively to a colleague or competitor as part of collegial counsel aimed at motivating voluntary compliance.
Certificate of Authority Regulatory Framework Knowledge Capability
Engineer A learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P.
Capability to understand, retrieve, and apply the regulatory framework governing certificates of authority for engineering firms practicing across state lines — including knowledge of which states require firm-level certificates of authority distinct from individual PE licensure, the application procedures and conditions for obtaining such certificates, the consequences of practicing without one, and the distinction between a firm's certificate of authority and an individual engineer's professional license.
Certificate of Authority to Practice Engineering Standard
Engineer X is the owner of XYZ Engineering in State Q
State-level legal and regulatory requirement that engineering firms operating across state lines obtain a formal certificate of authority (firm licensure) before offering or performing engineering services in a state where they are not domiciled, distinct from individual engineer licensure
Certificate of Occupancy Authority Re-Notification After Structural Modification Discovery Obligation
Engineer A also learns that following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural deficiencies in a building that was previously issued a certificate of occupancy — particularly where the deficiency arose from construction modifications reviewed or approved by the issuing official — to notify that same issuing authority of the newly identified safety concern, recognizing that the official who granted occupancy approval bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use and is the appropriate first-line authority for remedial action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural deficiencies in a building that was previously issued a certificate of occupancy by a building official — particularly where the deficiency may have arisen from construction modifications reviewed or approved by that official — to notify that same issuing authority of the newly identified safety concern, recognizing that the official who granted occupancy approval bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use and is the appropriate first-line authority for remedial action.
Certificate of Occupancy Governmental Approval Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Escalation Constraint
The changes were approved by the town and the extension is built and a certificate of occupancy is issued.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety concern is not relieved of the duty to escalate that concern by the fact that the relevant governmental authority has already reviewed and approved the structural modifications and issued a certificate of occupancy — prohibiting the engineer from treating official governmental approval as a complete discharge of the professional safety obligation, and requiring that the engineer notify the property owner and relevant authorities of the perceived deficiency even when the modification was officially sanctioned.
Certificate of Occupancy Issued Despite Structural Deficiency State
State in which a governmental authority has formally issued a certificate of occupancy for a building that a qualified engineer subsequently determines to have a structural deficiency or safety risk, creating a conflict between the official regulatory approval record and the engineer's professional assessment.
Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural deficiencies in a building that was previously issued a certificate of occupancy to recognize that the authority that issued that certificate — typically the county or municipal building official — is the appropriate regulatory party to notify of the newly discovered deficiency, and to initiate contact with that specific authority rather than a generic regulatory body, on the basis that the issuing authority bears ongoing jurisdiction over the building's compliance with safety standards and has the regulatory power to require corrective action.
Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Safety Re-Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural deficiencies in a building that was previously issued a certificate of occupancy by a building official — particularly where the deficiency may have arisen from construction modifications reviewed or approved by that official — to notify that same issuing authority of the newly identified safety concern, recognizing that the official who granted occupancy approval bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use and is the appropriate first-line authority for remedial action.
Certificate of Occupancy Issuing Authority Structural Modification Safety Re-Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that structural modifications approved under a certificate of occupancy may have compromised the structural integrity of a building to notify the authority that issued the certificate of occupancy — recognizing that the issuing authority bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use and is the appropriate first-line regulatory contact for remedial action when the deficiency arose from approved construction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural deficiencies in a building that was previously issued a certificate of occupancy — particularly where the deficiency arose from construction modifications reviewed or approved by the issuing official — to notify that same issuing authority of the newly identified safety concern, recognizing that the official who granted occupancy approval bears regulatory responsibility for the building's continued safe use and is the appropriate first-line authority for remedial action.
Certificate of Occupancy Non-Preclusion of Engineer Safety Duty Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that the prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy by a governmental building official does not preclude or discharge a licensed professional engineer's independent duty to report a subsequently discovered structural safety deficiency — prohibiting the engineer from treating the regulatory approval as a complete shield against the obligation to notify the issuing authority and affected property owners of conditions that render the approved structure unsafe, and establishing that the engineer's paramount public safety duty supersedes deference to prior regulatory action.
Certificate of Occupancy Regulatory Framework
the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
Legal and regulatory framework governing the issuance of certificates of occupancy by building officials, including the conditions under which such certificates are granted following construction modifications and the obligations of engineers and officials when structural safety concerns arise post-issuance
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A local government ordinance establishing construction or safety requirements applicable to buildings and structures within a municipality, including retrofit mandates for existing or in-progress construction projects
Certification-as-Guarantee Scope Recognition Capability
A party that provides a certification of certain statements is generally providing a guarantee that the statements are correct.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that providing a professional certification of compliance with specific regulations, standards, or technical requirements constitutes a guarantee that the certified statements are correct — not merely a professional opinion or best-effort assessment — and to correctly conclude that certifying compliance with detailed regulatory frameworks outside one's domain of competence would be misleading, deceptive, and unethical because the engineer cannot perform the exhaustive inspection and analysis required to substantiate the guarantee.
Change Notation Specificity Requirement in Successor Design Obligation
We acknowledge that Engineer B did in fact note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans that he was taking responsibility for the 'revisions of the plans.' However, as we have indicated, Engineer B's failure to state with specificity what those changes in fact were made such a notation on the title sheet virtually meaningless.
Professional accountability principle establishing that when a successor engineer makes modifications to another engineer's sealed engineering plans, any notation of responsibility for changes must identify with specificity each change made — including the nature, location, and scope of every modification — and that a general or blanket notation on a title sheet stating only that the engineer 'takes responsibility for revisions' is ethically insufficient because it fails to create a meaningful public record of what was changed, prevents meaningful review of the successor engineer's professional judgment, and renders the notation virtually meaningless as a professional accountability mechanism.
Changed Circumstances Contract Clause Re-Evaluation and Removal Capability
Engineer A had inserted the indemnification provision during the early 1980's at the time of the 'liability crisis' because of the unavailability of pollution-related insurance coverage.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a contractual provision that was originally inserted in response to a specific set of external circumstances — such as an insurance market crisis — has become ethically unjustifiable because those circumstances have materially changed, and to proactively re-evaluate, modify, or remove that provision from existing and future professional service agreements to restore compliance with ethical obligations.
Changed Circumstances Contract Indemnification Clause Removal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who originally inserted a self-protective indemnification clause into professional service agreements under conditions that no longer exist — specifically, the unavailability of relevant insurance coverage — to re-evaluate and remove or substantially modify that clause upon the material change in circumstances that originally justified its inclusion, recognizing that the ethical permissibility of contractual risk-transfer provisions is contingent on the conditions that gave rise to them and that persistence of such clauses after those conditions have changed constitutes an ongoing ethical violation.
Changed Circumstances Contractual Provision Re-Evaluation Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer to affirmatively re-evaluate and modify or remove contractual provisions that were originally adopted under conditions of necessity — such as unavailability of professional liability insurance — when the factual circumstances that justified those provisions have materially changed, establishing that the original necessity-based justification does not permanently authorize the provision and that continued reliance on a provision whose justification has been eliminated by changed circumstances constitutes an independent ethical violation, as established by NSPE Code Section III.9 and BER analysis of cyclical professional liability market conditions.
Changed Circumstances Contractual Re-Evaluation Obligation
Professional ethics principle requiring engineers to periodically reassess the ethical justifiability of contractual provisions that were originally adopted in response to exceptional or emergency circumstances, and to revise or eliminate those provisions when the conditions that justified their adoption no longer exist — particularly when the original justification was the unavailability of a standard professional risk-management tool (such as insurance) that has since become available.
Changed Circumstances Rendering Contractual Justification Obsolete State
State in which a contractual provision adopted under conditions of necessity — where no alternative mechanism was available — persists after the original necessity has dissolved, creating an ethical obligation to reassess whether the provision remains justified or whether it now inappropriately disadvantages the other contracting party.
The ultimate question as to Engineers A and B is whether they are attempting to use their professional affiliation with the local chapter to secure personal advantage.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a dues-paying member of a local professional society chapter simultaneously holds a paid client engagement on a matter of public engineering controversy, and appears before that same chapter to present findings and seek endorsement of a position, bearing obligations to disclose the client relationship fully, avoid exploiting membership affiliation for personal advantage, and rely solely on technical merit and honest professional judgment rather than collegial influence.
Chapter Member Independent Judgment Non-Subordination to Collegial Membership Deference Obligation
We believe it is a reasonable and fair assumption that the members of the local chapter would not be unduly influenced in favor of the opinion offered by those who hold membership in the chapter.
Duty of members of a professional society chapter who are asked to evaluate and potentially endorse a technical position presented by fellow member-engineers to exercise independent professional judgment based on the engineering merits of the presented analysis — rather than deferring to the presenting engineers' conclusions solely on the basis of collegial membership, personal relationships, or the presenters' professional standing — recognizing that the professional concept of peer judgment requires evaluation of technical substance independent of personal or organizational affiliations.
Chief City Engineer Procurement Authority
Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
A senior licensed professional engineering role serving as the chief engineer of a municipal government, bearing authority over the selection and award of engineering contracts for city projects, with obligations to conduct procurement lawfully, impartially, and free from improper promises, inducements, or preferential commitments to specific firms outside of established competitive selection processes.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A senior licensed professional engineering role serving as the head of a municipal engineering department, bearing authority over contracting decisions, staff direction, and departmental compliance with procurement laws, with obligations to uphold lawful and ethical contracting practices on behalf of the public.
Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Engagement Standard
the chief engineer in an engineering firm may be that of a 'manager who provides guidance, direction, and counsel to those within his responsible charge.'
Domain-specific principle establishing that in a large engineering firm, the chief engineer's ethical discharge of responsible charge does not require personal preparation of every technical element, but does require: (1) involvement at project outset in establishing design concept and design requirements; (2) review of various design elements or project status as the project develops; and (3) availability to consult on technical questions relating to project design. This standard defines the minimum substantive engagement required for a chief engineer to ethically affix a seal to documents prepared by subordinates, distinguishing genuine responsible charge from nominal or purely administrative oversight.
Chief Engineer Managerial Responsible Charge Model State
the chief engineer in an engineering firm may be that of a 'manager who provides guidance, direction, and counsel to those within his responsible charge'
State in which a chief or principal engineer in a large engineering firm fulfills responsible charge obligations through a managerial model — establishing design concepts and requirements at project inception, reviewing design elements and project status at key development stages, and remaining available for technical consultation — rather than through direct personal preparation of each document. This state is ethically permissible only when the engineer is genuinely engaged throughout the project lifecycle and when each technical segment is sealed by the qualified engineer who prepared it.
Chief Engineer Managerial Role Minimum Engagement Sealing Authorization Constraint
We recognize that the role of the chief engineer in an engineering firm may be that of a 'manager who provides guidance, direction, and counsel to those within his responsible charge.'
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving as chief engineer of a large engineering firm may ethically seal documents prepared by subordinates only when the chief engineer has been involved at the outset of each project in establishing design concepts and requirements, has reviewed various elements of the design or project status as the project develops, and has been available to consult on technical questions relating to project design — defining the minimum engagement threshold below which sealing is ethically impermissible, while recognizing that this managerial model of responsible charge is appropriate for large firms provided the minimum engagement standard is met.
Chief Engineer Managerial Role Responsible Charge Minimum Engagement Obligation
the chief engineer should be involved at the outset of the project in the establishment of the design concept and the design requirements, as well as in the review of the various elements of the design or project status as the project develops
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as chief engineer of a large engineering firm to satisfy, at minimum, the following engagement requirements as a condition of exercising responsible charge over subordinate engineers' work: (1) involvement at the outset of each project in establishing the design concept and design requirements; (2) ongoing review of the various elements of the design or project status as the project develops; and (3) availability to consult on technical questions relating to the project design — recognizing that while the chief engineer's role is managerial and does not require personal preparation of every document, it does require this minimum level of substantive engagement as a prerequisite to sealing, and that falling below this threshold reduces the chief engineer's involvement to mere organizational authority rather than genuine responsible charge.
Chief Engineer Project Inception Involvement Responsible Charge Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as chief engineer of a large engineering firm to recognize and fulfill the minimum responsible charge engagement standard for large-firm practice — specifically, the ability to be involved at the outset of each project in establishing design concepts and design requirements, to review various elements of design or project status as the project develops, and to be available to consult on technical questions relating to project design — and to distinguish this workable minimum standard from both the impractical requirement of personal preparation of all documents and the ethically insufficient standard of mere general direction without substantive project-inception involvement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to maintain active, substantive engagement in the engineering process from conception to completion when bearing responsible charge, including personally making or directly supervising engineering decisions, providing experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, and ensuring that no plan or document is sealed without genuine direction and control over its preparation — as distinguished from mere post-hoc review of completed work.
the Chief Engineer found it impossible to give a detailed review of the designs
A senior licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serving as chief engineer within a large firm affixes their seal to plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers working under their general direction, bearing obligations to exercise detailed review and responsible charge over all sealed documents rather than relying solely on general supervisory confidence in subordinates.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role that bears statutory and ethical responsibility for active engagement in the engineering process from conception to completion, including supervisory direction and control authority over all engineering decisions, whether made personally or by others (including AI tools), with obligations to ensure quality assurance, mentorship, and professional standards compliance.
Citizen-Retained Adversarial Route Study Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a group of citizens adversely affected by a proposed public highway routing to conduct a comparative route analysis that is genuinely objective — presenting the advantages and disadvantages of all routes under consideration, including the client-preferred route and the government-proposed route — rather than producing a one-sided advocacy document, recognizing that the engineer's professional obligation to objectivity and truthfulness is not suspended by the adversarial nature of the retention or the client's strong preference for a particular outcome.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to specify a road route to conduct and present a systematic multi-criteria comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives — including evaluation of travel time savings, construction cost, land acquisition requirements, historic property impacts, environmental impacts, and community effects — and to present the results of that analysis in a manner that enables informed decision-making by the public agency client, without privileging any single criterion over others without explicit client direction.
Citizen-Retained Engineer Honest Disagreement With Government Agency Route Permissibility Obligation
Engineer A concludes that route Y would be a superior route.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by private citizens to recognize that reaching a technical conclusion that differs from a government agency's proposed routing — and publicly advocating for that alternative conclusion through legitimate channels including professional society presentations — is ethically permissible and consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, provided the engineer's conclusion is grounded in honest professional analysis, the disagreement is expressed through proper channels, and the engineer does not misrepresent credentials, suppress adverse data, or use improper means to advance the alternative position.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who disagrees with the technical conclusions, cost estimates, or design choices of other qualified engineers — including government engineers or engineers retained by public bodies — to recognize that publicly expressing such disagreement, proposing alternative approaches, and contributing to open public debate on engineering matters affecting public policy is ethically permissible and consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, provided the engineer's statements are honest, grounded in professional judgment, and not motivated by improper competitive or personal interests; and conversely, the duty to refrain from treating honest professional disagreement among qualified engineers as an ethical violation.
Citizen-Retained Engineer Route Study Complete Comparative Analysis Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer retained by a group of citizens adversely affected by a proposed public infrastructure routing decision to study an alternative route must conduct and present a complete comparative analysis of both the proposed route and the alternative — including the advantages and disadvantages of each — prohibiting the presentation of a one-sided analysis that advocates exclusively for the client-preferred route without objectively evaluating the merits and deficiencies of both options, and establishing that the engineer's duty of objectivity and completeness is not overridden by the adversarial context of the retention or the client's preference for a particular outcome.
Citizen-Retained Highway Route Alternative Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a group of private citizens adversely affected by a proposed public highway routing to independently study the proposed route, evaluate alternatives, and recommend a superior route, bearing obligations of technical competence, honest professional judgment, and service to the client's interests while remaining mindful of broader public welfare implications.
Citizen-Retained Route Study Adversarial Objectivity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a group of citizens adversely affected by a proposed public highway routing to conduct the comparative route study objectively and completely — presenting the technical merits and demerits of both the proposed route and any alternative routes without partisan distortion in favor of the retaining citizens — so that the engineer's conclusions rest on genuine engineering analysis rather than advocacy, and so that any endorsement sought from professional bodies or public authorities is grounded in honest professional judgment rather than client-serving selectivity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to specify a road route to present all workable route alternatives completely and objectively — including the shortest route requiring eminent domain of a historic property, longer routes avoiding the property, and any hybrid alternatives — with a full comparative analysis of travel time savings, property impacts, historic resource consequences, cost, and public welfare tradeoffs, so that the client can make a fully informed route selection decision rather than receiving only the engineer's preferred option.
Citizen Action Stakeholder Consideration Constraint
The BER concludes that clear notification of public health and safety risk to appropriate authorities satisfies an engineer's ethical obligation, and that subsequent steps are a personal, rather than a professional choice, and should be taken in consideration of the many stakeholders affected by the matter and the engineer's continuing ethical obligations where pertinent.
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who, having fulfilled all formal professional reporting obligations, considers additional advocacy actions as a private citizen — including communication with political bodies, media, or the public — must proceed with careful consideration of the interests of all stakeholders affected by those actions, including the employer's business and legal interests, the client's interests, the public's interest, and the engineer's own continuing ethical obligations, prohibiting unilateral citizen-role advocacy that disregards the multi-stakeholder impact of such actions.
Citizen Advocacy Group Ordinance Promoter
a proposed amendment to a local ordinance that is being promoted by a city citizen's group
A non-professional citizen stakeholder group that promotes a proposed amendment to a local ordinance affecting traffic engineering infrastructure, without professional engineering expertise, whose advocacy generates obligations for engineers to evaluate the technical and safety implications of the proposed change and advocate for compliance with established standards and state law.
Citizen Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression Constraint
Nothing herein should be construed as a constraint to any engineer functioning as a 'Whistleblower' in an event where public health and safety is at risk.
Ethical constraint establishing that no provision of professional engineering ethics — including the faithful agent obligation to an employer, the employer concurrence requirement for citizen advocacy, or the formal reporting obligation discharge threshold — may be construed as a constraint prohibiting or suppressing an engineer from functioning as a whistleblower when public health and safety is at risk, establishing that whistleblower action remains available to engineers as a protected pathway regardless of whether formal professional reporting obligations have been fulfilled or discharged.
Citizen Group Advocacy Non-Subordination of Engineering Safety Standards Constraint
A proposed amendment to a local ordinance that is being promoted by a city citizen's group has been brought forth by a city council member.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from subordinating professionally determined engineering safety standards to the advocacy positions of citizen groups or political actors, establishing that citizen group promotion of an ordinance change does not override the engineer's professional safety determination or reporting obligations.
Citizen Group Advocacy Non-Subordination of Engineering Safety Standards Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified that a citizen advocacy group is promoting a local ordinance change that is contrary to established engineering standards and state law to refrain from acquiescing to or facilitating that advocacy-driven change on the basis of community support or political momentum, recognizing that the breadth of citizen support for a proposed change does not render the change safe, legally compliant, or professionally acceptable, and that the engineer's paramount duty to protect public welfare is not diminished by the popularity of the proposed change.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to maintain professional safety determinations — including bridge closures, structural condemnations, or other protective measures — in the face of organized public pressure such as petitions, rallies, or political advocacy, recognizing that yielding professional safety judgments to public sentiment when the engineer believes great dangers are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
Citizen Group Advocacy Pressure Non-Subordination of Engineering Standards Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified that a citizen advocacy group is promoting a local ordinance change that is unsafe and contrary to established engineering standards and state law to maintain the professional safety determination in the face of organized citizen advocacy pressure — refraining from subordinating engineering standards to popular demand, clearly articulating the technical and legal basis for the safety objection, and recognizing that citizen advocacy does not override professional engineering obligations to public health, safety, and welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to maintain a professional safety determination — including infrastructure closure decisions — in the face of organized public pressure, petitions, rallies, and political advocacy for reversal, by clearly explaining the technical basis for the determination to governing authorities and resisting the temptation to bow to public sentiment when the engineer believes great dangers are present, consistent with the principle that yielding to public pressure when great dangers exist is an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility.
City-Initiated Engineer Independence Encouragement State
Recently, officials in Clover City suggested that Engineer A open his own engineering company in Clover City.
State in which a public client entity — having developed a favorable relationship with an individual engineer employed by a contracted firm — actively encourages that engineer to establish an independent practice and signals intent to award future contracts to the new firm, creating a structural tension between the engineer's loyalty obligations to the current employer, the ethical permissibility of acting on the client's encouragement, and the public interest in competitive procurement.
City-Official Alignment Appearance of Coordination Non-Automatic Ethics Violation Constraint
The newspaper story containing the full text of the letter from the consulting engineer also quoted the city official as favoring route 'D' proposed by the consulting engineer
Ethical constraint establishing that the mere fact that a consulting engineer's publicly proposed infrastructure alternative aligns with the position of a city official — including the appearance that the engineer and the official are coordinating their advocacy — does not, without affirmative evidence of undisclosed private retainer, coordination agreement, or financial arrangement, constitute a violation of ethics code provisions prohibiting advocacy inspired or paid for by undisclosed private interests; prohibiting ethics bodies from treating the coincidence of positions between an engineer and a public official as conclusive evidence of improper coordination, and establishing that the operative question is whether the engineer's advocacy was in fact inspired or paid for by an undisclosed private interest, not merely whether the positions happen to align.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest — including the appearance arising from an engineer's sequential service on opposing sides of adversarial proceedings involving a former client across unrelated matters — does not, without more, constitute an actual conflict of interest prohibited by the NSPE Code of Ethics; prohibiting ethics review bodies and opposing parties from treating the appearance of impropriety as legally or ethically equivalent to a demonstrated actual conflict, and establishing that the determination of whether a prohibited conflict exists requires individualized factual analysis of whether the matters are related, whether confidential information is implicated, and whether the engineer's professional independence has been compromised.
City-Retained Development Inspection Engineer
City engages the services of a private consulting engineering firm, Firm A, to provide design review and construction inspection
A private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to review private developer plans and conduct construction inspection on the city's behalf — funded by developer fees — bearing obligations of impartiality, conflict-of-interest avoidance, and exclusive loyalty to the city's regulatory interests rather than to the fee-paying developer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A private consulting engineering firm that simultaneously serves as the city's designated plan review and construction inspection engineer for private development projects and also provides design and inspection services directly to those same private developers, bearing obligations to avoid conflicts of interest arising from serving multiple parties with potentially divergent interests in the same regulatory and construction context.
City-Retained Engineer Developer-Client Marketing Exploitation Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Firm A uses its position as the city's engineer as a marketing tool, openly telling prospective clients that they can save 50% on inspection costs by using their firm.
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct plan review and construction inspection to recognize that explicitly advertising to prospective private developer clients that they can save money on inspection costs by retaining the firm — because the firm already serves as the city's inspection agent — constitutes a prohibited exploitation of the public agency role as a marketing tool, and to correctly self-apply this prohibition by refraining from such solicitations and understanding that this marketing practice compounds the underlying conflict of interest by creating a financial incentive structure that systematically undermines inspection objectivity across all developer-client relationships.
City-Retained Engineer Developer Client Conflict Proactive Disclosure to Municipal Client Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct plan review and construction inspection of private developer projects to proactively and affirmatively disclose to the municipal client the full nature and extent of any private consulting relationships with developers whose projects the firm is simultaneously inspecting on the city's behalf, including the specific developers involved, the nature of the private services provided, and the firm's assessment of whether the conflict is manageable, so that the municipal client can make a fully informed decision about whether to continue the arrangement or require structural separation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a private consulting engineering firm's principal — when the firm holds multiple active contracts with a municipality and is being considered for appointment as that municipality's city engineer — to proactively and affirmatively disclose to the municipal client the full nature and extent of the structural conflict of interest created by the simultaneous active contract relationships, including the specific projects under contract, the self-oversight implications, and the firm's assessment of whether the conflict is manageable, before the municipality makes its appointment decision, so that the municipal client can make a fully informed choice.
City-Retained Engineer Public Role Private Marketing Non-Exploitation Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm engaged by a public agency in a plan review or construction inspection capacity to refrain from using that public agency role as a marketing tool to attract private clients — including refraining from advertising cost savings available to private developers who also retain the firm for private services — recognizing that such exploitation of the public role creates an inherent conflict of interest, undermines the integrity of the public agency function, and constitutes use of a position of public trust for private commercial advantage.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a private consulting engineering firm engaged by a public agency in a plan review or inspection capacity to refrain from using that public agency role as a marketing tool to attract private clients — including refraining from advertising cost savings available to private developers who also retain the firm for private services — recognizing that such marketing exploitation of the public role creates an inherent conflict of interest and undermines the integrity of the public agency function.
City-Retained Engineer Self-Design-Review Prohibition Obligation
Firm A is a private consulting engineering firm that regularly prepares drawings for developers and at the same time reviews those drawings at developer expense for the benefit of the city, and also performs inspection services at developer expense for the benefit of the city.
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct plan review and construction inspection of private developer projects to refrain from reviewing, approving, or inspecting drawings, plans, or construction that the firm itself prepared in a private capacity for the same developers — recognizing that self-review of one's own work in a public agency capacity is an irreconcilable structural conflict that eliminates the independent engineering judgment that the city's review and inspection function is designed to provide, and that no disclosure or consent can restore the objectivity essential to the public agency review role.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm serving simultaneously as city engineer (advisory role) and as design contractor for the same municipality to refrain from performing, in the city engineer advisory capacity, any review, evaluation, or approval of work that the firm itself performed in its design contractor capacity, recognizing that self-review in this context creates an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest that cannot be cured by disclosure alone, and that the ethical permissibility of the dual-role arrangement is conditioned on the firm not crossing this self-review boundary.
City-Retained Inspection Engineer City Infrastructure Standard Primacy Obligation
these inspection services are solely for the purpose of ensuring the construction of infrastructure within the development, which is to be turned over to the city, is constructed in accordance with the city's design standards
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct construction inspection of private developer projects — where the constructed infrastructure will be turned over to the city — to ensure that all inspection decisions are made solely in accordance with the city's design standards and the city's interests, without any subordination of those standards to the interests of private developer clients who also retain the firm for private services, recognizing that the ordinance-mandated inspection exists exclusively to protect the public's interest in receiving infrastructure built to city standards.
City-Retained Inspection Engineer Competitive Fairness Non-Exploitation Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct plan review and construction inspection of private developer projects to refrain from leveraging its privileged position as the city's inspection agent to gain unfair competitive advantage over other engineering firms in the private developer services market — including refraining from promising cost savings to developers that are only achievable because the firm holds the city inspection contract — recognizing that such conduct exploits a public trust position to distort fair competition among private engineering firms.
City-Retained Inspection Engineer Developer-Client Inspection Objectivity Preservation Capability
Firm A also provides design and inspection services for private developers within the city.
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct plan review and construction inspection of private development projects to recognize that when a developer subject to that inspection is simultaneously a private fee-paying client of the firm, the firm's objectivity and impartiality in conducting the city-mandated inspection is structurally compromised — including the ability to identify that the financial incentive to retain the developer as a private client creates pressure to favor the developer in inspection decisions, and to correctly determine that this objectivity impairment cannot be managed through procedural safeguards alone and requires either declining the private client relationship or recusing from the inspection role with respect to that developer.
City-Retained Inspection Engineer Developer Client Inspection Objectivity Preservation Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm serving as a city's retained plan review and construction inspection engineer to maintain full objectivity and impartiality when inspecting construction by developers who are also the firm's private design or inspection clients, recognizing that the commercial relationship with the developer creates a financial incentive to approve or overlook deficiencies, thereby compromising the city's interest in receiving infrastructure built to its design standards and the public's interest in safe, code-compliant infrastructure.
City-Retained Inspection Engineer Private Developer Dual-Service Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct plan review and construction inspection of private developer projects — on the city's behalf and funded by the developer — to refrain from simultaneously providing design and inspection services to those same private developers in a private capacity, recognizing that the firm cannot adequately represent the separate and sometimes conflicting interests of the public agency client and the private developer client, and that the structural conflict created by inspecting one's own private clients' work on behalf of the city is irreconcilable through disclosure alone.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a private consulting engineering firm engaged by a public agency to provide design review and construction inspection services for private developers on the agency's behalf to refrain from simultaneously providing design and inspection services for those same private developers in a private capacity — recognizing that the firm cannot adequately represent the separate and sometimes differing interests of the public agency client and the private developer client, and that using the public agency role as a marketing tool to attract private clients compounds the conflict.
City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B
A non-engineer municipal administrative official who serves as the primary coordinator of an incumbent consulting engineer's work and simultaneously holds significant authority over the selection process for the next contract period, bearing obligations to conduct fair and impartial procurement, avoid improper solicitation of competitor critiques of the incumbent, and maintain the integrity of the public contracting process.
The city attorney attempted to explain these factors to the members of the city council in a recent public forum
A municipal legal official who advises the city council on the legal and regulatory implications of proposed ordinance changes, including the requirement under state law for an engineering study before proceeding with traffic infrastructure changes, bearing obligations to communicate professional and legal objections clearly to elected officials even when those officials proceed contrary to the advice.
An elected municipal legislative body that holds authority to enact, amend, or repeal local ordinances, including those governing traffic engineering infrastructure, and which may proceed with ordinance changes contrary to established engineering standards and state law requirements despite professional and legal objections, generating engineer obligations to advocate for public safety and oppose unsafe legislative actions.
Engineer Adam meets with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.
An elected or appointed political official role (such as a city council chairman) who holds authority over municipal resource allocation and ordinance-making, engages with professional engineers on matters of public safety and code enforcement, and may propose politically-motivated compromises that trade public safety concessions for resource commitments, generating engineer obligations to refuse such bargains and insist on paramount public health and safety standards.
the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process
A senior licensed professional engineering role serving as the head of a municipal engineering department, bearing authority over contracting decisions, staff direction, and departmental compliance with procurement laws, with obligations to uphold lawful and ethical contracting practices on behalf of the public.
WXY Engineers, to serve as city engineer for City H, perform general consulting services, and also be under contract to provide specific design services
A licensed professional engineering firm that simultaneously serves as a municipality's designated city engineer providing general advisory and consulting services, and also holds or seeks individual design contracts with the same municipality for specific capital projects, bearing obligations to disclose all circumstances that could create conflicts of interest — particularly when the firm's design work would be subject to its own review in the city engineer capacity — and to refrain from arrangements where self-review is unavoidable.
City Engineer Public Welfare Escalation Obligated Engineer
an engineer was employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal plants and beds
A licensed professional engineering role serving as a city engineer or director of public works who discovers ongoing regulatory violations (such as unreported sewage overflow capacity problems) within their jurisdiction, attempts internal reporting to supervisors and city council members, and bears an obligation to escalate to state or other external authorities when internal channels are systematically blocked or ignored — with failure to escalate making the engineer an accessory to the ongoing violation.
Ultimately, Engineer K will present the design alternatives to the City decision makers so they can make a choice
A municipal government decision-making role held by city officials who bear ultimate accountability to the public for infrastructure design and policy choices, receiving complete engineering recommendations from retained engineers and exercising final selection authority over design alternatives, with the engineer obligated to respect and implement their decisions as faithful agent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A city government client role that retains engineering services for major public infrastructure projects, bearing authority over project scope, routing decisions, and public engagement requirements, while subject to obligations of equitable community engagement, non-discrimination, and faithful stewardship of public resources and affected community interests.
inspection services are solely for the purpose of ensuring the construction of infrastructure within the development, which is to be turned over to the city, is constructed in accordance with the city's design standards
Municipal technical specifications and design criteria that infrastructure within private developments must meet before being accepted and turned over to the city, serving as the benchmark for construction inspection and approval.
City Manager Administrative Staff Procurement Intermediary
intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
A non-engineer administrative staff member of a municipal government who inadvertently or incidentally receives a misdirected engineering procurement submittal (e.g., a Statement of Qualifications delivered to the city manager's office rather than the designated city clerk's office), and who routes or presents that submittal to the designated procurement point-of-contact engineer, thereby creating an ethical dilemma about late and misdirected submittal acceptance.
City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
A municipal regulatory body that reviews and approves proposed development projects through public hearings, bearing authority to question presenters, receive testimony from multiple witnesses, and make land-use approval decisions affecting public welfare including environmental, traffic, and noise impacts.
Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty Principle
in a fundamental sense, the purpose of professional ethics is to elevate to a duty conduct of the type in which all public spirited and civic-minded citizens engage
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the purpose of professional ethics codes is to elevate to a mandatory professional duty the conduct that all public-spirited and civic-minded citizens would voluntarily engage in — meaning that professional engineers are not merely permitted but are ethically required to take actions (such as reporting deceptive or dangerous practices to appropriate authorities) that ordinary citizens might perform as a matter of civic conscience but without legal or professional obligation.
Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Recognition Obligation
Indeed, in a fundamental sense, the purpose of professional ethics is to elevate to a duty conduct of the type in which all public spirited and civic-minded citizens engage.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the purpose of professional ethics codes is to elevate to a mandatory professional duty the conduct that all public-spirited and civic-minded citizens would engage in voluntarily — meaning that actions which are merely permissible for ordinary citizens (such as reporting deceptive practices to appropriate authorities) become mandatory professional obligations for engineers when those actions relate to public safety, health, and welfare, and that this elevation of civic duty to professional duty is the foundational rationale for the engineer's reporting and disclosure obligations.
Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate that participation in civic advocacy activities — such as organizing a citizens committee and testifying before legislative bodies on matters of public welfare — represents the elevation of civic duty to a professional ethical obligation, understanding that professional ethics codes serve to elevate to mandatory professional conduct the actions that all public-spirited citizens would engage in voluntarily, and applying this principle to assess whether a particular civic advocacy activity is not merely permissible but professionally expected.
Civic Engineering Advocacy Permissibility State
Certainly it was entirely proper for Engineers A and B to be retained by the local citizens for the stated purpose and to offer their professional judgment and opinion as to the merits of the alternative routes.
State in which a professional engineer is retained by a private citizens group to study and publicly advocate for a particular technical position on a matter of public engineering concern (such as infrastructure routing), where the engagement is ethically permissible because it constitutes constructive civic service, the retainer is disclosed, and the engineer's participation in public debate on engineering matters is consistent with professional obligations to serve the public interest — even though the engineer is compensated by a private interest group with a particular viewpoint.
Civic Engineering Participation Non-Confinement to Free Services Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of professional ethics bodies to recognize that the obligation to provide constructive service in civic affairs — including participation in public engineering controversies affecting community welfare — is not confined to pro bono or free community services, and that engineers may be compensated by private parties for civic engineering analysis and advocacy without violating professional ethics, provided the retainer relationship is disclosed and the work is conducted with professional integrity.
Civic Group Technical Communication Capability
are capable of engaging with civic groups to explain the situation, and can articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to engage directly with civic groups, citizen advocacy organizations, and non-technical public audiences to explain engineering safety concerns, articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter, and communicate the technical basis for professional positions in a manner accessible to non-engineers — including the ability to respond to organized public pressure with clear, factually grounded explanations rather than capitulating to non-technical advocacy.
Civil Engineer Grant-Coordinating Prime Consultant
Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
A licensed civil engineering role in which an engineer acts as the coordinating prime consultant who retains specialist subconsultants on a speculative basis to assist a public client in securing a federal grant, and who is subsequently retained as the design engineer upon successful grant award, bearing obligations of fair subconsultant treatment, competent design delivery, and avoidance of conflicts arising from the dual grant-coordination and design roles.
Engineer A owns a consulting engineering firm specializing in civil engineering and surveying services
A licensed professional engineer who owns a civil engineering and surveying consulting firm and commissions construction of a new office facility, retaining an architect and structural engineering consultant, bearing authority over project decisions and obligations to respond appropriately when design failures occur, including retaining independent review and confronting responsible parties.
Clean Air Act SO2 Emission Standard Permit Compliance Constraint
Engineer A believes the plans as drafted are inadequate to meet the regulation requirements and that outside scrubbers to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions are necessary and without them the issuance of the permit would violate certain air pollution standards as mandated under the 1990 Clear Air Act.
Legal constraint arising from the 1990 Clean Air Act establishing that a construction permit for a facility generating sulphur dioxide emissions may not lawfully be issued unless the engineer responsible for the permit is satisfied that the plans meet the applicable SO2 emission control standards — prohibiting permit issuance when the engineer holds a professionally grounded belief that the proposed emission control method (such as a fluidized boiler limestone process) is inadequate to achieve the required reduction and that outside scrubbers are necessary for compliance.
Clear Hazard Characterization and Legal Obligation Notification to Client
Engineer B's responsibility under the facts was to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a recommendation that the material be analyzed. To do less would be unethical.
Professional principle requiring engineers who discover conditions on a client's property that likely constitute a legally regulated hazard — such as hazardous waste — to bring the matter to the client's attention with a clear recommendation for analysis or assessment, and to explicitly identify the client's resulting legal obligations, rather than merely suggesting vague remedial action; the engineer's duty is to ensure the client has the information necessary to comply with applicable law, not merely to avoid personal liability through minimal notification.
Client-Aligned Advocacy Displacing Objective Reporting State
State in which a professional engineer retained as a technical expert has abandoned the role of objective fact-gatherer and analyst in favor of acting as an advocate for the retaining client — selectively using data, omitting contrary evidence, and framing conclusions to support the client's adversarial position rather than to provide a complete and impartial technical assessment, thereby conflating the role of professional engineer with that of legal advocate.
Client-Approved Risk to Underserved Community State
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
State in which a client authority has been fully informed of a design's potential to disproportionately harm an underserved community under identifiable conditions, has acknowledged that risk, and has explicitly decided not to mitigate it — citing project schedule or probability considerations — thereby placing the engineer in active tension between client authority, public safety obligations, and environmental justice duties.
Client-Confided Out-of-Scope Safety Violation Confidentiality Weight Constraint
the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a client affirmatively confides safety violation information to an engineer — rather than the engineer independently discovering it — the confidentiality weight attached to that information is heightened relative to inspection-discovered information, but does not rise to the level of an absolute bar against disclosure to public authorities when the violations pose a genuine risk of injury to building occupants; prohibiting the engineer from treating client-confided status as a complete shield against safety escalation obligations, while recognizing that the confided nature of the information is a relevant mitigating factor in calibrating the timing and manner of escalation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the degree to which a licensed professional engineer may adopt a more measured, deliberate approach before escalating a discovered client violation is modulated by whether the client affirmatively confided the information to the engineer under circumstances creating a reasonable expectation of confidentiality — establishing that client-confided information creates a stronger basis for measured deliberation before escalation, while information independently observed by the engineer without client disclosure creates a weaker basis for deferral and a stronger basis for immediate direct action, prohibiting the invocation of implied confidentiality expectations for information the engineer independently observed rather than received in confidence.
Client-Confided Out-of-Scope Safety Violation Retention State
State in which a client voluntarily discloses to an engineer — during the course of a confidential engagement — safety-relevant code violations in systems outside the engineer's domain of competence, where the engineer acknowledges the risk to occupants but the confidentiality agreement and client's 'as-is' sale intent together suppress third-party reporting, and the engineer's only documented response is a brief mention in the confidential report.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer retained for a specific structural evaluation of an occupied building learns — through client disclosure rather than independent investigation — of code-violating deficiencies in systems outside the engineer's domain expertise (e.g., electrical, mechanical), where the client has explicitly stated the building will be sold 'as is' with no remediation, and the engineer has agreed to a confidentiality obligation, creating a conflict between contractual confidentiality and the paramount obligation to protect occupant safety.
Client-Directed Confidentiality Instruction Voluntarily Overridden by Engineer State
franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B's relationship with franchiser
State in which an engineer has received an explicit client instruction to maintain confidentiality about a new engagement from an incumbent professional, but the engineer independently chooses to disclose the relationship and preliminary review results to the affected incumbent prior to any contractual obligation to do so — creating a condition where the engineer's professional courtesy and transparency obligations are fulfilled at the cost of partial non-compliance with client instructions, and where the ethical permissibility of the override must be evaluated against faithful agent duties.
Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis State
Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
State in which a client has explicitly directed a professional engineer to proceed without conducting a recommended technical analysis — one the engineer has identified as necessary to assess foreseeable harm to third parties — unless and until that analysis is demanded by regulatory authorities, thereby placing the engineer in direct tension between client authority over project scope and cost, the engineer's professional obligation to assess and disclose risks to third parties, and the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Client-Directed Ethical Violation Non-Compliance Constraint
City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from complying with client instructions that direct the engineer or a subconsultant to conduct required professional processes — such as public engagement — in a manner that is structurally deceptive, exclusionary, or violates professional ethical obligations, even when the client cites economic, political, or social justifications for those instructions, establishing that client authority does not override the engineer's independent ethical obligations.
Client-Directed Procedural Manipulation State
State in which a client authority has explicitly instructed a professional or subconsultant to conduct a required public process in a manner designed to produce a predetermined outcome, citing political, economic, or social considerations, thereby placing the professional in direct tension between client authority and obligations of procedural integrity and public welfare.
Client-Directed Scope-Limitation Safety Finding Suppression State
The public agency contacts VWX Architects and Engineers which then contacts Engineer A and asks Engineer A not to include this additional information in his final report since it was not part of his scope of work.
State in which a client or prime contractor instructs a subconsultant engineer to exclude from a final professional report a safety-relevant finding that was discovered incidentally during a limited-scope engagement, on the grounds that the finding falls outside the contracted scope of work — creating direct tension between the engineer's public safety obligations and the client's authority to define deliverable content.
Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral Constraint
Constraint arising when a client explicitly directs a licensed professional engineer to proceed without conducting a recommended specialized analysis of foreseeable third-party harm — such as a hydrologic and hydraulic study of upstream flood risk — establishing that the client's directive limits the engineer's ability to quantify and fully characterize the risk, but does not relieve the engineer of the obligation to disclose the unquantified risk to the client, document the client's override directive in writing, and evaluate whether the unquantified risk warrants proactive disclosure to regulatory authorities or affected third parties without client authorization.
Client-Disclosed Out-of-Discipline Code Violation Injury Risk Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing services within their primary discipline, receives client-disclosed information about code violations in a different engineering discipline (e.g., electrical or mechanical) to recognize that those violations pose a credible injury risk to building occupants — even without holding credentials in the relevant discipline — and to correctly identify that the client-disclosed nature of the information, combined with the engineer's recognition of the injury potential, activates professional safety obligations independent of disciplinary expertise.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing services within their area of licensure, becomes aware of safety code violations in a discipline outside their own expertise — through client disclosure or incidental observation — to recognize that this out-of-discipline knowledge still activates a professional duty to report those violations to the appropriate public authorities, and to correctly understand that the absence of technical expertise in the relevant discipline does not extinguish the reporting obligation when the engineer has been directly informed of the violations and recognizes their potential to cause injury to building occupants or the public.
Client-Disclosed Safety Hazard Out-of-Scope Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, during the course of providing professional services under a confidentiality agreement, receives direct client disclosure of safety code violations in systems outside the engineer's contracted scope and discipline — such as a structural engineer informed by a client of electrical and mechanical code violations — to report those violations to appropriate public authorities, recognizing that the source of the information (client voluntary disclosure rather than independent observation) does not diminish the reporting duty when the hazard poses a risk of injury to identifiable occupants, and that the confidentiality agreement does not supersede the paramount public welfare obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, in the course of providing services within their area of licensure, becomes aware — through client disclosure or incidental observation — of safety code violations in a discipline outside their own engineering specialty (such as electrical or mechanical systems identified by a structural engineer) that could cause injury to building occupants or the public, to report those violations to the appropriate public authorities, recognizing that the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety is not limited to the engineer's licensed discipline and that awareness of a code-violating hazard, regardless of how it was acquired, triggers the reporting duty.
Client-Favorable Selective Emphasis Affirmative Concealment Boundary Constraint
Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland.
Ethical constraint establishing the boundary between permissible client-favorable selective emphasis and impermissible affirmative concealment in public regulatory presentations — permitting a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to structure a presentation that highlights project benefits (such as environmental improvement from industrial-to-parkland conversion) without volunteering all adverse impacts, provided the presentation does not affirmatively create a false or misleading impression, does not suppress information when directly questioned, and does not structure the presentation in a manner designed to prevent the decision-making body from learning material facts — prohibiting selective emphasis that crosses into artful misleading, strategic framing designed to foreclose inquiry, or presentation structures that exploit procedural limitations to prevent adverse information from reaching the decision-making body.
Client-First Confrontation Before External Reporting Obligation
Engineer A's actions appear to be obvious—contact the client and inquire directly about the actions the client has taken and point out the violations of the law and that immediate steps need to be taken to remedy the violation.
Professional principle requiring engineers who discover a client's violation of law or regulation — particularly environmental law — to first confront the client directly, inform the client of the violation, and demand remediation before escalating to external authorities, recognizing that the client deserves an opportunity to cure the violation voluntarily before the engineer triggers regulatory consequences, while preserving the engineer's obligation to escalate if the client fails to act.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who discover, through incidental observation or professional engagement, that a client has committed a material violation of federal or state environmental laws — including unauthorized filling of wetlands — to first confront the client and demand remediation, and then, if the client fails to act, to report the violation to appropriate regulatory authorities, recognizing that the engineer's environmental stewardship obligation extends beyond the contracted scope of work to encompass discovered illegality that threatens protected natural resources
Client-Funded Study Independence Maintenance Capability
In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client to conduct studies intended to support the client's regulatory position to maintain professional independence and objectivity throughout the engagement — including the ability to reach and report adverse findings that contradict the client's desired outcome, to resist implicit and explicit pressure to produce favorable conclusions, and to recognize that the client's funding of the study does not entitle the client to control the professional conclusions.
Client-Identified Qualification Deficiency Mandatory Upgrade-or-Withdraw State
Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client
State in which a public client or its screening committee has publicly identified, during an active qualification-based selection process, that a competing firm's proposed team lacks sufficient technical support or expertise to meet the project's requirements — creating an ethical obligation on the firm that is stronger than mere flexibility: the firm must either upgrade its qualifications through internal restructuring or external specialist engagement, or withdraw from further consideration. Unlike the general consulting context where specialist retention is an available option, this state transforms that option into a mandatory ethical duty triggered by the client's expressed need, such that failure to act constitutes a code violation rather than a missed opportunity.
Client-Impetus Mitigating Factor Assessment Capability
Moreover, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether client-initiated impetus — such as a client proactively approaching an engineer, encouraging independent practice, or suggesting a retainer — constitutes a mitigating factor that alters the ethical evaluation of the engineer's subsequent competitive conduct, distinguishing cases where client initiative legitimately mitigates the engineer's solicitation from cases where no such client impetus exists and the engineer's competitive conduct must be evaluated without mitigation.
Client-Initiated Departure Encouragement Faithful Agent Conflict Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who, while actively employed and serving a client on behalf of the employer, receives a direct suggestion or encouragement from that client to establish an independent competing firm and accept future contracts, must disclose this material conflict of interest to the employer — because the client's suggestion creates an immediate and concrete conflict between the engineer's personal economic interest in independence and the engineer's duty as faithful agent to the employer — prohibiting the engineer from concealing the client's overture and continuing to serve the client on the employer's behalf without disclosure, as established by NSPE Code faithful agent and conflict of interest provisions.
Client-Initiated Departure Moral Responsibility Shift Principle
officials in Clover City suggested that Engineer A open his own engineering company in Clover City
Relational principle establishing that when a client — rather than the engineer — initiates the suggestion or encouragement that an engineer depart from their current employer to establish independent practice for the client's benefit, the moral responsibility for any resulting disruption to the incumbent firm's client relationship shifts substantially toward the client, and the engineer's culpability for accepting the client's invitation is correspondingly reduced — provided the engineer does not actively solicit the departure opportunity, does not exploit confidential information, and conducts the transition in a manner that respects the incumbent firm's legitimate interests
Client-Interest vs. Public-Interest Open Conflict State
Engineering practice sometimes places the engineer in the position where the interests of a client and the interests of the public are in open and serious conflict.
State in which a licensed professional engineer faces an explicit, acknowledged, and serious conflict between the interests of a client — including confidentiality expectations and business preferences — and the interests of the public, including compliance with environmental, safety, or regulatory laws, where the conflict is not merely latent or speculative but has materialized into a concrete situation requiring the engineer to choose between competing obligations.
Client-Interest vs. Third-Party Safety Algorithmic Pre-Commitment State
State in which a professional engineer must recommend a design specification — specifically an algorithmic decision rule — that permanently and irrevocably pre-commits an autonomous system to prioritizing either the safety of the client's customers (vehicle passengers) or the safety of third parties (pedestrians, cyclists, bystanders) in unavoidable harm scenarios, where the choice cannot be individualized at the moment of the event and where the client's commercial interest in passenger safety marketing may conflict with the engineer's obligation to minimize aggregate public harm.
Client-Rejected Engineer Safety Elevation Recommendation State
Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.
State in which a licensed professional engineer has formed and communicated a specific, technically grounded recommendation that a project be designed to a higher safety standard — such as a 100-year storm surge elevation — based on newly released data and algorithms, and the client has explicitly refused to adopt that recommendation on cost grounds, creating direct and unresolved tension between the client's economic authority over project scope and the engineer's professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a client authority has been formally presented with a professional engineer's documented safety recommendation — including specific treatment requirements necessary to prevent public health harm — and has explicitly decided to proceed with the project while deferring the recommended safety measures to a later date, creating direct tension between client decision-making authority and the engineer's obligations to protect public health and safety.
Client-Relationship-Dependent Firm Goodwill Assessment Capability
Although Clover City was a major client of ABC, under the facts it appears that ABC's business with Clover City was related strictly to the presence of Engineer A in the firm.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewer, or firm principal to assess whether a client's relationship with an engineering firm is genuinely dependent on the firm's organizational capabilities and goodwill, or whether it is primarily attributable to the presence of a specific individual engineer — including the ability to distinguish cases where client loyalty follows the firm from cases where client loyalty follows the individual, and to apply this distinction when evaluating the ethical weight of the firm's interest in maintaining client goodwill against the departing engineer's interest in competitive practice.
Client-Relationship-to-Individual Attribution Departure Ethical Mitigation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a client's professional relationship with an engineering firm is found to be attributable solely to the presence of a specific individual engineer within that firm — rather than to the firm's institutional capabilities, goodwill, or resources — this attribution finding operates as a mitigating factor that reduces the ethical weight of the departing engineer's post-departure competition for that client's work, because the firm's goodwill interest in retaining the client is diminished when the client's loyalty was never directed at the firm as an institution but only at the individual engineer, and prohibiting the former employer from claiming that the departing engineer's solicitation of such a client constitutes an improper exploitation of firm goodwill when the firm never independently possessed that client relationship.
Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to recognize and maintain the boundary between permissible client-favorable selective emphasis and impermissible affirmative concealment of public welfare impacts — specifically, the ability to identify when a presentation strategy crosses from legitimate advocacy into structuring the presentation in a manner that affirmatively creates a false impression about the project's overall public welfare impact, and to refrain from such concealment even when it would benefit the client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to correctly assess the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: recognizing that an engineer may legitimately highlight project benefits (such as environmental improvements) without volunteering every adverse impact that is not relevant and pertinent to the specific proceeding, while simultaneously recognizing that this latitude does not extend to affirmative concealment, artful misrepresentation, or structuring a presentation to create a materially false impression of the project's overall public welfare impact.
Client-Retained Presenter Public Welfare Impact Non-Concealment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to refrain from structuring the presentation in a manner that affirmatively conceals, obscures, or creates a false impression about known adverse public welfare impacts — including traffic, noise, and air pollution — even when the engineer is not required to volunteer such information proactively, recognizing that the boundary between permissible selective emphasis and impermissible deceptive omission is crossed when the presentation is designed to mislead the regulatory body rather than merely to advocate for the client's project within the bounds of honest professional conduct.
Client-Retained Public Hearing Engineer Adverse Impact Conditional Disclosure Obligation
the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to disclose known adverse public welfare impacts of the project — including traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution — when and only when the engineer's professional judgment determines that such impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' to the subject matter of the hearing; with the understanding that: (1) if the engineer determines the impacts are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory; (2) if the engineer in good faith determines they are not relevant and pertinent, disclosure is not required; (3) the relevance determination must be made objectively and not driven by client interest in suppressing adverse information; and (4) the engineer must answer all direct questions about such impacts completely and honestly regardless of the relevance determination.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public hearing — on behalf of a client — to exercise professional judgment about which information is 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter, and to volunteer only that information which the engineer's professional judgment identifies as relevant and pertinent, without being required to volunteer all information the engineer possesses about the project, provided that the engineer answers all direct questions completely and honestly and does not affirmatively mislead the hearing body.
Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Adverse Impact Non-Volunteering Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to exercise professional judgment about which information is relevant and pertinent to volunteer — specifically, that the engineer is not ethically required to volunteer all known adverse impacts of the project (such as traffic, noise, and air pollution) when those impacts are not directly questioned by the hearing body, provided that: (1) the engineer answers all direct questions completely and honestly; (2) the engineer does not affirmatively misrepresent or conceal material safety hazards; and (3) the omitted information is not of a character that would render the presentation artfully misleading or deceptive to the regulatory body.
Client-Retained Public Hearing Presenter Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to correctly assess the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: recognizing that an engineer may legitimately highlight project benefits (such as environmental improvements) without volunteering every adverse impact that is not relevant and pertinent to the specific proceeding, while simultaneously recognizing that this latitude does not extend to affirmative concealment, artful misrepresentation, or structuring a presentation to create a materially false impression of the project's overall public welfare impact.
Client-Solicited Departing Staff Engineer
a city official approached Engineers X, Y, and Z and asked if they would agree to a contract as consultants, independent of Engineer A's firm
A licensed professional engineer employed by a firm who is directly approached and solicited by the firm's client to provide consulting services independently, outside the employing firm, and who departs to enter into an independent consulting arrangement with that client, bearing obligations of disclosure to the employer, honest dealing, and avoidance of misuse of specialized knowledge gained during employment.
Client-Solicited Departure Disclosure Non-Mandatory But Prudentially Advisable Recognition Obligation
In Case No. 86-5, the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is approached by the employer's client with an invitation to establish an independent firm to recognize that disclosure of this solicitation to the employer — while not strictly required under the NSPE Code in all circumstances, particularly where the engineer is a staff employee rather than a partner or principal — is nonetheless prudentially advisable as a matter of professional integrity and relational self-protection, and that the absence of disclosure, while potentially permissible, may be noted as a distinguishing factor in ethical analysis; the engineer must further recognize that the ethical weight of non-disclosure is reduced where the departure decision is independently motivated and not primarily driven by the client solicitation.
Client-Solicited Departure Employer Disclosure Weighing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed, is approached by the employer's client with a suggestion to open an independent firm, to weigh the competing considerations bearing on whether to disclose this approach to the employer — including recognizing the faithful agent duty of candor, the absence of a legal obligation to disclose in the absence of a no-compete agreement, the prudential risks of disclosure (e.g., immediate termination), and the ethical significance of concealing a material conflict of interest from the employer — and to reach a reasoned, defensible judgment about whether and when disclosure is required.
Client-Suggested Departure Faithful Agent Non-Concealment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while employed and actively serving a client on behalf of the employer, receives a direct suggestion from that client to establish an independent firm and compete for the client's work, to refrain from concealing this development from the employer in a manner that would allow the engineer to continue benefiting from the employer's resources, client relationships, and project access while secretly planning a competing practice — recognizing that the faithful agent duty requires transparency about material conflicts of interest that arise during employment, even when the client rather than the engineer initiated the departure suggestion.
Client-Suggested Independent Firm Founder Engineer
A licensed professional engineer employed by a firm who is affirmatively encouraged by the firm's client to establish an independent engineering company, with the client indicating intent to award retainer and project contracts to the new firm, bearing obligations of disclosure to the current employer, avoidance of misappropriation of employer resources or client relationships, and honest competitive conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineer employed by a firm who is directly approached and solicited by the firm's client to provide consulting services independently, outside the employing firm, and who departs to enter into an independent consulting arrangement with that client, bearing obligations of disclosure to the employer, honest dealing, and avoidance of misuse of specialized knowledge gained during employment.
Client-Suppressed Findings Public Hearing Correction Constraint
Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer who possesses completed technical findings that directly contradict data presented by a former client at a public regulatory hearing to appear at or submit findings to that hearing for the purpose of correcting the record — prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent when the client's presentation of contradictory data to a regulatory authority creates a materially false impression that could result in regulatory approval of a public health or environmental hazard, and establishing that contract termination and client instruction to suppress findings do not discharge this obligation when the client subsequently misrepresents the technical situation in a public forum.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose contract has been terminated by a client following verbal disclosure of findings that reveal a public health, safety, or welfare risk — and who has been instructed not to file a written report — must nonetheless report those findings to the applicable regulatory or public authority when the client subsequently presents contradictory or misleading information at a public proceeding, prohibiting the engineer from treating contract termination and client instruction as a complete discharge of the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, as established by BER Case 76-4.
Client-Suppressed Findings at Public Hearing State
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report
State in which a client, after terminating an engineer's contract and instructing suppression of written findings, proceeds to present data to a regulatory public hearing that contradicts or omits the engineer's conclusions — creating a situation where the public record before the authority is materially incomplete or misleading, and the discharged engineer possesses contradicting professional findings that the public and authority are unaware of.
Client-Transmitted Confidential Information Section III.4 Engagement Boundary Identification Capability
Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly identify when Section III.4's confidentiality obligation is engaged — specifically, to recognize that the obligation is triggered by the client's transmission of confidential information to the engineer during the course of professional service delivery, and to distinguish this triggering condition from situations where no such client-to-engineer transmission occurred (as in Case 82-2), thereby correctly framing the scope and applicability of the confidentiality obligation before proceeding to assess whether safety exceptions apply.
Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Stronger Obligation Principle
under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
Relational principle establishing that when confidential information reaches an engineer through direct voluntary transmission by the client in the course of a professional engagement — as opposed to being independently discovered by the engineer through professional observation — the engineer's confidentiality obligation under Section III.4 is fully engaged, distinguishing such cases from those where no client-to-engineer transmission occurred and the confidentiality provision therefore does not apply in the same way.
[Case 172] Relational principle establishing that when confidential information reaches an engineer through direct voluntary transmission by the client in the course of a professional engagement — as opposed to being independently discovered by the engineer through professional observation — the engineer's confidentiality obligation is fully engaged, distinguishing such cases from those where no client-to-engineer transmission occurred
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that the strength of a client's legitimate expectation of confidentiality over information in an engineer's possession is materially affected by the source through which that information was obtained: information directly and voluntarily conveyed by the client in the course of a business relationship generates a stronger confidentiality expectation than information independently discovered by the engineer through professional observation and inspection, such that the latter category may carry a diminished or absent confidentiality expectation even in the absence of an explicit disclosure agreement.
Client Authority Override of Safety Recommendation State
The MWC met and decided to proceed with the change in water source but to construct water treatment improvements at a later date.
State in which a client authority has been formally presented with a professional engineer's documented safety recommendation — including specific treatment requirements necessary to prevent public health harm — and has explicitly decided to proceed with the project while deferring the recommended safety measures to a later date, creating direct tension between client decision-making authority and the engineer's obligations to protect public health and safety.
Client Autonomy in Engineering Service Provider Selection
No one can deny that a client has a right to retain the engineering firm of its choice.
Relational principle recognizing that a client has a fundamental right to retain the engineering firm or individual engineer of its choice, and that this right must be given meaningful effect in any ethical analysis of engineer departure, solicitation, or competitive conduct — while simultaneously requiring that the method by which this right is exercised be fair and equitable to all concerned parties, including the incumbent firm and the individual engineers involved
Client Bargaining Interest Protection in Inspection Engagements
The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence.
Relational principle establishing that when an engineer is retained by a prospective purchaser to conduct a pre-transaction inspection, the engineer's duties of loyalty and faithful agency include protecting the client's negotiating and bargaining interests — not merely delivering a technically accurate report — such that any disclosure of the report's findings to the counterparty in the transaction (e.g., the seller's agent) without client consent constitutes a breach of the engineer's duty to act in the client's best interest.
Client Bargaining Position Adverse Disclosure Impact Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that transmitting a client's inspection or assessment report to an opposing party in a negotiation or transaction — such as a seller's real estate agent in a property purchase — can directly prejudice the client's bargaining position by revealing the client's knowledge, priorities, and leverage points to the opposing party, and to weigh this concrete harm to client interests as a factor confirming that the disclosure violates the faithful agent duty, independent of any formal confidentiality analysis.
Client Benefit Primacy Over All-Party Benefit Faithful Agent Disclosure Constraint
we surmise that Engineer B's disclosure of his relationship with client constitutes a neglect of the interests of his client
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer acting as faithful agent and trustee for a client must assess the permissibility of any disclosure of client-confidential information from the client's perspective — specifically, by evaluating whether the benefits of disclosure to all parties involved outweigh the detriments that may be suffered by the client — prohibiting the engineer from justifying disclosure on the grounds that it benefits all parties or serves collegial interests when the client's interests are thereby neglected, and establishing that the faithful agent standard requires the engineer to carry out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client rather than in a manner that serves the engineer's personal advantage, altruistic preferences, or a generalized all-party benefit calculus.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's altruistic or collegial motivation — including the desire to inform an outgoing engineer of a new engagement or to benefit all parties — does not override or justify breach of the engineer's duty as faithful agent and trustee to a client, prohibiting the engineer from treating benevolent intent as a sufficient basis for disclosing client-confidential information or acting contrary to explicit client instructions, and establishing that the balance of benefits and detriments must be assessed from the client's perspective rather than from the engineer's personal moral calculus, as established by BER Case 93-3.
Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Obligation
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations.
Duty of an engineer to clearly communicate to a client when budget constraints or refusal to fund protective measures creates or materially increases risks to public safety, health, or welfare, and to document that communication.
Resource constraint arising from a client's financial limitations that restricts the scope of protective measures, safeguards, or design features that can be implemented, creating tension between economically feasible solutions and professionally required standards of protection.
[proethica-intermediate] Limitations on available time, budget, materials, or human resources (Ganascia 2007)
Client Choice Domain Recognition Capability
Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system.
Capability to correctly identify when a design decision falls within the domain of legitimate client choice — including situations where no legal prohibition, zoning restriction, or mandatory code provision prohibits the client's preferred approach — and to distinguish such client-choice domains from situations where professional obligations require overriding or challenging client preferences, thereby correctly calibrating the engineer's advisory versus agent role.
Client Confidentiality Affirmative Invocation Prerequisite Constraint
There does not appear to be any affirmative action on the part of the client to treat the information as confidential, since it appears that the client was not even aware of the situation prior to it being brought to the client's attention and the client never directly requested that Engineer A maintain it as confidential.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to maintain client information as confidential — and to refrain from disclosing it in written reports submitted to public authorities — is conditioned on the client having affirmatively invoked confidentiality over the information, either by confiding it to the engineer under circumstances creating a reasonable expectation of confidence or by directly requesting non-disclosure; prohibiting the engineer from treating information as confidential when the client was unaware of the information prior to the engineer discovering it, never directly requested confidentiality, and took no affirmative action to treat the information as confidential — and establishing that the absence of affirmative client confidentiality invocation removes a key basis for withholding material findings from public authority reports.
Client Confidentiality Affirmative Invocation Prerequisite Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional confidentiality obligations under NSPE Code Section III.4 are triggered by affirmative client action — such as an explicit request to maintain information in confidence or a client's prior reliance on the engineer's confidentiality — and that the absence of any such affirmative invocation means that confidentiality does not bar inclusion of material findings in professional reports submitted to public authorities, enabling the engineer to proceed with complete disclosure without violating confidentiality duties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether a professional confidentiality obligation — such as that arising under §7 of the NSPE Code of Ethics — bars disclosure of technical findings to regulatory authorities, and to correctly determine that confidentiality does not apply when the disclosure involves apparent danger to the public interest rather than the client's technical processes or business affairs, thereby enabling the engineer to proceed with disclosure without violating confidentiality obligations.
Client Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
When D provides as-built drawings after bid openings, is employer information being shared without consent?
Capability to recognize when sharing professional work product, technical documents, or information obtained in a client or employer relationship with third parties — even without ulterior motive — crosses the boundary of confidentiality obligations, including understanding that good intentions and the absence of deliberate wrongdoing do not render such sharing ethically permissible, and that client and employer information requires formal consent before disclosure to external parties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a public agency engineer who manages or has custody of employer-owned technical documents — including as-built drawings, design files, and project records — to recognize that those documents are employer property and that sharing them with any external party requires formal employer authorization, and to act on that recognition by obtaining such authorization before any disclosure rather than proceeding on personal initiative, regardless of the engineer's belief that sharing would benefit the project.
Client Confidentiality Instruction Faithful Agent Compliance Obligation
franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A. Nevertheless, Engineer B reviewed the design information the following week and following his review, notified Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client to replace an incumbent engineer to comply with the client's explicit instruction to keep the new engagement confidential from the incumbent, recognizing that the duty of loyalty and fair dealing as a faithful agent and trustee requires the engineer to carry out the client's transaction in the manner most beneficial to the client — and that disclosing the engagement to the incumbent, even without personal advantage motivation, constitutes a neglect of the client's interests that is not justified by the benefits of disclosure.
Client Confidentiality Instruction Peer Review Notification Non-Override Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a client's explicit instruction to a reviewing engineer to maintain confidentiality about a new engagement — specifically, not to disclose the review relationship to the incumbent engineer whose work is being reviewed — cannot override the reviewing engineer's professional obligation under NSPE Code Section III.8.a to notify the incumbent engineer that a peer review is being conducted, because the notification requirement exists to protect the incumbent engineer's professional interests and the integrity of the review process, and client authority does not extend to suppressing this collegial professional duty.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer in private practice from reviewing or evaluating the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, when the incumbent engineer's contract with the client has not been terminated — establishing that covert evaluation of an active incumbent's work, particularly when conducted by a competitor, violates both the peer review notification requirement and the prohibition on improper competitive conduct, and prohibiting the reviewing engineer from proceeding with substantive evaluation of incumbent work without first ensuring the incumbent engineer is aware of the review.
Client Confidentiality Motive Unexplored Pre-Engagement State
we are troubled by the fact that Engineer B took this project without first exploring the reason why the client wanted Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the client
State in which an engineer accepts an engagement subject to a client's confidentiality instruction — specifically, an instruction not to notify an incumbent engineer of the new engagement — without first inquiring into or clarifying the client's reasons for that instruction, creating a condition where the engineer proceeds under an ethically ambiguous directive whose legitimacy has not been assessed, and where the failure to explore the rationale constitutes a procedural ethical deficiency independent of whether the instruction itself is ultimately followed or violated.
Client Confidentiality Non-Invocation Disclosure Facilitation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when a client has not affirmatively invoked confidentiality over a material finding — particularly when the client was not even aware of the finding prior to the engineer bringing it to the client's attention and never directly requested that the engineer maintain it as confidential — the absence of a confidentiality claim removes any confidentiality-based justification for withholding the finding from a written report submitted to a public regulatory authority, and the engineer's disclosure obligation is therefore unimpeded by confidentiality considerations.
[proethica-intermediate] Duty to protect confidential information of clients or employers (NSPE III.4)
Client Confidentiality Reliance Factor Escalation Modulation Constraint
In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the degree to which a licensed professional engineer may adopt a more measured, deliberate approach before escalating a discovered client violation is modulated by whether the client affirmatively confided the information to the engineer under circumstances creating a reasonable expectation of confidentiality — establishing that client-confided information creates a stronger basis for measured deliberation before escalation, while information independently observed by the engineer without client disclosure creates a weaker basis for deferral and a stronger basis for immediate direct action, prohibiting the invocation of implied confidentiality expectations for information the engineer independently observed rather than received in confidence.
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
the facts presented in the case raised a conflict between two basic ethical obligations of an engineer: The obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety
A professional ethics framework governing how engineers must balance their duty of confidentiality to clients against their paramount obligation to protect public health and safety, including the conditions under which public safety obligations override client confidentiality, and the graduated steps engineers must take before escalating to public authorities.
Client Consent Non-Prerequisite Safety Reporting Recognition Capability
As Engineers A and B are required to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and as this duty is a fundamental canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics, the consent of the MWC is not required.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the consent of a client or public authority — including a municipal water commission or other governing body — is not a prerequisite for escalating public health and safety concerns to regulatory authorities, and that the paramount professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare under NSPE Code Section II.1 operates independently of and overrides any client consent requirement, enabling the engineer to proceed with formal regulatory reporting without seeking or obtaining client approval.
Client Consent Non-Prerequisite for Safety Escalation Constraint
Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to escalate public health and safety concerns to appropriate regulatory authorities does not require the prior consent, approval, or authorization of the client or governing authority whose decisions created or perpetuated the safety risk — prohibiting engineers from treating client non-consent as a bar to regulatory escalation when the paramount duty to protect public safety, health, and welfare is engaged, as established by NSPE Code Section II.1 and the principle that the public safety canon supersedes client authority over the engineer's professional reporting obligations.
Client Consent Non-Requirement for Public Safety Escalation
Fundamental principle establishing that engineers are not required to obtain the consent, approval, or authorization of a client or governing body before escalating public health and safety concerns to appropriate regulatory authorities, because the paramount duty to protect public welfare supersedes the relational duty of deference to client direction
[Case 132] Fundamental principle establishing that engineers are not required to obtain the consent, approval, or authorization of a client before escalating public health and safety concerns to appropriate regulatory authorities, because the paramount duty to protect public welfare supersedes the relational duty of deference to client direction.
Client Consent Prerequisite Third-Party Report Distribution Capability
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.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and operationalize the requirement that express prior client consent must be obtained before transmitting, copying, or distributing a professional report — including inspection reports, assessment reports, or technical findings — to any third party not named as a party to the original service agreement, and to implement this consent-prerequisite as a procedural gate that must be cleared before any distribution occurs, regardless of the engineer's assessment of the third party's potential interest in or benefit from receiving the report.
Client Consent Prerequisite for Third-Party Report Sharing Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who prepares a written report for a fee-paying client must obtain the express prior consent of that client before transmitting, copying, or otherwise sharing the report with any third party — including parties involved in the same transaction — prohibiting the engineer from treating professional courtesy, routine practice, or transparency norms as a substitute for affirmative client authorization, and establishing that the client's proprietary interest in the commissioned report creates an implicit confidentiality obligation that persists even in the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement.
Client Consent for Third-Party Data Sharing Obligation
Per Code section II.1.c, confidential information can only be shared with prior consent of the Client.
Duty of a licensed engineer to obtain prior informed consent from a client before uploading, transmitting, or otherwise sharing the client's private or confidential project information into any third-party platform, open-source interface, or AI tool that may expose that information to the public domain or to parties outside the confidential engineer-client relationship.
Client Cost-Directive Safety Analysis Non-Subordination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refuse to subordinate a professionally recommended safety analysis — including specialized hydraulic, hydrologic, or climate-risk analysis — to a client's cost-reduction directive when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that the analysis is necessary to characterize material risks to public health, safety, or welfare, and to document the client's directive and the engineer's objection in writing.
Client Cost-Driven Safety Oversight Rejection State
the client indicated to Engineer A that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired
State in which a client refuses to fund a professionally recommended safety oversight measure (such as a full-time on-site project representative) on the basis of cost, causing the engineer to face a choice between proceeding without adequate safety safeguards or withdrawing from the project.
Client Cost-Driven Safety Refusal Non-Acquiescence Capability
After reviewing the completed project plans and costs, the client indicates to Engineer A that the project would be too costly if such a representative were hired.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has made a professional safety determination — such as the need for a full-time on-site project representative for a dangerous construction phase — to recognize that a client's refusal to implement that determination on cost grounds does not extinguish the engineer's professional obligation, and to refrain from simply proceeding with the project as if the safety concern had been resolved, understanding that cost-driven client refusal is not a professionally acceptable basis for abandoning a safety recommendation.
Client Cost-Driven Safety Standard Rejection State
While the desire of the developer to reduce costs is understandable and a legitimate consideration, when weighed against the apparent substantial risk to life and property, the latter consideration should prevail.
State in which a developer or client has explicitly refused to adopt an engineer's technically grounded safety design standard — such as a 100-year storm surge elevation — on the basis of cost reduction objectives, where the rejected standard is supported by newly released technical data and algorithms, and where the consequence of the lower standard is foreseeable risk to future residents and the general public, triggering obligations to continue advocacy, consider withdrawal, and potentially engage local government to advance region-wide code reform.
Client Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence Construction Safety Staffing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has professionally determined that a full-time on-site project representative is required due to the dangerous nature of a construction phase to refrain from acquiescing to a client's cost-driven refusal to hire such a representative — recognizing that the client's economic objection does not authorize the engineer to proceed with the project absent the safety oversight the engineer's own judgment identified as necessary, and that proceeding without insistence or withdrawal constitutes a subordination of the paramount public welfare obligation to the client's financial concerns.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has made a professionally grounded safety recommendation — such as requiring a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction project — to refrain from abandoning that recommendation and proceeding with the work when the client objects on cost grounds, recognizing that proceeding without the recommended safety measure constitutes a subordination of the paramount public welfare obligation to the client's economic concerns, in violation of NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
Client Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence Storm Surge Safety Obligation
Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a residential development project must be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation to protect public safety to refrain from acquiescing to a client's cost-driven refusal to build to that standard — recognizing that the client's economic objection does not authorize the engineer to certify, proceed with, or remain silent about a design that the engineer's professional judgment identifies as inadequate to protect future residents from foreseeable storm surge risk.
Client Cost-Refusal Storm Surge Standard Non-Acquiescence Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has determined, based on newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm, that a coastal residential development must be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation from acquiescing to a client's cost-driven refusal to adopt that standard — establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety prohibits acceptance of a lower design standard when the engineer's own technical analysis has established that the lower standard creates material public safety risk to future residents, and requiring the engineer to maintain the professional recommendation, document the client's refusal, and assess whether escalation to appropriate authorities is warranted.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint prohibiting an engineer from continuing work on a project when a client's refusal to fund required safety measures — driven by economic concerns — would cause the engineer to abandon the primary ethical duty to public safety, as established by BER Case 84-5 precedent.
Client Cost-Refusal Withdrawal Trigger Constraint
If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A's design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a client's cost-driven refusal to adopt a professionally required safety standard creates material public safety risk must withdraw from the project after exhausting persistent persuasion efforts — prohibiting the engineer from continuing to provide professional services that would facilitate construction to a standard the engineer has determined to be inadequate for public safety, and establishing that withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory once the client has definitively refused to adopt the engineer's professionally grounded safety recommendation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to withdraw from a project — arising from a client's refusal to address a material public health, safety, or welfare risk — is triggered only after the engineer has exhausted all available graduated engagement steps, including direct client discussion and proposal of intermediate disclosure mechanisms, prohibiting both premature withdrawal before intermediate steps are attempted and indefinite continuation after all intermediate steps have been refused, and establishing that withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory — not merely permissible — once the client has refused all available intermediate options.
Client Data Confidentiality Management Capability
When Engineer A uploaded Client W's information into the AI open-source interface, this was tantamount to placing the Client's private information in the public domain.
Capability to recognize when professional activities — including use of AI tools, cloud platforms, or third-party software — involve transmission or exposure of client confidential information to external parties or the public domain, and to obtain prior informed client consent before such transmission occurs, in compliance with professional codes requiring confidentiality of client information.
Client Data Confidentiality in AI Tool Use
Relational principle requiring engineers to protect client confidential information when using AI or other third-party tools, prohibiting the upload or disclosure of private client data to open-source or public-domain AI interfaces without prior client consent
[proethica-intermediate] Must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements.
Client Data Exposed to Public Domain State
State in which a professional has uploaded or transmitted confidential client information into a system or interface that places that information in the public domain or accessible to third parties, without obtaining prior client consent, thereby triggering confidentiality breach obligations regardless of whether harm has yet materialized.
Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation
Firm DBA states that City leaders, citing economic, political, and social considerations, specifically instructed Firm DBA to perform the public engagement sessions in the way that Firm DBA completed them.
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's receipt of explicit client instructions to perform work in a manner that violates professional ethics obligations — including instructions to conduct exclusionary public engagement, suppress material facts in professional reports, or falsely characterize community support — does not constitute an ethical justification for compliance, and that the engineer retains an independent obligation to refuse, correct, or report such instructions
[Case 84] Professional principle establishing that an engineer's receipt of explicit client instructions to perform work in a manner that violates professional ethics obligations does not constitute an ethical justification for compliance, and that the engineer retains an independent obligation to refuse, correct, or report such instructions
[Case 87] Professional principle establishing that an engineer's receipt of explicit client instructions to perform work in a manner that violates professional ethics obligations does not constitute an ethical justification for compliance, and that the engineer retains an independent obligation to refuse, correct, or report such instructions
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers to refuse to continue work on a project when a client insists on proceeding without adequate safety measures that the engineer has identified as necessary, prohibiting the engineer from subordinating public safety obligations to client economic concerns or preferences
Client Disservice Through Incomplete Reporting Prohibition
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's omission of material technical findings from a professional report not only violates duties to the profession and to truthful reporting, but also constitutes a disservice to the engineer's own client — because incomplete or selectively framed reports may misdirect the client's conclusions, deprive the client of the opportunity to present a rational basis for discounting unfavorable evidence, and ultimately undermine the client's own interests in the proceeding or decision for which the report was prepared.
Client Disservice Through Selective Reporting Non-Commission Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client in an adversarial or litigation context to refrain from producing reports that selectively omit material technical findings in a manner that disserves the client's actual interests — recognizing that selective omission of material facts may misdirect the client's legal or technical conclusions, deprive the client of a rational basis for evaluating the opposing party's position, and ultimately harm the client's interests even when the engineer believes the omission serves the client; and that an engineer who omits material facts to 'defend' a client thereby fails both professional ethics obligations and the faithful agent duty to the client.
Client Disservice Through Selective Technical Reporting Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client in an adversarial or litigation context to recognize that producing a selective, incomplete technical report — even when intended to support the client's position — actually disserves the client by potentially misdirecting conclusions, foreclosing favorable interpretations, and undermining the client's ability to make informed decisions; and to understand that genuine faithful agent service requires complete and objective reporting rather than advocacy-driven selectivity.
Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation
Engineers should take the opportunity to educate clients.
Professional principle requiring engineers — particularly when acting as trustees with discretionary design authority — to treat the presentation of sustainable design alternatives as an opportunity and obligation to educate clients about options they may not have independently considered, recognizing that client education through complete option presentation harmonizes the faithful agent obligation with sustainable development principles, and that refusing to present sustainable options or quitting rather than engaging fails both the client and the profession
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle recognizing that while engineers are encouraged — but not strictly required — to adhere to sustainable development principles, engineers who identify significant sustainability conflicts in assigned work have a legitimate basis to formally raise those concerns through appropriate professional channels, and firms bear a corresponding obligation to engage substantively with those concerns rather than dismissing them
Client Education Through Sustainable Options Constraint
Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies sustainable design alternatives must present those alternatives to the client as part of the professional engagement — rather than refusing to perform the task or withdrawing from the project — establishing that the engineer's obligation to adhere to sustainable development principles is fulfilled through client education and informed presentation, not through unilateral refusal or project abandonment, as established by BER Case 22-10 precedent.
Client Financial Interest Protection in Contract Drafting Capability
the client is required to 'indemnify and hold harmless Engineer A for any damages or legal costs (including attorneys fees) arising from Engineer A's negligence in the performance of pollution-related services.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, acting as a faithful agent and trustee, to recognize when proposed or existing contractual provisions — including self-protective indemnification clauses — subordinate client financial interests to the engineer's own risk-avoidance interests, and to refrain from drafting, inserting, or maintaining such provisions, thereby fulfilling the faithful agent obligation to prioritize client interests in professional service agreements.
Client Impetus Mitigation Factor Absence Aggravation Constraint
unlike the facts in BER Case No. 97-2, in which the client actually approached the engineer and encouraged the engineer to open his own company and suggested that the engineer could expect a retainer with the client, there does not appear to be any client impetus that would mitigate the actions taken by Engineer A under the facts
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer departs from an employer firm and solicits the former employer's clients, the absence of client-initiated impetus — meaning the absence of any client approach to the engineer encouraging independent practice or expressing preference for the engineer's independent services — is a material aggravating factor that heightens the ethical scrutiny applicable to the departing engineer's competitive solicitation conduct, prohibiting the engineer from treating self-initiated client solicitation as ethically equivalent to client-impelled engagement, and establishing that the presence of genuine client impetus (as in BER Case 97-2, where the client approached the engineer and encouraged independent practice) may mitigate ethical concern while its absence removes that mitigation and subjects the engineer's conduct to stricter ethical evaluation, as established by NSPE BER Case 97-2 and the accumulated BER departure-competition doctrine.
Client Indemnification for Ordinary Negligence Ethically Impermissible State
the engineer has an ethical obligation to obtain such protection and not seek indemnification from the client for ordinary negligence
State in which an engineer's contractual requirement that the client indemnify the engineer for ordinary negligence is ethically impermissible because professional liability insurance is reasonably available and affordable, making the indemnification provision an unjustified transfer of risk from the engineer — who bears professional responsibility — to the client who lacks the engineer's expertise and authority.
Client Insistence Agent Completion Constraint
Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client's agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that once a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern has fulfilled the obligation to present sustainable or superior alternatives to a client, and the client has been fully informed yet insists upon a technically and legally permissible design approach, the engineer must complete the accepted and assigned task as a faithful agent — prohibiting continued refusal, withdrawal, or non-performance on sustainability grounds after the client has exercised informed decision-making authority over a permissible design choice.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies sustainable design alternatives must present those alternatives to the client as part of the professional engagement — rather than refusing to perform the task or withdrawing from the project — establishing that the engineer's obligation to adhere to sustainable development principles is fulfilled through client education and informed presentation, not through unilateral refusal or project abandonment, as established by BER Case 22-10 precedent.
Client Insistence or Project Withdrawal Safety Enforcement Capability
the engineer 'did not force the issue, but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified safety code violations or hazardous conditions during professional services to recognize that the professional obligation requires either insisting that the client take appropriate remedial action or refusing to continue work on the project — and that going along without dissent or comment, or making only a brief mention in a confidential report, does not satisfy this obligation — consistent with the principle that the NSPE Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect public safety, health, and welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a client's cost-driven refusal to adopt a professionally recommended safety standard creates a substantial risk to public health, safety, and welfare to continue pursuing substantive discussions with the client — attempting to convince the client of the danger to future residents and the general public — before withdrawing from the project, recognizing that withdrawal is a last resort after good-faith persuasion efforts have been exhausted.
Client Instruction Environmental Finding Omission Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from omitting a technically confirmed environmental finding — including a threatened species habitat risk — from a written report submitted to a public authority, even when the client verbally discourages or implicitly pressures the engineer to exclude the finding, establishing that client preference for omission does not override the engineer's obligation to include all relevant and pertinent environmental information in reports submitted to public decision-making bodies, as established by NSPE Code Section II.3.a and the principle that public authority reports must be complete and objective regardless of client interest in suppressing adverse findings.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who receives a credible report from a qualified colleague — such as a firm biologist — that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators must include that information in any written report submitted to a public authority considering the development proposal — prohibiting omission of the threatened species finding on the grounds that the species is not formally classified as 'endangered,' and establishing that the engineer's obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports extends to threatened species findings regardless of the species' formal endangerment classification.
Client Instruction Non-Override of Collegial Peer-Review Notification Self-Recognition Capability
Prior to the review, franchiser specifically tells Engineer B not to disclose to Engineer A, Engineer B's relationship with franchiser.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a peer review to recognize that a client's explicit instruction not to disclose the peer review engagement to the incumbent engineer does not override the engineer's independent professional ethics obligation to notify the incumbent — and to correctly identify that compliance with such a client instruction would constitute facilitation of a covert review prohibited by professional ethics codes, regardless of the client's legitimate authority to commission the review.
Client Instruction Non-Override of Incumbent Peer-Review Notification Obligation
Relational principle establishing that a client's explicit instruction to a reviewing engineer to conceal the existence of a peer review engagement from the incumbent engineer does not override the reviewing engineer's independent professional obligation to notify the incumbent of the review — because the incumbent's right to know that their work is under review is grounded in professional dignity and collegial ethics norms that cannot be waived by client instruction alone, even when the client has a legitimate business reason for the confidentiality request
[Case 126] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a peer review of an active incumbent engineer's work to notify the incumbent engineer of the engagement despite explicit client instructions to maintain confidentiality, recognizing that a client's direction to conduct a covert review of an active engineer's work without that engineer's knowledge constitutes an instruction to violate a fundamental collegial duty — the incumbent engineer's right to know that their active work is under independent review — and that client loyalty does not extend to facilitating ethical violations against professional peers whose reputations and livelihoods are directly implicated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring that a competing engineer who is asked to review or evaluate the work of an incumbent engineer under an active contract must refrain from doing so unless the incumbent engineer has knowledge of the review, recognizing that covert competitive review of an incumbent's work violates both the incumbent's professional dignity and the integrity of the procurement process
Client Instruction Report Suppression Prohibition Constraint
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from complying with a client's instruction to suppress, withhold, or refrain from producing a written report of completed technical findings — particularly when those findings reveal a public health, safety, or welfare risk — establishing that the client's payment of fees and termination of the contract do not extinguish the engineer's obligation to document and disclose findings that bear on public safety, and that the instruction not to render a written report cannot override the engineer's professional duty to produce a complete and accurate record of completed work.
Client Instruction Unprofessional Conduct Reporting to Proper Authority Obligation
That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has received a client instruction that constitutes unprofessional conduct — including an instruction to suppress, withhold, or refrain from producing a written report of adverse engineering findings — to report that instruction to the proper authorities under §2(c) of the engineering ethics code, recognizing that the client's subsequent presentation of contradictory data at a public regulatory hearing transforms the engineer's silence into active complicity in unprofessional conduct, and that the engineer's paramount duty to protect public welfare requires affirmative reporting action rather than passive inaction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reached a professional finding — whether verbal or written — that a condition poses a risk to public health, safety, or welfare, to resist and refuse client instructions to suppress, withhold, or refrain from filing a written report of those findings, recognizing that the client's payment of fees and termination of the contract does not extinguish the engineer's obligation to ensure that public authorities and affected parties have accurate information, and that acquiescing to report suppression constitutes a violation of the paramount public welfare duty.
Client Interest Alignment Peer Review Cooperation Obligation
Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors, must act in the best interests of their clients, and must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose original design work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review to cooperate fully with that review as an expression of the faithful agent duty to act in the best interests of the client, recognizing that the client's decision to commission a peer review — particularly following discovery of design errors — reflects a legitimate client interest in quality assurance that the engineer is obligated to support rather than obstruct.
Client Interest Non-Subordination to Engineer Self-Protective Indemnification Obligation
Under the agreement, the client is required to 'indemnify and hold harmless Engineer A for any damages or legal costs (including attorneys fees) arising from Engineer A's negligence in the performance of pollution-related services.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as a faithful agent and trustee for clients to refrain from inserting contractual terms — including broad indemnification clauses — that subordinate client financial interests to the engineer's own self-protective financial interests, recognizing that the faithful agent role requires the engineer's contractual arrangements to serve client interests and that clauses requiring clients to absorb the engineer's own negligence liability represent a direct inversion of the faithful agent duty.
Client Interest Primacy Over Engineer Personal Advantage in Faithful Agent Role
the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing denotes that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction, in which he and another person are interested, in such manner as will be most for the benefit of the latter, and not in such a way that he himself might be tempted, for the sake of his personal advantage, to neglect the interests of the other.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer acting as a faithful agent and trustee of a client must carry out the engagement in the manner most beneficial to the client's interests, and must not allow personal advantage, personal relationships, or personal motivations — even benign ones — to influence conduct in ways that neglect or subordinate the client's legitimate interests, even when the engineer's deviation from client instructions appears motivated by good intentions rather than self-interest
Client Long-Term Interest Adverse Consequence of Non-Disclosure Advisory Capability
In addition, it appeared that, as in all cases that involve potential violations of the law, Engineer B's actions could have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and communicate to a client that concealing, minimizing, or euphemistically reporting hazardous conditions or safety violations — while apparently serving the client's short-term interest in avoiding regulatory scrutiny or litigation exposure — actually damages the client's long-term interests and reputation, and that candid professional disclosure is in the client's genuine long-term interest, thereby reframing the disclosure obligation as aligned with rather than opposed to client welfare.
Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Alignment Recognition Capability
it appears that as in all cases which involve potential violations of the law, Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a client's genuine long-term interests — including reputation, legal standing, and avoidance of regulatory liability — are best served by candid professional disclosure of hazardous conditions and clear communication of legal compliance obligations, and to correctly identify that suppressing or minimizing hazardous waste findings in order to preserve a business relationship actually damages the client's long-term interests by exposing the client to greater legal liability, regulatory penalties, and reputational harm than would result from timely, compliant disclosure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and communicate to a client that concealing, minimizing, or euphemistically reporting hazardous conditions or safety violations — while apparently serving the client's short-term interest in avoiding regulatory scrutiny or litigation exposure — actually damages the client's long-term interests and reputation, and that candid professional disclosure is in the client's genuine long-term interest, thereby reframing the disclosure obligation as aligned with rather than opposed to client welfare.
Client Long-Term Interest Legal Compliance Non-Subordination to Short-Term Business Retention Constraint
In addition, it appears that as in all cases which involve potential violations of the law, Engineer B's actions may have had the effect of seriously damaging the long-term interests and reputation of the client.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who suppresses or minimizes mandatory regulatory reporting of a hazardous condition to preserve a client business relationship is acting contrary to the client's genuine long-term interests, prohibiting the engineer from treating short-term business relationship preservation as a justification for suppression and requiring the engineer to recognize that accurate disclosure of hazardous conditions and their legal implications — including mandatory disposal obligations — serves the client's long-term interests by avoiding the far greater legal, reputational, and financial consequences of unlawful disposal, as established by the principle that engineers acting as faithful agents must consider the client's actual long-term welfare rather than the client's immediate preference.
Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's duty to serve the client's genuine interests extends beyond immediate task completion to include advising the client of legal obligations triggered by discovered conditions — particularly environmental hazards — recognizing that an engineer who withholds or obscures legally significant findings in order to preserve a business relationship in fact damages the client's long-term legal standing and reputation, and that true client service requires honest disclosure of legal exposure and the steps needed to cure it.
Client Long-Term Interest Protection Through Legal Compliance Advisory Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers conditions on a client's property that likely constitute regulatory violations — such as hazardous waste — to recognize that the client's genuine long-term interests are best served by clear, honest communication of the hazard and the resulting legal obligations, rather than by vague or euphemistic notification designed to preserve the business relationship, because inadequate communication that enables the client to proceed in ignorance of or in violation of applicable law may seriously damage the client's long-term interests and reputation in addition to violating public welfare obligations.
Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract.
Relational principle requiring engineers to serve client interests faithfully within the bounds of professional ethics, including respecting client financial constraints, contractual scope, and business decisions, while maintaining the primacy of public welfare obligations
[Case 12] Relational principle requiring engineers to serve client interests faithfully within the bounds of professional ethics, including respecting client financial constraints and project requirements, while maintaining the primacy of public welfare obligations
[Case 88] Relational principle requiring engineers to serve their clients' legitimate interests diligently and faithfully, acting as trusted agents within the scope of engagement.
Client Loyalty Claim Overriding Contractual Impartiality State
Owner accepts Engineer A's interpretation, but also criticizes Engineer A, claiming that because of Engineer A's ethical duty of loyalty to the Owner, Engineer A should have found in Owner's favor
State in which a client, after accepting an engineer's impartial determination adverse to the client's position, retroactively asserts that the engineer's ethical duty of loyalty required the engineer to find in the client's favor regardless of the technical and contractual merits — conflating the faithful-agent duty with an obligation of unconditional partisan advocacy and mischaracterizing the scope of professional loyalty obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer's post-engagement obligations to a former client are being evaluated to determine whether the 'faithful agent and trustee' standard imposes a duty of absolute, perpetual loyalty that would bar the engineer from ever taking a position adverse to that former client's interests in any matter — even one entirely unrelated to prior services. The state is resolved when the applicable code or reviewing body determines that no such absolute duty exists, and that the engineer retains professional autonomy and independence to accept engagements adverse to former clients in unrelated matters, subject to disclosure obligations and the absence of confidential information conflicts.
Client Loyalty Faithful Agent Impartiality Reconciliation Constraint
Engineer A owed a general duty of loyalty to the Owner. However, in acting impartially under the terms of the contract, the Board of Ethical Review determined that Engineer A fulfilled that ethical obligation to the Owner.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's general duty of loyalty to an owner-client does not require — and in fact prohibits — finding in the owner's favor in a contractual dispute when the engineer has been designated as the impartial interpreter of contract documents, establishing that faithful agent obligations are fulfilled through candid, objective, and contractually compliant determinations rather than through partisan advocacy for the client's preferred outcome, and prohibiting the conflation of loyalty with partiality in contexts where the contract itself designates the engineer as neutral arbiter, as established by BER Case 93-4.
Client Loyalty Impartiality Paradox Recognition Capability
the Owner and the Contractor asked Engineer A to review the dispute
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and correctly resolve the apparent paradox that a duty of loyalty to an owner-client does not require — and in fact prohibits — finding in the owner's favor when the engineer has been contractually designated as an impartial dispute resolver, and that acting impartially in such a role constitutes the highest fulfillment of the loyalty obligation by providing candid interpretation, expediting claims, and avoiding collusion charges.
Client Loyalty Non-Partisan Dispute Finding Boundary Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who owes a general duty of loyalty to an owner-client to recognize that the loyalty obligation does not extend to rendering partisan, client-favoring findings in a contractually designated dispute resolution role — and that finding against the client's expressed preference, when the technical and contractual merits support the opposing party, constitutes fulfillment rather than breach of the loyalty obligation, because impartial performance serves the client's genuine long-term interests by expediting claims, avoiding delays, preventing collusion allegations, and providing candid professional analysis.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Priority constraint establishing that when engineer obligations to client fidelity conflict with obligations to public safety, the public safety obligation takes precedence, constraining the engineer from fulfilling client directives that would compromise public welfare.
[proethica-intermediate] Constraints establishing precedence when multiple requirements conflict (Scheutz & Malle 2014)
Client Motive Inquiry Pre-Engagement Confidentiality Instruction Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who receives a client instruction to maintain confidentiality about a new engagement — specifically, not to disclose the engagement to an incumbent engineer whose work will be reviewed — must inquire into the client's reason for the confidentiality instruction before accepting the engagement, on the grounds that the motive for the instruction is material to the engineer's assessment of whether compliance with the instruction would require the engineer to violate professional ethical obligations, and that proceeding without such inquiry constitutes a failure of professional due diligence.
State in which a client explicitly directs a professional to proceed without required safeguards or compliance measures, despite the professional's documented warnings, creating direct tension between client authority and the professional's public safety and regulatory obligations.
Client Notification Obligation for Discovered Safety Hazard
Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
Relational principle requiring engineers acting as faithful agents of their clients to advise clients in writing of identified risks that threaten the safety or functionality of the project or property for which they are engaged, even when those risks arise from conditions outside the contracted scope of work, because the faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare, not merely the narrow contracted deliverable
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring engineers acting as faithful agents of their clients to advise clients in writing of identified risks that threaten the success, safety, or functionality of the project for which they are engaged, even when those risks arise from conditions outside the contracted scope of work, because the faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare, not merely the narrow contracted deliverable
Client Notification of Sustainability-Environmental Conflict Obligation
cites a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has received credible technical evidence — from a subordinate, external study, or their own analysis — that a client-approved or landscape-architect-specified design element conflicts with sustainable development principles and poses material environmental risk (such as lowering the water table in a semi-arid region), to notify the client of that conflict and the supporting technical evidence, so that the client can make an informed decision about whether to modify the specification, accept the risk, or seek alternative designs — consistent with the faithful agent duty and the public welfare paramount principle.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified multiple design alternatives for a public infrastructure project to present each alternative completely and objectively to the client decision-makers, including all advantages, disadvantages, long-term risks, cost tradeoffs, sustainability implications, and disproportionate impact considerations, so that decision-makers can make a fully informed choice among the alternatives.
Client Override of Safety Analysis Written Documentation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose client has directed them to forgo a recommended safety or risk analysis — particularly one addressing foreseeable third-party harm — to document that client directive and the engineer's professional objection in writing, so that the record reflects the engineer's compliance with the faithful agent duty while preserving evidence of the engineer's professional judgment and the client's assumption of responsibility for the decision to forgo the analysis.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineer to clearly communicate to a client when budget constraints or refusal to fund protective measures creates or materially increases risks to public safety, health, or welfare, and to document that communication.
Client Plan Transfer Non-Authorization of Successor Unsealed Alteration Constraint
The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a client's act of transferring a predecessor engineer's signed and sealed drawings to a successor engineer — even with explicit direction to use those drawings as a guide for redesign — does not authorize the successor engineer to make material design changes without complying with all professional obligations governing modification of sealed engineering documents, including the obligation to remove the predecessor's seal, affix the successor's own seal, and document all changes; prohibiting the successor engineer from treating client authorization as a substitute for compliance with professional sealing and attribution requirements.
The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer evaluate and communicate to a client when a selected design approach conflicts with the client's own adopted policies — including climate resilience, sustainability, or environmental justice policies — prohibiting the engineer from proceeding with implementation without first ensuring the client's decision-makers are fully informed of the policy misalignment, even when the client retains ultimate authority to proceed.
Client Procurement Process Integrity Obligation
The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City.
Domain-specific principle requiring municipal and public clients — and their administrative agents — to conduct consulting engineering contract renewal and selection processes through fair, merit-based, and transparent procedures, prohibiting the use of administrative authority to solicit competitor critiques of incumbents as an improper mechanism to influence procurement outcomes
Client Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Obligation
Duty of a municipal client — acting through its administrative agents — to conduct consulting engineering contract renewal and selection processes with integrity, including refraining from soliciting competing engineers to evaluate and critique the incumbent engineer's work during the active contract period or pending renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromises the fairness of the competitive process, creates conflicts of interest for the solicited competitor, and undermines the incumbent engineer's professional standing without due process.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency procurement or supervisory role to ensure that engineering service contracts are awarded through open, competitive, and qualification-based processes that provide all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, and to refrain from establishing or perpetuating exclusive contracting relationships that circumvent competitive procurement requirements without legal justification.
Client Proprietary Right Over Engineer-Generated Work Product State
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
State in which a client retains an implicit proprietary right to exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on the client's behalf — even in the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement and even where no confidential information was transmitted by the client to the engineer — such that the engineer's voluntary disclosure of the commissioned work product to a third party with adverse or potentially adverse interests constitutes a violation of the client's confidentiality right, regardless of the engineer's good-faith or altruistic motive.
Professional norms and ethical obligations recognizing the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client, including the prohibition on voluntarily providing copies of client-commissioned reports to parties with actual or potential adverse interests, even absent explicit transmission of confidential information by the client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to protect confidential and proprietary information obtained from a client or employer, including the duration of that duty after the professional relationship ends, the prohibition on using such information to benefit a competing party, and the obligation to maintain trust and loyalty to former clients even when no current professional relationship exists.
Client Relationship Tied to Individual Engineer Rather Than Firm State
ABC's business with Clover City was related strictly to the presence of Engineer A in the firm
State in which a client's professional relationship with an engineering firm is found to be attributable solely to the presence of a specific individual engineer within that firm, rather than to the firm's institutional capabilities, reputation, or other personnel — such that the client's interest in the firm's services would not persist if that individual departed. This state weakens the former employer's claim to client goodwill and strengthens the departing engineer's ethical standing to compete for that client, because the client's loyalty was never truly to the firm as an entity.
Client Remediation Monitoring Capability
If the client indicates that those steps will be taken, the engineer should monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has confronted a client about an environmental or legal violation — and received the client's assurance that remedial steps will be taken — to monitor the situation over time until sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been fully remediated in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the ability to assess the adequacy of remediation progress, identify when promised corrective action is not being taken, and determine when the monitoring obligation has been discharged.
Client Remediation Monitoring Follow-Through Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has confronted a client about a confirmed environmental law violation and received the client's assurance that remedial steps will be taken must monitor the situation until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the situation has been remedied in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations — prohibiting the engineer from treating the client's verbal assurance of remediation as a complete discharge of the professional obligation, and establishing that the monitoring obligation persists until actual compliance is confirmed.
Client Report Suppression Instruction Recognition Capability
Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a client's instruction not to render a written report — particularly when coupled with full payment for services rendered and contract termination — constitutes a suspicious directive that may be designed to suppress adverse professional findings, and to correctly identify that such an instruction does not extinguish the professional obligation to document and report those findings, especially when public health, safety, and welfare are implicated.
Engineer verbally advises client that the discharge will reduce water quality below the standards and that remediation will be expensive. Client instructs Engineers not to file a written report, pays Engineer, and terminates the contract.
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from acquiescing to client instructions to suppress, withhold, or refrain from filing written professional reports when those reports contain findings material to public health, safety, or welfare — establishing that the client's authority to direct the scope and terms of an engineering engagement does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant professional findings
Client Report Suppression Resistance Obligation
Client instructs Engineers not to file a written report, pays Engineer, and terminates the contract.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reached a professional finding — whether verbal or written — that a condition poses a risk to public health, safety, or welfare, to resist and refuse client instructions to suppress, withhold, or refrain from filing a written report of those findings, recognizing that the client's payment of fees and termination of the contract does not extinguish the engineer's obligation to ensure that public authorities and affected parties have accurate information, and that acquiescing to report suppression constitutes a violation of the paramount public welfare duty.
Client Risk Consequence Communication Constraint
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer who has identified a foreseeable public safety risk that a client is unwilling to address to communicate to the client not only the public welfare rationale for the recommended safety evaluation but also the potential risk to the client of not evaluating or disclosing the potential impacts — including legal, financial, and reputational consequences — establishing that complete client engagement requires disclosure of client-side consequences alongside public welfare considerations, and prohibiting the engineer from limiting client engagement to public welfare arguments alone when client-side risk information is material to the client's decision.
Client Risk Consequence Communication Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who recommends a course of action — such as specialized analysis or public disclosure — that a client is reluctant to authorize, to communicate to the client not only the public welfare rationale for the recommendation but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to the client of declining to pursue the recommended course of action, so that the client can make a fully informed decision about whether to authorize the work with complete awareness of the consequences of refusal.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing contracted work for a client, observes a condition posing a foreseeable risk to the client's property or to the operability of a safety system — where the risk does not rise to the level of an imminent public health, safety, and welfare emergency — to advise the client in writing of the identified risk, while recognizing that this notification duty does not extend to an obligation to investigate the condition further, to diagnose its root cause, or to recommend specific mitigation alternatives, unless separately engaged to do so.
Client Risk Consequence Communication for Safety Analysis Refusal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who recommends a specialized safety analysis or risk evaluation to communicate to the client not only the public welfare rationale for the recommended analysis but also the specific professional, legal, regulatory, and project-outcome risks that the client assumes by refusing to authorize the recommended analysis — including risks of regulatory rejection, project failure, liability exposure, and reputational harm — so that the client can make a genuinely informed decision about whether to authorize the recommended work.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to clearly and completely communicate identified or estimated risks — including preliminary, qualitative, or uncertain risks — to clients in a timely and ethically complete manner, including during project interruptions or transitions
Client Safety Recommendation Rejection Without Standards Basis State
Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
State in which a company or client has explicitly rejected a professional engineer's recommendation for additional safety testing or investigation on the basis of cost and schedule considerations, where the rejection occurs in the absence of any applicable product-specific safety standards that would either mandate or preclude the additional testing — leaving the engineer's safety concern unresolved, the product proceeding toward market without the recommended investigation, and the engineer facing a decision about whether to escalate internally, externally, or through resignation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a developer or client has explicitly refused to adopt an engineer's technically grounded safety design standard — such as a 100-year storm surge elevation — on the basis of cost reduction objectives, where the rejected standard is supported by newly released technical data and algorithms, and where the consequence of the lower standard is foreseeable risk to future residents and the general public, triggering obligations to continue advocacy, consider withdrawal, and potentially engage local government to advance region-wide code reform.
Client Safety Violation Insistence or Project Withdrawal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers safety code violations or hazardous conditions during the performance of professional services, and whose client refuses to take remedial action, to insist that the client take appropriate corrective action or, if the client continues to refuse, to withdraw from the project — recognizing that passive acquiescence without dissent or comment in the face of known safety violations constitutes an ethical violation, and that the engineer's paramount public welfare obligation requires active insistence rather than silent compliance.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material public health, safety, or welfare risk, pursued graduated escalation with the client, and been refused both the opportunity to conduct recommended analysis and the opportunity to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration, to withdraw from the project — recognizing that continued participation in a project where the client has foreclosed all avenues for addressing identified public safety risks would make the engineer complicit in the suppression of those risks.
Client Sealed Plan Transfer Non-Authorization of Successor Alteration Obligation
Recognition that a client's act of transferring an original engineer's signed and sealed drawings to a successor engineer — and directing the successor to use those drawings as a guide for redesign — does not authorize the successor engineer to make substantive design changes while leaving the original engineer's seal intact, and does not relieve the client of responsibility for facilitating a process that results in falsely attributed sealed engineering documents, recognizing that clients cannot grant permissions that exceed the ethical authority of the engineering profession itself.
Client Sealed Plan Transfer Non-Authorization of Successor Alteration Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a successor on a project to recognize that a client's act of transferring an original engineer's signed and sealed drawings — even with explicit direction to use them as a guide for redesign — does not authorize the successor engineer to make undocumented alterations to those sealed documents, leave the original engineer's seal intact after material changes, or bypass the professional obligations owed to the original engineer and the licensing authority; and to recognize that client authorization is legally and professionally insufficient to substitute for the procedural requirements governing sealed plan modification.
Client Solicitation Departure Non-Disclosure Prudential Weighing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed, is approached by the employer's client with an invitation to establish an independent firm, to weigh whether voluntary disclosure of that solicitation to the current employer is prudentially advisable — recognizing that while non-disclosure is not necessarily an ethical violation, proactive disclosure would protect the engineer's professional relationship and avoid the appearance of disloyalty or concealment, particularly where the solicitation creates a nascent conflict of interest with the engineer's faithful agent duties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional engineer or engineer intern who, while not ethically required to disclose certain personal or professional information to a prospective employer, recognizes that voluntary disclosure of that information — when it is relevant to a condition of employment — would place the engineer in a stronger professional and relational position with the employer if the condition is subsequently not met, thereby protecting the engineer from the amplified consequences of non-disclosure that arise when the employer later discovers the withheld information in a context of employment jeopardy.
the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
A client role in which a corporate or organizational client, upon receiving adverse verbal findings from an engineer indicating potential violations of established safety or regulatory standards, terminates the engineering contract and explicitly instructs the engineer not to produce a written report, thereby generating a conflict between the engineer's duty of confidentiality and loyalty to the client and the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Client Technical Review Incapacity State
The local public agency does not have the in-house technical resources to review the drawings and specifications
State in which the client or owner of an engineering project lacks the in-house technical expertise or resources to independently evaluate the adequacy, completeness, or correctness of engineering drawings, specifications, or other professional deliverables — thereby placing the client in a position of complete reliance on the engineer's professional judgment and integrity, and heightening the engineer's obligations of candor and completeness.
Client Transition Overlap Engagement State
franchiser began discussions with Engineer B and retained Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns
State in which a client has initiated engagement with a new engineer (Engineer B) for services overlapping with or succeeding those of an incumbent engineer (Engineer A) whose contract has not yet expired — creating a condition where the incoming engineer is simultaneously bound by duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the new client while the outgoing engineer retains active contractual rights, and where the client has instructed the incoming engineer to maintain confidentiality about the new engagement from the incumbent, generating tension between faithful agent obligations to the new client and professional courtesy obligations toward the incumbent.
Client Unprofessional Conduct Instruction Identification and Reporting Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to identify when a client's instruction — such as an instruction not to render a written report of adverse findings — constitutes a request for unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the applicable ethics code, and to act on that identification by reporting the instruction to the proper professional or regulatory authority, as required by §2(c) of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Client Verbal Mention Non-Substitution for Public Authority Written Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material environmental risk finding — including a threatened species concern reported by a firm specialist — to refrain from treating a verbal mention of that concern to the developer client as a substitute for inclusion of the finding in a written report submitted to a public regulatory authority, recognizing that the public authority's decision-making interest in complete written information is independent of and not satisfied by the engineer's private verbal communication with the client.
Client Waiver of Independent Engineering Review Right State
there is no requirement in the NSPE Code that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client
State in which a client (typically a municipality) has waived its right to have an independent engineer review the plans and specifications prepared by its retained engineer, allowing the same engineer to act in a dual capacity — as both designer and de facto reviewer — without this constituting a divided loyalty, provided the engineer's advice remains uninfluenced by self-interest in securing design work.
Client Waiver of Independent Self-Review Right Permissibility Principle
The Board noted that there is no requirement in the NSPE Code that an engineer's plans for a client must be reviewed by an engineer employed or retained by the client.
Domain-specific principle establishing that a municipal or other public client has the legal and ethical right to waive its entitlement to have an engineer's plans and specifications reviewed by a separate, independent engineer — and that when such a waiver is made knowingly, the engineer who prepared the plans and serves simultaneously in an advisory capacity is not acting unethically, because no NSPE Code provision mandates independent third-party review of an engineer's work as a categorical requirement, provided the engineer's advice is not influenced by the secondary design interest
Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Constraint
The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
Constraint arising when applicable local development regulations and national design codes have not yet been updated to reflect current climate science — including sea level rise, altered precipitation intensities, and shifting recurrence intervals — thereby establishing a regulatory floor that is lower than what current professional judgment and emerging technical standards indicate is necessary for adequate public protection, and prohibiting engineers from treating compliance with the outdated regulatory standard as a complete discharge of professional obligations when the engineer has affirmative knowledge that the regulatory standard is climatically inadequate.
Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when applicable local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect current climate science — including changes in precipitation intensities, recurrence intervals, and sea level rise — and to identify the resulting gap between regulatory compliance and actual risk, including the ability to apply emerging climate-informed evaluation procedures from professional conferences and technical literature to assess whether regulatory-compliant designs are nonetheless inadequate to protect public welfare.
Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard
Emerging professional norms, technical guidance, and analytical procedures governing the incorporation of climate change effects — including sea level rise, altered precipitation intensities, and shifting storm recurrence intervals — into hydraulic and hydrologic engineering design, particularly for infrastructure with long service lives in coastal or tidal environments
Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies that applicable local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect climate change effects — including sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities — to proactively disclose to the client and relevant stakeholders that the regulatory-compliant design may nonetheless pose material risks to third parties and public welfare that the outdated standards fail to capture, so that decision-makers are not misled into believing regulatory compliance equals safety adequacy.
[Case 88] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies that applicable local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect current climate science — including sea level rise, changed precipitation intensities, and revised storm recurrence intervals — to proactively disclose to the client, regulators, and affected parties that regulatory compliance alone does not constitute adequate public protection, and to characterize the nature and magnitude of the gap between the regulatory floor and the current state of knowledge.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty to disclose identified or suspected risks to clients, employers, or relevant stakeholders promptly upon identification, even before full quantification is complete, when public welfare or safety may be implicated.
Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer
Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for hydrodynamic modeling, coastal risk assessment, and infrastructure design in areas subject to climate-change-driven hydrological and storm surge risks, bearing obligations to evaluate future climate and weather conditions as a 'moving target' beyond historical datasets, recommend specialized analysis when significant public health and safety impacts are reasonably likely, disclose potential flooding impacts to affected communities and regulatory authorities, and withdraw from projects when clients refuse to authorize necessary protective evaluations or disclosures.
Climate-Aware Coastal Risk Assessment Engineer
Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for development projects in areas subject to climate change and sea level rise, bearing obligations to apply newly released data and algorithms to determine appropriate storm surge design elevations, recommend protective design standards to protect public safety even in the absence of applicable building codes, and advise clients of the risks of proceeding at lower design standards when public safety is implicated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role responsible for hydrodynamic modeling, coastal risk assessment, and infrastructure design in areas subject to climate-change-driven hydrological and storm surge risks, bearing obligations to evaluate future climate and weather conditions as a 'moving target' beyond historical datasets, recommend specialized analysis when significant public health and safety impacts are reasonably likely, disclose potential flooding impacts to affected communities and regulatory authorities, and withdraw from projects when clients refuse to authorize necessary protective evaluations or disclosures.
Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation State
Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
State in which a licensed professional engineer, engaged on a project with foreseeable future climate and weather impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, has formed a professional judgment that existing regulatory requirements and historical climate data are insufficient to protect the public under projected future conditions — and that a detailed, complex technical evaluation of future climate conditions is warranted — thereby activating an obligation to engage the client in discussions about that evaluation, disclose potential impacts to regulatory agencies and the public, and withdraw if the client refuses both evaluation and disclosure.
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers designing coastal, hydraulic, and climate-sensitive infrastructure to incorporate current scientific understanding of climate change — including sea level rise projections and updated precipitation recurrence intervals — into their professional assessments, even when applicable regulatory standards have not yet been updated to require such incorporation, when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that failure to do so may result in material harm to public safety or property
[Case 88] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers designing coastal, hydraulic, and climate-sensitive infrastructure to incorporate current scientific understanding of climate change — including sea level rise projections and updated precipitation recurrence intervals — into their professional assessments, even when applicable regulatory standards have not yet been updated to require such incorporation, when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that failure to do so may result in material harm to public safety or property.
Climate Change Foreseeable Impact Professional Judgment Activation Constraint
The BER believes that Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer to consider the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design — including going beyond existing regulatory requirements — when such impacts on public health, safety, and welfare are reasonably likely and significant, prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of explicit regulatory requirements to consider climate change as a justification for ignoring foreseeable climate-related public welfare impacts, and establishing that the complexity added by climate change considerations does not relieve the engineer of the obligation to exercise professional judgment about when more specialized evaluation is needed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from treating historical climate and weather data as a fixed, reliable baseline for infrastructure design when current professional knowledge establishes that climate and weather patterns are a 'moving target' — requiring instead that engineers incorporate dynamic, forward-looking climate projections into design evaluation, and prohibiting reliance on static historical datasets as a complete discharge of the obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare under foreseeable future conditions.
Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for evaluating the impacts of proposed infrastructure or development projects on public health, safety, and welfare in light of evolving climate and weather conditions, bearing obligations to recognize climate patterns as a 'moving target' beyond historical datasets, exercise judgment about when specialized hydrologic/hydraulic/coastal modeling is required, disclose potential flooding and safety impacts to clients and regulatory authorities, and withdraw from projects when clients refuse to authorize necessary protective evaluations or disclosures.
Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Obligation
For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in infrastructure design to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic, evolving 'moving target' rather than as fixed historical baselines, incorporating current scientific understanding of changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and other climate-driven variables into engineering assessments of public health, safety, and welfare impacts — and to refrain from relying solely on historical climate datasets when current evidence indicates those datasets no longer accurately represent future conditions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged to design public infrastructure for a client with adopted climate resilience policies to ensure that design recommendations and implemented designs are evaluated against and, where feasible, aligned with those policies — including long-term sustainability, expandability, carbon footprint reduction, and adaptive capacity — and to clearly communicate to the client when a selected design approach conflicts with or falls short of the client's own adopted resilience standards.
Climate Change as Moving Target in Engineering Design
For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data. In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change. This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to treat climate and weather patterns as dynamic, evolving conditions rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing risks to public health, safety, and welfare — recognizing that historical climate data no longer reliably predicts future conditions and that engineering designs must account for the trajectory of climate change, not merely its historical record
[Case 88] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to treat climate and weather patterns as dynamic, evolving conditions rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing risks to public health, safety, and welfare — recognizing that historical climate data no longer reliably predicts future conditions and that engineering designs must account for the trajectory of climate change, not merely its historical record.
Climate Moving Target Design Adaptation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that future climate and weather conditions must be treated as a dynamic 'moving target' rather than fixed historical baselines — including understanding that historical climate datasets are continuously updated as patterns change, that designs based solely on historical data may be inadequate for long-term public welfare protection, and that engineering planning and design must account for projected future conditions rather than assuming stationarity of climate and weather patterns.
Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from treating historical climate and weather data as a fixed, reliable baseline for infrastructure design when current professional knowledge establishes that climate and weather patterns are a 'moving target' — requiring instead that engineers incorporate dynamic, forward-looking climate projections into design evaluation, and prohibiting reliance on static historical datasets as a complete discharge of the obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare under foreseeable future conditions.
Climate Resilience Design Alignment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged to design public infrastructure for a client with adopted climate resilience policies to ensure that design recommendations and implemented designs are evaluated against and, where feasible, aligned with those policies — including long-term sustainability, expandability, carbon footprint reduction, and adaptive capacity — and to clearly communicate to the client when a selected design approach conflicts with or falls short of the client's own adopted resilience standards.
Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy
Municipal or governmental policies mandating that new infrastructure projects incorporate climate change resilience and long-term sustainability considerations into design and planning processes
Climate Resilience Policy Alignment Capability
Capability to evaluate engineering design alternatives against a client's adopted climate resilience policies, sustainability commitments, and long-term infrastructure goals — including carbon footprint, adaptability to future climate scenarios, expandability, and lifecycle performance — and to communicate the degree of alignment or misalignment of each alternative with those policies to decision-makers.
Cloud-of-Doubt Procurement Appearance Self-Assessment Capability
However, they might have been used and in any case the possibility of the existence of one or more of these facets raises a cloud of doubt as to the purity of the enterprise.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who possesses insider knowledge of a project gained through prior public agency employment to assess whether their competitive engagement for a subsequent private contract — even absent proven misconduct — raises a 'cloud of doubt' as to the purity and fairness of the enterprise, and to recognize that the mere possibility that insider advantages could have been used unfairly is itself ethically significant under Section 19 of the NSPE Canons, requiring the engineer to structure competitive conduct so as to eliminate or minimize that appearance.
Co-Designer Credit Omission Prohibition in Employment Seeking Obligation
This team of six was responsible for the design of certain products.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer seeking new employment to affirmatively acknowledge the contributions of co-equal team members when listing jointly-designed or jointly-patented products on a resume or qualification statement — refraining from omitting the team context in a manner that creates the false impression that the engineer was the primary or sole designer — recognizing that the omission of five co-equal contributors from a six-member team is a material omission that deceives the prospective employer about the nature and scope of the engineer's individual contribution.
[proethica-intermediate] Duties toward professional peers including respect, fairness, and credit for work
Co-Equal Team Member Credit Acknowledgment in Resume Capability
we do believe that Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who participated as one of multiple equal-ranked team members in a collaborative design project to affirmatively acknowledge on a resume or professional qualification statement that the design work was performed as a team effort rather than an individual effort — without necessarily naming individual co-contributors — thereby satisfying the spirit and intent of NSPE Code Section III.10.a.'s requirement to give due credit to those who contributed to the work, while remaining within the practical constraints of resume format.
Co-generation to Renewable Transition Technical Evaluation Capability
Engineer A works for an organization that for years has operated a fossil-fueled co-generation facility primarily to supply thermal energy for process needs.
Technical capability to evaluate the engineering feasibility and operational implications of replacing a fossil-fueled co-generation facility with a renewable energy system — including assessing thermal energy supply continuity, electric generation equivalency, storage requirements, grid dependency changes, and capital cost comparisons — and to produce a technically complete evaluation that addresses both the isolated system performance and the broader operational and grid reliability implications of the transition.
Coastal Hazard and Storm Surge Design Standard
Professional norms, technical guidance, and analytical procedures governing the design of coastal residential and commercial development to withstand projected storm surge elevations, including the use of hydrodynamic modeling, climate-adjusted return period analysis, and newly developed algorithms incorporating historic weather data to establish appropriate design elevations for public safety.
Coastal Risk Assessment Written Documentation of Safety Recommendation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment and reached a professional determination about the required design standard to document in writing the recommendation, the scientific and professional basis for it (including the specific data sources and algorithms applied), the client's refusal to accept the recommendation, and the engineer's professional objection — so that the record reflects the engineer's compliance with the paramount public welfare obligation and preserves evidence of the engineer's professional judgment and the client's assumption of responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose client has directed them to forgo a recommended safety or risk analysis — particularly one addressing foreseeable third-party harm — to document that client directive and the engineer's professional objection in writing, so that the record reflects the engineer's compliance with the faithful agent duty while preserving evidence of the engineer's professional judgment and the client's assumption of responsibility for the decision to forgo the analysis.
Code-Based Confidentiality Exception Activation State
this section also includes a relevant exception which allows the engineer to disclose information acquired during the course of providing professional services to the client if such disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code
State in which an engineer's general obligation to maintain client confidentiality is released or overridden by an explicit exception within the professional code of ethics or applicable law — specifically where the code itself authorizes or requires disclosure when public health and safety are at stake. The state marks the transition point at which confidentiality ceases to be an absolute bar and the paramount safety obligation becomes operative, releasing the engineer from the non-disclosure duty.
The ethical requirements of Firm DBA must be clarified before establishing what actions are required by Engineer M
State in which there is an active question or dispute about whether a professional code of ethics applies to a firm or individual based on the nature of services provided, organizational structure, or other contextual factors, requiring resolution before ethical obligations can be assigned and enforced.
Code Exception Clause Activation for Public Safety Disclosure
Section II.1.c. makes a clear exception concerning the obligation of engineers not to reveal facts obtained in a professional capacity without the client's consent.
Relational principle establishing that engineering ethics codes contain explicit exception clauses that affirmatively authorize — and in cases of public danger, require — disclosure of client information that would otherwise be protected by confidentiality obligations, and that engineers must recognize and activate these exception clauses when the factual conditions they specify (public health and safety endangerment) are present, rather than treating the general confidentiality obligation as absolute.
Code Individual-Not-Organization Applicability Clarification Active State
State in which a professional ethics code's scope of application to organizations versus individual engineers has been formally clarified by the governing professional body — establishing that the code applies to individual engineers acting within organizational structures, not to organizations as legal entities, and that business form or type does not negate individual conformance obligations. This state resolves ambiguity about whether organizational actors (firms, agencies) can be held to the code directly, redirecting ethical accountability to the individual engineers who hold decision-making or recommendation authority within those organizations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which there is an active question or dispute about whether a professional code of ethics applies to a firm or individual based on the nature of services provided, organizational structure, or other contextual factors, requiring resolution before ethical obligations can be assigned and enforced.
Code Official Structural Conflict Recognition Capability
The code officials are caught between the responsibility to be thorough in their inspections and the city's desire to hold down costs and generate revenue from inspection fees.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer directing a municipal building inspection program to recognize when the institutional structure places code officials in an irreconcilable conflict between their professional obligation to conduct thorough inspections and the city's administrative pressure to hold down costs and generate revenue from inspection fees, and to identify this structural conflict as a systemic ethical problem requiring institutional remedy rather than individual resolution by the code officials themselves.
Code Provision Employment Scope Interpretive Extension Constraint
We construe Section 3(e) to include employment, although the word 'listed' reference to being 'listed' for employment, although the work 'listed' connotes being placed on the roster of an employment service.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a code provision whose literal language connotes a specific employment-service context (e.g., being 'listed' on an employment service roster) must be construed to apply to the broader category of employment-seeking conduct — including resume submission and direct employment applications — when the purpose of the provision is to protect prospective employers from being deceived about an applicant's qualifications; prohibiting engineers from exploiting the narrow literal connotation of 'listed' to argue that the prohibition on exaggerated qualification statements does not apply to ordinary employment applications, and establishing that the ethics board may extend the scope of a code provision beyond its literal connoted context when the provision's protective purpose clearly encompasses the broader conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer to read and apply the ethics code not only in its literal terms but also in the spirit of its purpose — upholding the highest standards of the profession — prohibiting the engineer from exploiting literal ambiguities, definitional gaps, or geographic scope uncertainties in code language to justify conduct that violates the evident purpose and spirit of the prohibition, and establishing that rationalization through narrow literal reading of code provisions constitutes an independent ethics violation when the spirit of the provision clearly prohibits the conduct in question, as established by the BER's instruction that 'the code must be read on this most basic point of honor and integrity, not only literally, but in the spirit of its purpose.'
Code Provision No-Direct-Exception Non-Absolute Interpretation Constraint
That provision makes no specific exception to the language. For example, the drafters of the Code could have provided exceptional circumstances where such confidential information could be disclosed by the engineer; however no such provisions have been included.
Ethical and interpretive constraint establishing that the absence of an explicit exception clause in a professional code provision — such as NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation — does not render that provision absolute or immune from being overridden by other provisions of the same code; prohibiting engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies from treating the silence of a code provision on exceptions as equivalent to an affirmative declaration of absoluteness, and requiring that all code provisions be read in conjunction with the full code framework, including paramount safety obligations and explicit exception clauses in other sections such as Section II.1.c.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern, when facing competing or apparently conflicting provisions of a professional code of ethics, endeavor to integrate all applicable code provisions into a unified solution rather than treating one provision as automatically superseding another — prohibiting the simplistic conclusion that the faithful agent obligation to the client or employer takes precedence over sustainability or other encouraged provisions without first exploring whether a solution exists that honors both obligations simultaneously.
Code Provision Purposive Scope Interpretation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics board, or professional body to interpret specific enumerated terms in an ethics code provision — such as 'plans and specifications' — purposively and expansively in light of the overall thrust and paramount duty expressed in the broader code, so that the provision applies to all engineering instruments of service and professional outputs that serve the same protective function, rather than being limited to the literal enumerated terms.
Code Revision Prospective Application Adverse Participation Stricter Standard Obligation
Case 76-3 was decided under the 1976 Code of Ethics which made no mention of an engineer's ethical obligation to refrain from representing an adverse interest in a proceeding.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators evaluating engineer conduct — to recognize that when the NSPE Code of Ethics has been revised to establish a more restrictive standard for post-engagement adverse participation (specifically the 1981 addition of Section III.4.b prohibiting adverse participation using specialized knowledge gained for a former client without consent), the revised and more restrictive standard governs conduct occurring after the revision's effective date, even if prior precedent cases decided under the older, less restrictive code language would have permitted the conduct, and that the engineer cannot rely on pre-revision precedent to justify conduct that is clearly prohibited under the current code.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional ethics adjudicator or engineer interpreting the NSPE Code of Ethics to recognize that when the Code has been progressively amended to broaden the scope of prohibited misrepresentations — moving from prohibiting 'exaggerated statements' to prohibiting 'misleading, deceptive or false statements' and then to the current Section II.5.a. formulation — the broader prohibition applies to conduct evaluated under the current code, and prior cases decided under narrower code language (such as Case 72-11 decided under old Section 3(e)) are not controlling precedent for conduct that would be prohibited under the current, more restrictive language.
Code Revision Prospective Application Stricter Standard Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicating bodies — to recognize that when a professional code of ethics has been revised to impose a stricter standard after a prior precedent case was decided under the older, less stringent standard, the revised stricter standard governs the conduct of engineers acting after the revision date, even if the factual situation is superficially similar to the prior precedent. Includes the ability to identify the specific code revision date and content, to determine which standard applies to the conduct under review, to recognize that a prior precedent decided under the old standard does not authorize conduct that the revised standard now prohibits, and to apply the revised standard prospectively to reach the correct ethical conclusion.
Code Section 6 Prime-to-Joint-Venture Specialist Engagement Ethical Equivalence Application Capability
Section 6 of the code '...recognizes the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interest of the project.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve BER Case 71-2 and Code Section 6 — which recognize the propriety and value of a prime professional retaining experts and specialists in the interest of the project — and correctly apply the principle that the ethical obligation to engage specialists when the client's interests are best served is identical whether the legal entity is a single prime firm or a joint venture in which all firms are jointly responsible, thereby recognizing that joint venture partners bear the same specialist engagement duties as a prime firm.
Code Section 6 Qualification Deficiency Upgrade-or-Withdraw Binary Constraint
under the mandate of 6 of the code, Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture for the assignment once it was indicated that additional technical support was required by the client
Ethical constraint derived from NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former) establishing that when a licensed professional engineering firm or joint venture competing for a project assignment receives client or screening committee feedback indicating that additional technical support or higher qualifications are required, the firm faces a binary ethical obligation: either (1) upgrade its qualifications through internal or external revisions to its proposal to meet the required level, or (2) eliminate itself from further consideration — prohibiting any intermediate response of continuing to compete without addressing the identified deficiency, and establishing that the client's indication of required qualifications through the screening process triggers an affirmative duty to act, not merely a permission to act, making non-responsive continuation ethically impermissible.
Code Section Non-Vacuum Cross-Provision Integrated Reading Capability
no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that no single provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics should be read in isolation from the other provisions of the Code, and to correctly integrate multiple code sections — including Section III.4 (confidentiality), Section II.1.a (public safety primacy), and Section II.1.c (law-or-code-authorized disclosure exception) — into a unified, internally consistent normative framework when analyzing a factual situation that implicates more than one provision, thereby avoiding the error of treating any single provision as absolute or self-contained.
Code of Ethics Organizational Application Directive
This point has now been noted by action of the NSPE Board of Directors in its directive adopted in January 1971 to include the following note on each printing of the Code of Ethics
An authoritative directive or interpretive note issued by the NSPE Board of Directors clarifying that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies to individual engineers regardless of the organizational form (corporation, government agency, consulting firm) through which they act, and that business structure does not negate individual professional obligations.
[proethica-intermediate] Professional consensus on principle application in edge cases
Code of Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership.
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies universally to all NSPE members and to firms with licensed professional engineers in supervisory or ownership roles, regardless of whether the specific services being provided constitute traditional engineering design, calculation, or judgment work — prohibiting the interpretation that sub-professional or communication services performed by such firms fall outside the Code's ethical requirements.
Coercive Foreign Contract Conditioning State
his failure to make the gifts will result in no further work being awarded to the firm
State in which a foreign government official explicitly conditions both future contract awards and cooperative performance of a current contract on the engineer's compliance with a local gift-giving practice, creating coercive pressure that links professional business continuity to ethically impermissible conduct. The coercive element distinguishes this from mere awareness of local custom: the professional is explicitly threatened with business loss and operational obstruction if the practice is not followed, intensifying the pressure to deviate from home-country professional ethics standards.
Collaborative Consulting Firm Structural Adequacy Verification Constraint
Engineer A should have also worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a structural remediation solution — such as crutch pile installation — may be inadequate to address a known safety deficiency must collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the signed and sealed inspection report to determine whether the proposed solution is structurally effective, and must report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the supervising authority — prohibiting the engineer from independently concluding that the remediation is inadequate without first engaging the consulting firm that holds the sealed professional record of the structural condition.
Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
A licensed or credentialed engineer who, while seeking new employment, submits a resume that falsely implies sole or primary personal responsibility for products, designs, or inventions that were in fact the result of joint team effort, thereby misrepresenting the individual contribution relative to colleagues and bearing obligations of honesty and accurate attribution under professional codes of ethics.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed or credentialed engineer who, while seeking new employment after a layoff or career transition, crafts a resume that materially misrepresents or disproportionately emphasizes certain experience categories (e.g., managerial vs. technical) in a manner that may mislead prospective employers about the engineer's actual qualifications, bearing obligations of honesty and accuracy in self-representation under professional codes.
Collaborative Credit Omission Misrepresentation Prohibition in Employment Seeking
Professional honesty principle prohibiting engineers from representing jointly-designed work products — including patents, designs, and collaborative innovations — as solely or primarily their own individual achievement when seeking employment, where such representation omits or obscures the co-equal contributions of team members; the ethical standard requires that resumes and professional qualification documents accurately reflect the collective nature of team-based accomplishments, identifying the engineer's actual role within the group rather than implying sole authorship or sole responsibility for shared outputs
Collective Engineering Community Coordination for Public Safety Advocacy Capability
many within the local engineering community, including Engineer A, consider unsafe
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a public safety concern is shared across the broader local engineering community and to coordinate or participate in collective professional advocacy — including joint statements, coordinated escalation, and unified professional positions — that amplifies the impact of individual safety concerns and demonstrates the breadth of professional consensus against an unsafe proposed action.
Collegial Clarification-First Reporting Sequencing Capability
this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of a potential violation of state engineering licensure law by a colleague or competitor to correctly sequence their response by first seeking clarification from the potentially offending engineer — rather than immediately filing a formal report — recognizing that this clarification-first approach is both ethically appropriate and collegially prudent when the violation may be an oversight or misunderstanding, and that formal reporting to authorities is the appropriate next step only if clarification and collegial counsel fail to resolve the matter.
Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for public entities and commits to investigating Engineer B's concerns.
Capability to receive and respond to concerns raised by fellow licensed professional engineers — including competitors — with professional respect and genuine investigative commitment, recognizing that collegial obligations require taking such concerns seriously regardless of the professional relationship or competitive interests of the raising party.
Collegial Non-Harm in Competitive Context Capability
Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward professional peers — including incumbent engineers — by refraining from providing critical opinions about a peer's professional work in contexts where those opinions would harm the peer's professional reputation or competitive position, particularly when the engineer providing the opinions stands to benefit competitively from the harm caused, consistent with professional obligations of fairness, collegial respect, and honorable conduct.
Collegial Notification Before Reporting Standard
a more prudent approach—both from an ethical and a collegial perspective—would be to communicate with the potentially offending engineer to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question
Professional norms establishing that when an engineer becomes aware of a potential violation by a professional colleague, the ethically and collegially appropriate first step is to communicate directly with the potentially offending engineer to seek clarification and early resolution before escalating to regulatory authorities, unless there is imminent public danger.
Collegial Notification Priority Before Formal Competitor Regulatory Report Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer discovers what appears to be an inadvertent or correctable regulatory non-compliance by a professional colleague or competitor — particularly one involving a technical administrative requirement such as a certificate of authority — the engineer's first obligation is to notify the colleague privately and afford an opportunity for voluntary correction before escalating to a formal regulatory report, prohibiting the engineer from bypassing collegial notification and proceeding directly to formal board complaint when the violation appears inadvertent and self-correction is feasible, while preserving the obligation to report if the colleague fails to remedy the violation after notification.
Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Obligation for Inadvertent Violations
Inadvertent and unintentional violations of laws and regulations are not uncommon, and potential violators should first be advised of the potential violation especially when a professional colleague, albeit a competitor, becomes aware of the potential infraction.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who discover that a colleague — including a competitor — has inadvertently or unintentionally violated a licensing law or regulation to first engage that colleague collegially and directly, explain the nature and consequences of the violation, and provide a reasonable opportunity to cure the infraction voluntarily, before escalating to formal reporting to licensing authorities — recognizing that inadvertent violations by otherwise competent professionals are best remediated through collegial counsel rather than immediate punitive reporting, while preserving the obligation to report if the colleague fails to act
[Case 116] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who discover that a colleague has inadvertently or unintentionally violated a licensing law or regulation to first engage that colleague collegially and directly before escalating to formal reporting — while preserving the obligation to report if the colleague fails to act.
Collegial Unlicensed Practice Advisor Engineer
part of the discussion between Engineer A and Engineer X would presumably include an explanation by Engineer A of the reasons for the certificate of authority requirement
A licensed professional engineer who, upon discovering that a professional colleague and competitor is practicing engineering in a jurisdiction without the required certificate of authority (firm licensure), bears an obligation to first engage that colleague collegially — explaining the legal and professional consequences of the violation and counseling compliance — before escalating to formal reporting, reflecting the principle that inadvertent regulatory violations by professional peers warrant collegial correction prior to adversarial reporting.
Collusion Appearance Avoidance Through Impartial Dispute Performance Capability
Engineer A's action also complied with the terms of the agreement and avoided a charge that the Owner and Engineer A may have 'colluded' against the Contractor.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer contractually designated as an impartial dispute resolver to recognize that rendering a partisan, owner-favoring determination — even at the owner's request — would expose both the engineer and the owner to a credible charge of collusion against the contractor, and to understand that faithful execution of the impartial arbiter role is the mechanism by which such collusion charges are avoided, thereby protecting the integrity of the dispute resolution process and the professional standing of all parties.
Commercial Development Owner Representative
Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks
A non-engineer representative of a commercial development entity who participates in regulatory approval proceedings, responds to technical concerns raised by the public or regulatory bodies, and makes commitments on behalf of the development entity regarding design modifications or additional environmental measures.
Commercial Engineering Software Competence Substitute
thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience
A commercial software product marketed to engineers as enabling practice in unfamiliar or unqualified domains, purporting to substitute for professional experience, education, and competence through automated design templates or interactive libraries
Commercial Product Manufacturing Engineering Employer
Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company, which produces and sells a variety of commercial home-use products
A private manufacturing company stakeholder role that employs engineers in the design and production of commercial home-use products, bears authority over employment decisions, and whose commercial and reputational interests may conflict with employed engineers' public advocacy activities, generating tensions between employer loyalty obligations and engineers' public responsibility duties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A private product manufacturing company stakeholder role that employs engineers in product design and safety testing, bears authority over product development decisions including the scope of safety testing, and rejects engineer recommendations for additional safety testing on grounds of cost and schedule, thereby generating a conflict between the engineer's paramount public safety obligations and the employer's commercial interests.
Commercial Profit Motive Non-Override of Competence Obligation
Engineers today cannot afford to pass up a single job that comes by - including construction projects that may be new or unfamiliar.
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's obligation to practice only within areas of competence cannot be overridden by commercial profit motives, business development pressures, or the economic appeal of accepting unfamiliar work. The financial attractiveness of a project, fear of lost revenue, or the availability of software tools that simulate domain expertise do not constitute legitimate grounds for accepting engineering engagements outside one's actual competence. Engineers must decline work for which they lack genuine qualifications regardless of the commercial opportunity cost.
Commission-Retained Staff Substitute Engineer
an engineering consultant had been retained by a county commission to perform all necessary engineering and advisory services
A licensed professional engineering role in which a private consulting engineer is retained by a governmental commission that lacks its own engineering staff, effectively acting as the commission's in-house engineering staff for studies, financing, and plan approval — while simultaneously being retained by private parties whose work or contracts are subject to that commission's review and approval — bearing obligations to avoid self-review, divided loyalties, and conflicts of interest arising from passing engineering judgment on work in which the engineer has a private financial stake.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which a principal of a private consulting engineering firm is formally appointed as the municipal engineer for a small municipality (pursuant to state law requiring every municipality to have a municipal engineer), with the firm thereafter being retained for capital improvement engineering services for that same municipality — bearing obligations to serve the public interest of the municipality, ensure the arrangement is sanctioned by applicable law, avoid conflicts of interest between the firm's private interests and the municipality's needs, and provide the most competent engineering services the municipality can acquire.
Commission Member Abstaining Private Services Engineer
The question of whether an engineer who serves as a member of local boards or commissions which have some aspect of engineering may provide engineering services through his private firm to the boards and commissions
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serves as a member of a governmental commission or board with permit or approval authority, while simultaneously providing private engineering services to applicants appearing before that commission — bearing obligations to abstain from discussion and voting on permit applications involving the engineer's private clients, to avoid taking any action to influence favorable decisions on those permits, and to maintain strict separation between the commission member role and the private consulting role.
Commissioned Report Client Exclusive Benefit Non-Disclosure to Adverse Interest Party Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who prepares a report commissioned by a client to refrain from voluntarily providing a copy of that report to any party with an actual or potential adverse interest to the client — regardless of the engineer's subjective intent, professional philosophy of openness, or belief that all parties should have equal access to the facts — recognizing that NSPE Code Section II.1.c. establishes the client's proprietary right to the exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on the client's behalf, and that this proprietary right is violated whenever the engineer unilaterally distributes the commissioned report to parties whose interests are adverse or potentially adverse to the client's interests.
Commissioned Report Proprietary Right of Client Principle
Relational principle establishing that a report commissioned by a client and prepared by an engineer exclusively in the client's interest constitutes the client's proprietary work product, such that the client holds an exclusive right to control its disclosure and distribution; the engineer who prepared the report has no independent authority to transmit it — in whole, in part, or by copy — to any third party, regardless of whether the third party has a legitimate interest in the subject matter, because the proprietary right belongs to the commissioning client alone.
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation
In the present case, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 76-4, Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing at which he believed he had an obligation to correctly report information that was within his personal knowledge
Meta-ethical principle of professional ethics reasoning establishing that the ethical obligations generated by a given set of facts must be determined by careful comparison with analogous precedent cases, identifying the material factual differences that distinguish the present case from prior cases and explaining how those differences alter the applicable ethical obligations — such that a precedent imposing a strong obligation does not automatically apply when key distinguishing facts are absent.
[Case 175] Meta-ethical principle of professional ethics reasoning establishing that the ethical obligations generated by a given set of facts must be determined by careful comparison with analogous precedent cases, identifying the material factual differences that distinguish the present case from prior cases and explaining how those differences alter the applicable ethical obligations.
Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State
The facts and circumstances of the present case are somewhat different in several respects than the situation involved in BER Case No. 00-5
State in which a professional ethics body or engineer must determine the appropriate level of ethical obligation by distinguishing the present case from a prior precedent case on the basis of differences in danger imminence, breadth of affected population, the engineer's specific role and authority, and the circumstances compelling escalation — resulting in a calibrated obligation that is less extensive than the precedent but still requires meaningful action. This state activates when a prior Board ruling or professional standard is cited as potentially applicable but the facts differ materially in ways that affect the required response.
Comparative Case Precedent Risk-Calibrated Escalation Scope Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk to assess the appropriate scope and intensity of escalation by comparing the present situation against established precedent cases — distinguishing factors such as imminence of danger, breadth of potential harm, and the engineer's institutional role — and to calibrate the escalation response accordingly, neither over-escalating a limited risk to a full-bore multi-authority campaign nor under-escalating a serious risk by treating it as a minor matter.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers a public safety risk to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities notified to the imminence and breadth of the risk — distinguishing between situations requiring a full-bore multi-authority campaign (imminent, widespread danger such as a bridge collapse) and situations requiring a more limited but still multi-step escalation (non-imminent but potentially significant danger such as a building structural defect) — and to fulfill the escalation level appropriate to the specific risk profile.
Comparative Precedent Public Health Safety Threshold Distinguishing Obligation
Turning to the facts of this case, we believe the situation involved in this case is in many ways similar to the situation involved in BER Case 88-6.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and professional ethics bodies to systematically compare the facts of a current ethical dilemma against established precedent cases — distinguishing material factors such as whether the concern involves direct public health and safety danger (as in BER 88-6) versus institutional policy or financial impropriety (as in BER 82-5), whether the facts are hidden from public view or already known to authorities and covered by media, and the engineer's specific institutional role and assigned responsibilities — and to calibrate the ethical obligations accordingly, neither importing mandatory escalation duties from public-health cases into personal-conscience cases nor treating public-health emergencies as mere matters of personal discretion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk to assess the appropriate scope and intensity of escalation by comparing the present situation against established precedent cases — distinguishing factors such as imminence of danger, breadth of potential harm, and the engineer's institutional role — and to calibrate the escalation response accordingly, neither over-escalating a limited risk to a full-bore multi-authority campaign nor under-escalating a serious risk by treating it as a minor matter.
Comparative Reference Confidentiality-Bound Building Sale Engineer
Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A was to remain confidential
A licensed professional engineering role, introduced as a comparative reference case, in which an engineer is retained under an explicit confidentiality agreement to inspect a building being sold 'as is,' and during the engagement the client directly discloses known code violations in systems outside the engineer's specialty — generating an ethical conflict between the contractual confidentiality obligation and the paramount duty to report safety violations to public authorities, with the Board finding non-disclosure unethical.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained to inspect a building under a confidentiality agreement, and during the engagement the client discloses known code violations in systems outside the engineer's specialty, bearing obligations to inform the client of the safety implications and note the disclosure in the report, but facing an ethical conflict between the confidentiality obligation and the paramount duty to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities.
Comparative Test Condition Replication Constraint
Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who designs or supervises a comparative or confirmatory test program — intended to replicate or evaluate conditions from a prior construction or engineering activity — must use materially equivalent equipment, methods, and procedural conditions as those used in the original activity, prohibiting the use of materially different equipment (e.g., a vibratory hammer instead of the original impact hammer), different penetration depth requirements, or pre-record driving sequences that would invalidate the comparability of results and undermine the reliability of the test conclusions.
Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who designs or supervises a comparative testing program — intended to replicate or evaluate original construction conditions — to identify and replicate all material methodological parameters of the original work, including equipment type, penetration depth requirements, and procedural sequence, and to recognize that deviations from original conditions (such as substituting a vibratory hammer for the original hammer type, failing to achieve the same penetration depth, or breaking pile bond before recording blow counts) invalidate the comparative validity of the test results and must be disclosed.
Comparative Testing Methodological Fidelity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who designs or supervises a comparative testing program — intended to replicate or evaluate conditions from an original construction program — to use methods, equipment, and procedures that faithfully replicate the original conditions being evaluated, including use of the same hammer type, penetration depth requirements, and blow-count recording protocols, so that the test results are valid comparators; and to disclose in the resulting report any material deviations from original conditions that would affect the validity or interpretation of the test results.
Even though Engineer A was a friend of Engineer B, their friendship was not an ethical justification for Engineer A to ignore or conceal Engineer B's violations
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a personal friend or professional acquaintance of another engineer discovers evidence of that engineer's impaired or incompetent practice, bearing obligations to report the violations to the appropriate state licensing board while navigating the tension between personal loyalty and professional duty, with the option to pursue cooperative, privately-arranged remediation with board awareness rather than adversarial formal complaint.
Relational principle requiring engineers who discover that a colleague — including a personal friend — is engaged in impaired, incompetent, or otherwise unethical engineering practice to report that practice to appropriate professional authorities, while recognizing that the friendship relationship creates legitimate space for compassionate engagement (private discussion, cooperative remediation, collaborative reporting) that respects the colleague's dignity, but does not create an ethical exemption from the mandatory reporting obligation itself
[Case 16] Relational principle requiring engineers who discover that a colleague — including a personal friend — is engaged in impaired, incompetent, or otherwise unethical engineering practice to report that practice to appropriate professional authorities, while recognizing that the friendship relationship creates legitimate space for compassionate engagement that respects the colleague's dignity, but does not create an ethical exemption from the mandatory reporting obligation itself
Compassionate Peer Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
Because of their long friendship and consideration of Engineer B's impairment, Engineer A did not report Engineer B to the State Board
Capability to recognize that professional obligations to report impaired, incompetent, or unethical practice to the state licensure board persist even when the offending engineer is a personal friend, and that compassionate personal responses — such as private confrontation — do not satisfy or substitute for mandatory professional reporting obligations, including the ability to navigate the tension between personal loyalty and professional duty to the public and the profession.
Compassionate Reporting Pathway Constraint
Hypothetically, what might an engineer do that would have been both ethical and would also have respected the friendship?
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that while a licensed professional engineer is obligated to report a peer's ethical or legal violations to the State Board, the manner of reporting may be shaped by compassion and professional courtesy — including privately discussing the matter with the impaired licensee and cooperating with the Board to identify practice alternatives such as temporary qualified substitution — provided that such compassionate framing does not delay, suppress, or substitute for the required report, and prohibiting the use of friendship or compassion as a justification for indefinite non-reporting.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer taking compliance action — including reporting violations, escalating concerns, or pursuing corrective measures — must proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively with a view to promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible, prohibiting unnecessarily aggressive or unilateral action when measured, multi-stakeholder approaches can achieve legal and ethical compliance while minimizing collateral harm.
Compassionate Reporting Pathway Utilization Constraint
By this view and with Engineer B's knowledge and approval, Engineer A could have privately discussed the matter with proper authorities at the State Board.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that while a licensed professional engineer is obligated to report a peer's ethical or legal violations to the State Board, the manner of reporting may be shaped by compassion and professional courtesy — including privately discussing the matter with the impaired licensee with the Board's knowledge, and cooperating with the Board to identify practice alternatives such as temporary qualified substitution — provided that such compassionate framing does not delay, suppress, or substitute for the required report, and prohibiting the use of friendship or compassion as a justification for indefinite non-reporting.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that while a licensed professional engineer is obligated to report a peer's ethical or legal violations to the State Board, the manner of reporting may be shaped by compassion and professional courtesy — including privately discussing the matter with the impaired licensee and cooperating with the Board to identify practice alternatives such as temporary qualified substitution — provided that such compassionate framing does not delay, suppress, or substitute for the required report, and prohibiting the use of friendship or compassion as a justification for indefinite non-reporting.
Compensated-by-Regulated-Party Public Review Conflict State
Firm A is expected to perform review and inspection services for one client while being compensated for those services by another client
State in which a private engineering firm performs review or inspection services on behalf of a public authority client, but is compensated for those services directly by the private developer or regulated party whose work is being reviewed — creating a structural conflict of interest in which the firm's financial relationship with the regulated party may compromise the objectivity and adequacy of the review performed for the public authority's benefit.
Compensated Civic Engineering Participation Ethical Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the professional obligation to provide constructive service in civic affairs is not confined to free community services — prohibiting the interpretation of civic service obligations as requiring engineers to work without compensation when retained by private citizens groups on matters of legitimate public concern, and establishing that compensated retention by a citizens group to study and advocate for a public infrastructure alternative is an ethically permissible form of civic engineering participation, as established by NSPE Code Section 2(b) and the BER's determination that Engineers A and B's retention by the local citizens group was entirely proper.
Compensated Civic Engineering Participation Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics reviewing bodies, to correctly recognize that the professional obligation to provide constructive service in civic affairs and contribute to public engineering debates is not confined to free or pro bono community services — that engineers may be compensated by private clients (including citizen groups) for conducting technical studies and presenting findings on matters of public concern, and that such compensated civic participation is ethically permissible and indeed to be encouraged as a direct means of fulfilling professional civic responsibility, provided that the engineer complies with applicable disclosure and objectivity obligations.
Compensating-Party Benefiting-Party Misalignment Structural Conflict Recognition Capability
We are particular troubled by the fact that Firm A is expected to perform review and inspection services for one client while being compensated for those services by another client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to recognize that when the party compensating the engineer for services is different from the party intended to benefit from those services — specifically when a private developer pays for inspection and plan review services that are performed for the benefit of the city — this payment structure creates a structural conflict of interest that compromises the engineer's ability to serve the benefiting party's interests fully, because the financial incentive to satisfy the compensating party (developer) may cause the engineer to provide less than the full range of services required to adequately protect the benefiting party (city), and to correctly determine that this misalignment cannot be managed through procedural safeguards alone.
Compensating-Party–Benefiting-Party Misalignment Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm to refrain from accepting or continuing an engagement in which the party who compensates the engineer for inspection or review services is not the same party who benefits from those services — specifically, where a private developer pays for inspection services whose purpose and beneficiary is the public agency client — recognizing that this structural misalignment creates an irreconcilable incentive for the engineer to calibrate the quality and rigor of services to the satisfaction of the compensating party (the developer) rather than to the full standard required by the benefiting party (the city), thereby compromising the integrity of the inspection function and the public interest it serves.
Compensating-Party–Benefiting-Party Misalignment Conflict Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that an engineer who is compensated by one party (e.g., a private developer) to perform services whose primary benefit runs to a different party (e.g., a public municipality) faces a structural conflict of interest, because the compensating party's ability to influence the engineer through the payment relationship is misaligned with the beneficiary's interest in rigorous, independent service — creating pressure on the engineer to provide services adequate to satisfy the compensating party rather than services fully adequate to protect the beneficiary
Competence-Deficient County Surveyor Appointee
Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct
A licensed professional engineer who accepts appointment to a statutory county surveyor position despite possessing no substantive background, education, or experience in land surveying or highway improvements — the core technical domains required for effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects. This role generates obligations to decline the appointment on ethical grounds, as the competency gap makes it impossible to exercise the judgment and discretion required by the position, even when the appointment is technically legal under state registration law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer accepts a public sector appointment or position whose duties fall substantially outside their established area of engineering competence, bearing obligations to decline such appointments when the competency gap makes it impossible to perform effective oversight or fulfill the position's responsibilities without compromising public safety or acting unethically.
Competence-Differentiated Speculation vs. Confirmed Finding State
as an environmental engineer with consultation by an apparently qualified biologist, it appears that Engineer A has technical competence concerning the matter in question
State in which the ethical permissibility of including or omitting a finding in a professional report turns critically on whether the finding is based on mere speculation by an engineer outside their area of competence versus a technically confirmed assessment by an engineer with domain competence and specialist consultation — such that the same type of observation (e.g., a potential contributing factor to a structural or environmental failure) carries materially different reporting obligations depending on the engineer's competence and the evidentiary basis of the conclusion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer must determine whether a discovered concern constitutes mere speculation or surmise — warranting a measured, cautious response — versus a confirmed, factually established violation of applicable law or regulation — warranting direct confrontation, monitoring, and potential reporting. The ethical pathway available to the engineer differs materially depending on this determination, with speculative concerns permitting more deliberate and restrained responses while confirmed violations activate immediate and unambiguous obligations.
Competence-Discipline Solicitation Accuracy Obligation
Engineers, as with all professionals are admonished to perform professional services only in areas of their competence
Duty of an engineering firm and its personnel, when soliciting professional engagements or presenting qualifications to clients or prospective clients, to ensure that all representations of engineer competence accurately reflect the specific engineering discipline in which each listed engineer is trained and practices — not merely that the engineer holds some engineering credential — because clients select engineering services based materially on discipline-specific competence, and misrepresentation of discipline (e.g., listing a mechanical engineer as an electrical engineer) constitutes both a competence misrepresentation and a deceptive solicitation act. This obligation integrates the competence principle (perform only in areas of competence) with the solicitation honesty principle (avoid misleading and deceptive acts in seeking professional employment).
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer responding to a public or private solicitation for engineering services to represent their firm's qualifications, experience, and competence honestly and accurately — including refraining from providing affirmative assurances of adequacy in technical domains where the firm lacks demonstrated experience — so that clients can make informed selection decisions based on truthful qualification information.
Competence-Discipline Solicitation Accuracy Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of an engineering firm and its personnel to ensure that all solicitation materials, promotional brochures, and qualification presentations accurately identify the specific engineering discipline of each listed staff member — distinguishing between engineering subdisciplines such as mechanical, electrical, civil, and structural engineering — recognizing that discipline misclassification misleads prospective clients about the firm's actual technical capabilities in specific subdisciplines and constitutes a misrepresentation of qualifications in the solicitation of professional employment.
Competence-Trust Substitution for Verification State
He believes he is ethically and legally correct in not doing so because of his confidence in the ability of those he has hired and who are working under his general direction and supervision
State in which a supervising engineer substitutes confidence in subordinates' professional abilities for personal verification of design adequacy, believing that trust in hired personnel satisfies the ethical and legal requirements of responsible charge without conducting independent review.
Competence-Unrecognizing Plan Approval Engineer
Engineer B's approval of Engineer A's incomplete plans is troubling
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is assigned to review and approve design drawings and specifications submitted by another engineer, but lacks the technical competence to perform an adequate review, bears an obligation to recognize that lack of competence and escalate to a supervisor for reassignment rather than proceeding with approval, and commits an ethical violation not by lacking competence per se but by failing to recognize and act upon that deficiency.
Competence Assurance Under Novel Tool Adoption
Professional principle requiring engineers to ensure they possess sufficient understanding of any novel tool — including AI software — before relying on that tool's outputs in professional work products, and to take affirmative steps to verify tool accuracy, limitations, and failure modes prior to or concurrent with professional use
[Case 12] Professional principle requiring engineers to ensure they possess sufficient understanding of any novel domain — including unfamiliar engineering disciplines — before relying on their own outputs in professional work products, and to take affirmative steps to verify adequacy of competence prior to or concurrent with professional use
Competence Boundary Recognition and Escalation Obligation
Engineers have an obligation to perform services within their area of competence.
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer assigned to review or approve another engineer's work lacks the technical competence to perform that review adequately, the engineer's ethical obligation is not merely to refrain from incompetent review, but affirmatively to recognize that limitation and escalate to a supervisor or appropriate authority so that a competent engineer can be assigned — distinguishing between the non-violation of lacking competence itself and the ethical violation of failing to recognize and act upon that lack of competence
[Case 84] Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer assigned to review or approve another engineer's work lacks the technical competence to perform that review adequately, the engineer's ethical obligation is not merely to refrain from incompetent review, but affirmatively to recognize that limitation and escalate to a supervisor or appropriate authority so that a competent engineer can be assigned
Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Planning Capability
Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a gap between their firm's established competence and the technical requirements of a solicited project to plan and execute engagement of qualified subconsultants, joint venture partners, or specialist personnel to fill that gap — including verifying subconsultant qualifications, establishing appropriate supervisory arrangements, and ensuring that the overall project team collectively possesses the competence required to perform the work safely and competently.
Competence Limitation Recognition and Supervisor Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is assigned to review, approve, or certify another engineer's work product to recognize when that review assignment exceeds the reviewing engineer's own technical competence — including dam design, hydraulic structures, or other specialized infrastructure — and to respond appropriately by disclosing the competence limitation to a supervisor, requesting reassignment to a technically qualified engineer, or declining to approve rather than proceeding with an inadequate review and affixing a professional seal without genuine technical understanding of the work.
Competence Limitation Recognition and Supervisor Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is assigned to review, approve, or certify another engineer's work product to affirmatively recognize when that assignment exceeds the engineer's own technical competence — and, upon recognizing that limitation, to immediately escalate to a supervisor or responsible authority so that a competent engineer can be assigned to perform the review — rather than proceeding with an inadequate review or approving work the engineer cannot technically evaluate, recognizing that the failure to recognize one's own competence limitation and take corrective action is itself a violation of professional ethics even when the underlying lack of competence is not.
Competence Misrepresentation to Client State
While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately.
State in which a professional has affirmatively assured a client of their ability to perform services adequately in a domain where they lack the requisite experience or technical competence, thereby obtaining a contract under false pretenses and creating an active tension between the professional's self-interest in securing work and their obligations of honest self-representation and public welfare.
Competence Remediation Pathway Blocked by Resource Unavailability State
There are comprehensive training programs available for this type of work, but training funds are not available
State in which a professional faces a competence gap in a required domain, and while formal training programs exist that could remediate the gap, institutional resource constraints (e.g., unavailable training funds) prevent access to those programs, leaving the competence gap unresolvable through normal remediation channels.
Competence Self-Certification Prohibition Principle
By ordering and using the CD-ROM, Engineer A in a sense was 'self-certifying' his competency to perform facilities design and construction services without obtaining the substantive education, experience, and qualifications to perform those services in a competent and professional manner.
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineers cannot self-certify their competence to perform work in a domain through perfunctory or superficial means — including reliance on commercial products, brief review processes, or informal self-study — that lack the substantive education, examination, and practice experience that genuine competence requires. Self-certification of competence through inadequate means is analogous to diploma-mill credentialing and is fundamentally incompatible with the public protection function of professional licensure.
the engineer was not familiar with the recently proposed design parameters
State in which recently proposed design parameters or technical standards exist in the professional literature but have not yet been formally adopted as binding standards, creating ambiguity about whether a licensed engineer's failure to apply them constitutes incompetence or an ethical violation.
Competency-Challenging Co-Project Engineer
Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reported his concerns to the contractor
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer working on the same project as another engineer has an objective basis to assess whether that other engineer possesses sufficient education, experience, and training to perform required services, bearing obligations to confront the under-qualified engineer directly, recommend withdrawal, escalate concerns to the client and authorities if the engineer refuses to withdraw, and if necessary withdraw from the project to protect public safety.
Competent Performance Record ADA Non-Disclosure Materiality Rebuttal Capability
Engineer A, a professional engineer licensed in four states, specializes in air pollution control and air emissions permitting and has practiced professional engineering successfully for 25 years for multiple employers.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer with an undisclosed ADA-protected personal condition to recognize that a sustained record of competent professional practice — including multi-state licensure, multi-employer success, and decades of technical achievement — constitutes affirmative evidence rebutting any claim that non-disclosure of the condition was material to employment decisions, and to articulate this performance record as a professional self-advocacy argument demonstrating that the condition has not impaired professional competence or public safety.
Competent Performance Record Materiality Rebuttal Obligation
Obligation of a licensed professional engineer who has not disclosed a personal characteristic (including an ADA-protected condition) to recognize and assert, when the ethical status of that non-disclosure is questioned, that a sustained record of competent professional performance over an extended period constitutes affirmative evidence that the undisclosed characteristic has not impaired professional judgment or service delivery, and therefore falls below the materiality threshold for ethically obligatory disclosure. The engineer must neither overstate the significance of the omission nor understate the evidentiary weight of the performance record in assessing whether the non-disclosure was deceptive.
Competing Bidder Good Faith Public Safety Protest Permissibility Obligation
Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm that has been shortlisted for a public contract — and that has direct, experience-based knowledge of the project scope and realistic cost requirements — to recognize that filing a formal, good-faith protest with the awarding agency when a competitor's fee proposal is so far below realistic project costs as to create a credible risk of inadequate and unsafe design is ethically permissible and consistent with the engineer's paramount duty to protect public safety, provided the protest is directed to the responsible agency through proper channels, is grounded in professional judgment rather than competitive self-interest alone, and does not constitute a malicious or false attack on the competitor's professional reputation.
Competing Bidder Protest Competitive Motivation Transparency Obligation
A principal of Firm A charges that the engineer principals of Firms B and C have acted unethically
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm that files a formal protest against a competitor's contract award — when the protesting firm is itself a competing bidder with a direct financial interest in the outcome — to be transparent about its competitive interest in the protest, to ensure the protest is grounded in objectively verifiable professional judgment rather than competitive self-interest, and to refrain from framing the protest in terms that go beyond what the firm's actual knowledge of the competitor's capabilities and plans supports, recognizing that competitive motivation does not invalidate a legitimate safety-based protest but does require heightened epistemic care and honest characterization of the basis for the protest.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has a direct competitive interest in the outcome of a potential misconduct report — such as where the engineer whose misconduct is being reported is actively soliciting the reporting engineer's clients — to nonetheless fulfill the obligation to report verified misconduct to the appropriate licensing authority, while being transparent about the competitive relationship so that the receiving authority can assess the report's context, recognizing that competitive motivation does not extinguish the reporting duty but does require the reporting engineer to ensure the report is factually grounded and not merely a competitive tactic.
Competing Bidder Public Safety Protest Permissibility Principle
Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency and called for a public hearing on the ground that the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance
Relational principle establishing that competing engineering firms who have been shortlisted for the same public contract may ethically file a formal protest and request a public hearing when they have a good-faith, professionally grounded belief that the winning bidder's fee is so inadequate as to create a genuine risk of unsafe or incompetent engineering performance — provided the protest is grounded in honest professional judgment rather than competitive self-interest, and is directed to the responsible authority rather than constituting a public attack on the competitor's reputation
Competing Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
The facts in this case present the Board with two conflicting provisions of the Code of Ethics: (1) the obligation of the engineer to provide appropriate notice to another engineer in connection with his reviewing the work of that engineer, and (2) the general duty of the engineer as 'faithful agent and trustee.'
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when two provisions of an engineering ethics code appear to impose conflicting obligations on an engineer in a specific factual situation, the engineer must engage in contextual balancing of the competing provisions — weighing the purposes served by each provision, the specific facts of the case, and the relative harm to all affected parties — rather than mechanically applying either provision in isolation, and must articulate the reasoning by which one obligation is given priority over the other in the specific context
Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Capability
Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a single factual situation simultaneously triggers the NSPE Code's confidentiality provision (Section III.4) and the paramount public safety obligation (Section II.1), to correctly frame the tension between these two provisions as a contextual balancing problem rather than an absolute conflict, and to apply the principle that 'paramount' safety obligations supersede confidentiality duties when known code violations pose injury risk to building occupants — while also recognizing that the confidentiality provision's scope does not extend to shielding public safety hazards from regulatory authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a single factual situation simultaneously triggers two or more distinct and potentially conflicting provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics — specifically, the duty to protect confidential client information (Section III.4) and the duty to cooperate with proper authorities regarding known ethics violations (Section II.1.e) — and to correctly identify both obligations as operative rather than treating one as wholly displacing the other, thereby framing the ethical dilemma accurately before proceeding to resolution.
Competing Confidentiality-Safety Code Provision Contextual Balancing Obligation
there may be facts and circumstances in which the ethical obligation of engineers in protecting the public health and safety conflict with the ethical obligation of engineers to maintain the right of confidentiality in data and other information obtained on behalf of a client.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics contains two potentially conflicting provisions — the obligation to protect public health and safety (Section II.1.a.) and the obligation to maintain client confidentiality (Section III.4.) — and to resolve that conflict contextually by applying the explicit public-safety exception clause (Section II.1.c.), which permits and requires disclosure of client information when public health and safety is endangered, rather than treating either obligation as absolute or mechanically applying one to the exclusion of the other.
Engineer K identifies two potential approaches, both of which could be successfully designed and implemented
State in which a licensed professional engineer has identified two or more technically viable design approaches with materially different profiles of cost, sustainability, resilience, expandability, and risk distribution, requiring the engineer to evaluate and recommend among them while balancing client directives, professional obligations, and public welfare considerations.
Competing Engineer Improperly Solicited for Incumbent Critique
The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a competitor for an upcoming public contract is contacted by the client's administrative authority and asked to evaluate or criticize the work of the incumbent engineer, bearing obligations to decline providing self-serving criticism of a competitor's work as a means of gaining competitive advantage, to recognize the impropriety of the solicitation, and to avoid conduct that constitutes an unfair competitive practice or misrepresentation of qualifications.
Competing Engineer Solicited for Incumbent Critique
Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a competitor for an upcoming public contract is contacted by a client's administrative authority and asked to evaluate or criticize specific decisions made by the incumbent engineer still under active contract, and who proceeds to answer those questions critically in a manner that serves as a pretext for gaining competitive advantage in the upcoming contract selection.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a competitor for an upcoming or potential public contract is contacted by a client and asked to evaluate or criticize the work of an incumbent engineer who is still under active contract, bearing obligations to refrain from specific criticism of the incumbent's work, to recognize the impropriety of providing self-serving critique without full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances, and to avoid conduct that constitutes unfair competitive practice or potential injury to another engineer's professional reputation.
Competing Engineering Firm Employee Engineer
Engineer A works in a metropolitan area bordering on two states, and designs bridges and culverts as an employee of ABC Consultants
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is employed by a private consulting firm that competes for public and private engineering contracts in a regional market, bearing obligations of competent practice, honest representation of qualifications, and compliance with state licensing board rules governing marketing and proposal submissions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer identifies and formally reports suspected violations of procurement laws or professional codes of ethics by other engineers or public entities to appropriate authorities, bearing obligations of accuracy, good faith, and use of proper reporting channels.
Engineer B, also a licensed professional engineer, the owner of a local civil engineering firm, who raises concerns about City D's contracting practices
A licensed professional engineer who owns or leads a private engineering firm and raises concerns about exclusionary or non-compliant public contracting practices that prevent qualified firms from competing for public engineering contracts.
Competing Loyalty Public Safety Primacy Resolution Obligation
it seems clear that where the conflict is between one important obligation or loyalty and the protection of the public, for the engineer the latter must be viewed as the higher obligation.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who faces a conflict between an important professional loyalty or obligation — such as faithful agent duty to employer, collegial duty, or contractual obligation — and the protection of public safety, health, and welfare, to resolve that conflict in favor of public safety as the higher obligation; recognizing that while ethics frequently involves a delicate balance between competing obligations, the public welfare obligation is categorically superior when it conflicts with other loyalties.
Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
What guidance can Engineer A rely upon to address a potential conflict between competing public goods?
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability through carbon footprint reduction and grid reliability for vulnerable populations — to explicitly acknowledge and address that conflict in any advisory report or board presentation, presenting the tradeoffs between the competing goods completely and objectively so that decision-makers can make an informed policy choice rather than proceeding on a selectively favorable presentation of one good at the expense of the other.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to provide an advisory recommendation on project delivery methods, procurement approaches, or comparable strategic options to a non-engineer public client to present all viable and approved options completely and objectively — including options the engineer is not qualified or positioned to deliver — rather than selectively presenting only those options from which the engineer's firm could commercially benefit, so that the client can make a fully informed decision among all available alternatives.
Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
Professional principle requiring engineers who identify a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability and grid reliability — to present both goods and their trade-offs fully and objectively to decision-makers, rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally in favor of one value, so that informed policy and project decisions can be made by the appropriate authority
Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed engineering decision creates a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability (carbon footprint reduction) and public safety (grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention) — and to explicitly acknowledge, analyze, and address that conflict in professional advisory reports, ensuring that decision-makers understand the tradeoffs between competing public welfare objectives rather than receiving a one-sided presentation favoring one good over the other.
Competing Public Goods Healthcare vs Upstream Community Balanced Advisory Obligation
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring infrastructure upgrade and the welfare of an upstream residential community facing accelerated flood risk from that upgrade — to explicitly acknowledge and address that conflict in any advisory report or regulatory submission, presenting the tradeoffs between the competing goods completely and objectively so that decision-makers can make an informed policy choice rather than proceeding on a selectively favorable presentation of one good at the expense of the other.
Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability and grid reliability — must present that conflict honestly and completely in any advisory report, prohibiting the distortion, suppression, or selective omission of findings that favor one public good over another, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to provide objective and complete analysis supersedes stakeholder pressure to validate a predetermined outcome, as established by NSPE Code objectivity provisions and BER Case 98-5 precedent on the impermissibility of trading one public good for another.
Competing Public Goods Safety Trade-Off Rationalization Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A could arguably rationalize a decision to permit the inconsistent application of a building code in order to accomplish the larger objective of obtaining the necessary resources to hire a sufficient number of code enforcement officials to provide proper protection to the public health and safety.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from rationalizing a decision to compromise one public safety standard — such as consistent building code enforcement — by framing it as a permissible trade-off against a competing public good — such as obtaining resources for an improved inspection program — establishing that the logic of trading one public good for another does not apply when one of the goods involves a safety standard whose consistent enforcement is itself a public safety obligation, and that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to public health and safety regardless of the engineer's genuine belief that the net outcome serves the public interest, as established by BER Case 98-5 and the principle that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount without rationalization.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability and grid reliability — must present that conflict honestly and completely in any advisory report, prohibiting the distortion, suppression, or selective omission of findings that favor one public good over another, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to provide objective and complete analysis supersedes stakeholder pressure to validate a predetermined outcome, as established by NSPE Code objectivity provisions and BER Case 98-5 precedent on the impermissibility of trading one public good for another.
State in which a licensed professional engineer must evaluate and report on a decision that involves a genuine conflict between two or more legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability and grid reliability — where advancing one good may measurably harm another, and where no single option fully satisfies all public welfare obligations, requiring the engineer to present the tradeoffs transparently rather than advocate for either good unilaterally.
Competing Public Goods Trade-Off Safety Non-Rationalization Obligation
Engineer A could arguably rationalize a decision to permit the inconsistent application of a building code in order to accomplish the larger objective of obtaining the necessary resources to hire a sufficient number of code enforcement officials
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is tempted to rationalize a safety-compromising decision by framing it as a 'trade-off' between two competing public goods — such as accepting inconsistent building code enforcement in exchange for additional inspection staff — to resist that rationalization and to recognize that the public welfare paramount obligation cannot be discharged by trading one public safety harm for another, even when the net benefit calculus appears favorable in the short term.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role who is presented with a political bargain — in which concurrence with a safety-compromising measure (such as grandfathering buildings under less rigorous code requirements) is offered in exchange for a beneficial administrative outcome (such as additional inspection staff) — to refuse the bargain and to make plain to the political authority that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety, recognizing that public safety obligations cannot be traded against political or administrative concessions regardless of the net benefit calculus.
Competing Public Goods Waste Disposal vs Environmental Safety Balanced Advisory Obligation
Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contends that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and that it would pollute the nearby ground water.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a municipal client to design a landfill expansion to explicitly acknowledge and present to the client the genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the community's immediate need for waste disposal capacity and the long-term environmental and public health risks of higher-intensity landfill use (including methane gas migration to adjacent private property and groundwater contamination) — presenting the trade-offs completely and objectively so that the municipal decision-maker can make an informed policy choice rather than proceeding on a selectively favorable presentation of disposal capacity at the expense of environmental safety.
Competing Public Goods Water Supply Flood Control Power Production Balanced Testimony Obligation
Particularly in large and complicated engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based on sound engineering principles.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a legislative body on a large public infrastructure project that simultaneously serves multiple competing public goods — such as water supply, flood control, and electric power production — to present testimony that acknowledges and addresses the multi-dimensional public welfare implications of the competing engineering approaches, rather than presenting testimony that optimizes for only one public good while ignoring the others, so that the legislative body can make an informed policy decision that properly balances all affected public interests.
Competing Stakeholder Interest Faithful Agent Boundary Capability
Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize when their own sympathies or judgments about the needs of third-party stakeholders — including municipalities, communities, or affected populations — are creating pressure to place those third-party interests above the interests of the employing agency in violation of faithful agent obligations, and to correctly identify and maintain the boundary between legitimate advocacy for third-party interests through proper channels and impermissible subordination of employer interests to third-party interests.
Competing Stakeholder Interest Synthesis Capability
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline.
Capability to receive, analyze, and synthesize input from stakeholder groups with genuinely competing preferences — including cost-preference community members, environmental advocates, and underserved community representatives — and to present a balanced, objective synthesis of those competing perspectives to decision-makers in a manner that accurately represents the full range of stakeholder positions without privileging any single group's preferences, consistent with professional obligations of objective and truthful reporting.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to simultaneously identify and balance the legitimate interests of multiple stakeholders — including the employing public agency, the public interest in lawful procurement, competing engineering firms, contracted firms, and regulatory bodies — when navigating procurement compliance disputes, and to seek solutions that are legally compliant, ethically sound, and mutually acceptable to the extent possible.
Competing Technical Advocacy Peer Engineer
freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other
A professional engineering role in which an engineer publicly contests the technical findings, methodology, or conclusions of another engineer's analysis before a legislative or regulatory body, bearing obligations of factual accuracy, professional respect, and honest criticism grounded in engineering evidence rather than personal disparagement.
Competitive Bidding Permissibility Rationale Scope Limitation Principle
In applying the distinction noted above, it should be kept in mind that the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
Fundamental principle establishing that the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional engineering services is grounded in a specific protective rationale — preventing the sacrifice of quality to lowest price — and that this rationale does not extend to sub-professional or non-professional services that can be clearly and accurately specified; consequently, competitive bidding is ethically permissible for sub-professional or non-professional (business or commercial) services, and the anti-competitive-bidding norm cannot be invoked to prohibit such bidding
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Before Advisory Critique Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been solicited to provide evaluative or critical opinions about another engineer's work — when the soliciting party is a current or prospective client and the engineer has a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome — to affirmatively disclose that competitive conflict of interest to the soliciting party before or contemporaneously with providing any opinion, so that the soliciting party can appropriately weigh the advisory opinion in light of the engineer's self-interest, and so that the engineer does not exploit the advisory role as a vehicle for competitive advantage.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to provide an advisory recommendation to a public agency client — particularly a non-engineer client — to proactively disclose any commercial, competitive, or financial interest the engineer's firm holds in the outcome of that recommendation, including the firm's qualification to perform services under one or more of the options being evaluated, before or contemporaneously with delivering the recommendation, so that the client can appropriately weigh the advisory opinion in light of the engineer's potential self-interest.
Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Context Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been solicited to provide evaluative or critical opinions about another engineer's work to recognize when a competitive conflict of interest exists — specifically when the soliciting party controls or heavily influences an upcoming contract award for which the engineer is competing — and to proactively disclose that conflict of interest before providing any opinions, so that the soliciting party can appropriately weight the advice received and the engineer's competitive motivations are transparent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when an engineer's own firm stands to benefit commercially from a recommendation being made in an ostensibly objective advisory capacity — including situations where the engineer is qualified to provide services under one or more of the delivery methods being evaluated — and to proactively disclose this conflict of interest to the client before or contemporaneously with delivering the advisory recommendation, so that the client can appropriately weight the advice received.
Competitive Context Critique Scope Limitation Capability
While Engineer C could answer Client A's questions in a very general sense, C should have avoided commenting on specific issues.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been solicited by a client to comment on a competitor's work — and who has not fully declined — to correctly calibrate the permissible scope of response: limiting any response to general observations about engineering practice rather than specific criticisms of the competitor's decisions, refraining from commentary on specific project decisions where full circumstances are unknown, and recognizing that even general responses must avoid creating competitive advantage through improper means.
Competitive Context Incomplete Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is competing for a contract from offering specific critical opinions about the incumbent engineer's professional decisions — even when the critiquing engineer believes those opinions to be truthful — when the critiquing engineer lacks full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, and professional judgment factors that informed the incumbent's decisions, establishing that truthful belief alone is insufficient to render specific criticism ethically permissible in a competitive procurement context, and that the engineer must limit responses to general observations or decline entirely.
Competitive Context Specific Critique Prohibition Constraint
Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation. However, Engineer C's statements may not be accurate since C might not know all the circumstances.
Competitive Disadvantage Harm to Excluded Competing Firms as Ethics Code Cognizable Injury
Fundamental ethical principle recognizing that when engineers exploit insider knowledge, public work product, or pre-departure negotiations to secure private contracts, the resulting competitive disadvantage suffered by other qualified firms constitutes a cognizable ethical injury — not merely a commercial consequence — because free and open competition is a foundational condition of professional engineering procurement integrity, and structural distortions of that competition harm both the excluded firms and the public interest in quality-based selection.
Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Obligation
it is the Board's view that while many of the considerations discussed in the previous cases are relevant to this case, the Board must conclude that Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y, provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A's employment with the government agency.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who transitions from a government agency role — in which the engineer accessed confidential and proprietary design information submitted by private companies — to recognize that acceptance of employment with a competitor of those submitting companies is ethically permissible, provided the engineer strictly refrains from disclosing or using any confidential and proprietary design information accessed during public service, and that the engineer's freedom to pursue competitive employment does not override the continuing confidentiality obligation owed to the submitting company.
Competitive Employment Freedom With Confidentiality Constraint
Relational principle establishing that engineers are not unduly limited or penalized in their freedom to accept employment with competitors of former clients or employers, provided they do not disclose or use confidential and proprietary information acquired during the prior relationship — balancing the engineer's professional autonomy and right to pursue career opportunities against the former client's or employer's legitimate interest in protecting confidential information
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that an engineer's duty of faithful agency and loyalty to a client or employer does not extend to a perpetual duty of absolute devotion — engineers retain professional autonomy and independence to accept engagements adverse to former clients, provided those engagements are unrelated to prior work and do not involve disclosure of confidential information or use of specialized knowledge gained in the prior relationship
Competitive Interest Adverse Performance Review Recusal Constraint
Engineer A, in his role as town engineer, reviews Engineer B's preliminary work and becomes convinced that Engineer B's performance on the contract does not meet the standards as outlined in Engineer B's contract with the town
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer serving in a public official capacity who has a private commercial interest in obtaining a successor contract — arising from the potential termination of an incumbent contractor — must recuse from conducting or delivering the performance review of that incumbent contractor, prohibiting the engineer from exercising official review authority over a competitor when the outcome of that review would directly benefit the reviewing engineer's private practice, and establishing that the existence of a private commercial interest in the review outcome creates a conflict of interest that cannot be mitigated by disclosure alone.
Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Licensure Reporting Duty Obligation
Client L is a former client of Engineer A's firm.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of a potential misconduct report — such as where the reported firm has taken a former client — to nonetheless fulfill any applicable obligation to report unlicensed practice or professional misconduct to the appropriate licensing authority, recognizing that the existence of a competitive interest does not extinguish the reporting duty, provided the report is factually verified and professionally motivated, and that allowing competitive self-interest to suppress a legitimate reporting obligation itself constitutes a failure of professional ethics.
Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty Self-Monitoring Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to continuously monitor and critically examine their own motivations when considering whether to report a competitor's potential misconduct — specifically recognizing when a direct competitive financial interest (such as having lost a client to the competitor) could consciously or unconsciously suppress a legitimate reporting duty, and ensuring that competitive discomfort or appearance of self-interest does not cause the engineer to withhold a report that professional ethics and public interest require.
Competitive Motivation Disclosure in Peer Misconduct Reporting Constraint
Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y.
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who reports a competitor's professional misconduct to a licensing board must disclose to the board any direct competitive interest the reporting engineer holds in the outcome of the complaint — including the fact that the reported engineer is actively soliciting the reporting engineer's firm's clients — prohibiting the engineer from presenting the report as a purely altruistic professional duty discharge while concealing the competitive motivation that also drives the report, and establishing that transparency about competitive motivation is required so that the licensing board can appropriately weigh the report and assess whether it is grounded in genuine public interest or competitive harassment, as established by NSPE Code provisions on honest professional conduct and the principle that self-policing obligations must not be weaponized for competitive advantage.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who holds an obligation to report a competitor's licensing rule violations to a licensing board must ensure that the reporting decision is grounded in genuine public interest and professional ethics — not in competitive self-interest — and must disclose to the board any competitive relationship with the reported firm, prohibiting the use of mandatory reporting obligations as a mechanism for competitive harassment or the suppression of legitimate competition, while simultaneously prohibiting the engineer from allowing competitive self-interest to deter reporting of genuine violations that the engineer is obligated to report.
Competitive Motivation Transparency in Public Safety Protest Capability
Representatives of Firms B and C promptly filed protests with the agency
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm that files a formal protest against a competitor's contract award — while itself being a competing bidder — to recognize that its competitive financial interest creates an appearance of improper motivation, to ensure the protest is grounded in objectively verifiable professional judgment about fee adequacy and public safety rather than competitive self-interest, and to transparently acknowledge the dual motivation when filing the protest so that the agency can appropriately weigh the protest's merits.
Competitive Necessity No-Choice Rationalization State
the defense to this activity has generally been that the companies making such gifts had 'no choice'
State in which an engineer or firm facing an ethics violation justifies non-compliance by arguing that compliance would result in competitive exclusion — that competitors from other countries or regions will comply with the prohibited practice, making ethical refusal commercially fatal. This state activates the obligation to reject pragmatic competitive-necessity arguments as insufficient to override professional ethics obligations, and to recognize that the 'no choice' defense is itself ethically impermissible. The state is characterized by the engineer's belief (whether sincere or self-serving) that ethical compliance is commercially impossible.
Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has a direct competitive interest in the outcome of a potential misconduct report — such as where the engineer whose misconduct is being reported is actively soliciting the reporting engineer's clients — to nonetheless fulfill the obligation to report verified misconduct to the appropriate licensing authority, while being transparent about the competitive relationship so that the receiving authority can assess the report's context, recognizing that competitive motivation does not extinguish the reporting duty but does require the reporting engineer to ensure the report is factually grounded and not merely a competitive tactic.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has a direct competitive financial interest in the outcome of a potential misconduct report — such as where the reported firm has taken a former client — to nonetheless fulfill any applicable obligation to report unlicensed practice or professional misconduct to the appropriate licensing authority, recognizing that the existence of a competitive interest does not extinguish the reporting duty, provided the report is factually verified and professionally motivated, and that allowing competitive self-interest to suppress a legitimate reporting obligation itself constitutes a failure of professional ethics.
Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has a direct competitive interest in the outcome of a potential misconduct report — such as having lost clients or staff to the engineer being reported — to recognize that this competitive interest creates an appearance of improper motivation, to transparently disclose that competitive relationship when making a report, and to ensure that the report is grounded in professional duty rather than competitive self-interest, while not allowing the appearance of self-interest to suppress a legitimate reporting obligation.
Competitive Procurement Constructability Information Formal Channel Obligation
Engineer A would like to also discuss constructability issues with a local contractor, Contractor B, with whom Engineer A has worked and who may potentially also bid on the water treatment facility construction contract following the design phase.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a firm retained to design a public infrastructure project to share any constructability information or technical project details with prospective bidders exclusively through formal, institutionally sanctioned processes — such as public pre-bid meetings, formal addenda, or written communications distributed equally to all prospective bidders — refraining from informal bilateral information sharing with any single prospective bidder, recognizing that the formal channel requirement is not merely procedural but is essential to preserving the integrity of the competitive procurement process and the equal treatment of all competitors.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a public agency engineer who possesses project-relevant technical information — such as as-built drawings — to refrain from sharing that information with contractors or other parties through informal, ad hoc, or personally initiated channels, and instead to direct all requests through formal, agency-sanctioned processes, so that no party gains an informational advantage through personal relationships and the appearance of impropriety or favoritism is avoided.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Assessment Capability
Engineer B alleges that City D is exclusively awarding traffic engineering contracts to Firm X and civil engineering contracts to Firm Z without utilizing the request for qualifications (RFQ) process.
Capability to evaluate whether engineering service contracting practices provide fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms, including assessing whether RFQ processes are being conducted, whether sole-source awards are justified, and whether exclusionary patterns in contract awards are consistent with QBS procurement law requirements and professional ethics obligations.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Constraint
Legal and ethical constraint requiring that public agency engineers ensure all qualified firms have equal opportunity to compete for public engineering service contracts through open, advertised qualification-based selection processes, prohibiting contracting practices that systematically exclude qualified competitors through non-competitive awards, regardless of the incumbent firm's performance history.
Competitive Procurement Fairness Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency procurement or supervisory role to ensure that engineering service contracts are awarded through open, competitive, and qualification-based processes that provide all qualified firms a fair opportunity to compete, and to refrain from establishing or perpetuating exclusive contracting relationships that circumvent competitive procurement requirements without legal justification.
Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment State
the Board must assume that the referenced public procurement system was designed to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
State in which a public procurement system has been designed and legally structured to advance the public interest by obtaining the most qualified professional services through free and open competition, such that the ethical evaluation of competitive conduct by participating engineers must be assessed not only against professional codes but also against whether the conduct serves or undermines the public interest purpose of the procurement system — including the recognition that public disclosure mechanisms within the system serve a protective function against misrepresentation.
Competitive Protest Public Safety Grounding Non-Pretextual Basis Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineering firm that files a formal protest against a competitor's contract award on public safety grounds ensure that the protest is grounded in objectively verifiable professional judgment about fee adequacy and public safety risk — prohibiting the firm from filing or characterizing a protest in terms that exceed what the firm's actual knowledge supports, and requiring that the protest be framed in terms of the observable fee disparity and its foreseeable engineering consequences rather than as a definitive assertion of incompetence or guaranteed design failure, as established by NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7 and the principle that competitive self-interest does not justify overstated safety claims.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that while licensed professional engineers are permitted — and sometimes obligated — to formally protest non-compliant or unsafe procurement awards, such protests must be grounded in legitimate public interest concerns rather than competitive self-interest, and engineers must exercise caution when making public statements about competitor fees or likelihood of project success, as such statements approach the boundary of unfair competitive conduct.
Competitive Self-Interest Critique Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is a direct competitor for an upcoming contract from providing critical evaluative opinions about the incumbent engineer's specific professional decisions to the client authority who holds procurement influence — when the engineer is fully aware that answering in a critical perspective would serve as a pretext to gaining competitive advantage — establishing that awareness of competitive self-interest does not merely require disclosure but affirmatively prohibits substantive critical participation, as established by NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7 and BER case precedent on competitor disparagement in procurement contexts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is a direct competitor for an upcoming contract from providing evaluative or critical opinions about the incumbent engineer's work to the client authority who holds procurement influence over that contract — establishing that the competitive conflict of interest is so fundamental that it precludes participation in any informal advisory role that could disadvantage the incumbent and advantage the competing engineer, regardless of whether the critique is technically accurate, as established by NSPE Code Section III.6, III.7, and BER case precedent on competitor disparagement in procurement contexts.
Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Obligation
he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm engaged in competitive solicitation of former clients to communicate availability and qualifications honestly and without casting doubt on, disparaging, or making unsubstantiated negative representations about the capability, qualifications, or quality of services of a competing engineer or firm — recognizing that competitive solicitation communications must satisfy both the honesty obligation and the prohibition on injuring a competitor's professional reputation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has departed from a former employer and is competing for that employer's clients to refrain from making predictive or speculative representations to those clients that are designed to injure the former employer's professional reputation or undermine client confidence in the former employer's ability to perform — including representations that the former employer will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully — recognizing that such statements, whether technically grounded or not, constitute disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation and violate the engineer's duties of honesty, fairness, and collegial respect.
Competitively Disadvantaged Competing Engineering Firm
many distinct advantages over any other firms who may have considered the offering of their services to the owner
A private engineering firm stakeholder role representing firms that competed for a design contract but were at a structural informational disadvantage relative to engineers who had performed preliminary design work on the same project, generating a legitimate interest in fair and transparent procurement processes free from insider-knowledge asymmetries.
Competitor-Employing Private Engineering Company
A private engineering firm stakeholder role that hires a former government agency engineer who, during public service, had access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by the firm's direct competitors, bearing obligations to avoid exploiting that insider knowledge and to ensure the new hire does not use confidential competitor information to benefit the firm.
Competitor Bid Safety Protest with Self-Interest Contamination Risk State
Firms B and C are not permitted to attempt to injure the interests of Firm A for the purpose of advancing the interests of Firms B and C
State in which one or more competing engineering firms formally protest or challenge a competitor's bid or award on grounds of public safety concern, where the protesting firms simultaneously hold a direct financial interest in the outcome (i.e., they would benefit commercially if the protest succeeds and the award is cancelled or redirected), creating a condition requiring ethical evaluation of whether the protest is genuinely motivated by public safety obligations or improperly motivated by competitive self-interest, and whether the protesting firms may be considered for the same assignment if the original award is cancelled.
Competitor Conduct in Procurement Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of engineers who are approached by a prospective client during an active procurement or contract renewal process, particularly regarding the ethical limits of criticizing a competitor's work to gain competitive advantage, and the obligation to avoid exploiting procurement contexts for self-interested professional disparagement.
[Case 105] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of engineers who are approached by a prospective client during an active procurement or contract renewal process, particularly regarding the ethical limits of criticizing a competitor's work to gain competitive advantage, and the obligation to avoid exploiting procurement contexts for self-interested professional disparagement
Competitor Critique Declination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a competitor for an upcoming public or private contract to recognize that solicitations to evaluate, critique, or opine on the work of an incumbent engineer constitute an improper competitive advantage opportunity, and to decline such solicitations on ethical grounds — including understanding that providing critical opinions about a competitor's work while competing for that competitor's contract violates professional obligations of fairness, collegial respect, and honorable conduct in procurement.
Competitor Critique Declination Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is a direct competitor for an upcoming contract from providing evaluative or critical opinions about the incumbent engineer's work to the client authority who holds procurement influence over that contract — establishing that the competitive conflict of interest is so fundamental that it precludes participation in any informal advisory role that could disadvantage the incumbent and advantage the competing engineer, regardless of whether the critique is technically accurate, as established by NSPE Code Section III.6, III.7, and BER case precedent on competitor disparagement in procurement contexts.
Competitor Critique Declination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is a competitor for an upcoming public or private contract to decline solicitations — whether from a client, administrator, or other party — to evaluate, critique, or provide critical opinions on the work of the incumbent engineer or competing firm, recognizing that providing such critique while competing for the same contract creates an inherent conflict of interest, undermines fairness in professional competition, and constitutes use of a competitive advantage derived from improper means.
Competitor Critique Solicitation Prohibition
Relational principle prohibiting engineers who are competitors for a public or private contract from providing critical evaluations of an incumbent engineer's work when solicited by the client or client representative during an active procurement or contract renewal process, recognizing that such participation exploits a conflict of interest, undermines fair competition, and compromises the integrity of the professional evaluation process
Competitor Deceptive Practice Appropriate Authority Reporting Right Obligation
In accordance with 12 of the code engineers have no less right to bring practices which they believe to be deceptive to the attention of appropriate instrumentalities than do others in our society who become aware of such practices.
Duty — and correlative right — of a licensed professional engineering firm that has reason to believe a competitor's procurement conduct is deceptive (including submission of an artificially low fee proposal constituting a bait-and-switch tactic) to bring that information to the attention of the appropriate governmental instrumentality or authority, recognizing that engineers have no less right than ordinary citizens to report deceptive practices to appropriate bodies, and that the professional ethics code elevates this civic right to a professional duty when public safety and health are implicated.
Competitor Deceptive Procurement Practice Proper Authority Reporting Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that licensed professional engineers who believe a competitor's procurement conduct — including submission of a facially inadequate fee proposal — constitutes a deceptive practice have no less right than any member of the public to bring such practices to the attention of appropriate governmental or professional instrumentalities, and that this right is not extinguished by the reporting engineers' competitive interest in the outcome, provided the report is grounded in sincere and genuine concern for public safety and health rather than self-aggrandizement — as established by the BER's recognition that 'engineers have no less right to bring practices which they believe to be deceptive to the attention of appropriate instrumentalities than do others in our society who become aware of such practices' and that 'the purpose of professional ethics is to elevate to a duty conduct of the type in which all public spirited and civic-minded citizens engage.'
Competitor Employment Post-Government Access State
Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency
State in which a professional engineer who, during public-sector employment, received access to confidential and proprietary information submitted by private companies seeking regulatory approval, subsequently accepts employment with a direct competitor of one or more of those submitting companies — creating a structural conflict in which the engineer's insider knowledge of a competitor's confidential design information could be exploited to the advantage of the new private employer, triggering ongoing obligations of confidentiality protection and potential recusal from work that could benefit from the improperly accessed information.
Competitor Ethics Violation Non-Justification Constraint
other firms have adhered to the local practice in regard to such gifts
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer cannot use the fact that competing firms or other professionals have violated the NSPE Code of Ethics — including by adhering to corrupt local gift-giving practices — as ethical justification for the engineer's own violation of the same Code provisions, prohibiting the engineer from invoking peer non-compliance as a defense, excuse, or mitigating factor for prohibited conduct, and establishing that the ethical standard is set by the Code and not by the lowest common denominator of actual market practice.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's competitive disadvantage resulting from compliance with the NSPE Code of Ethics in markets where corrupt payment practices are prevalent does not excuse, justify, or mitigate the engineer's obligation to comply with the Code — prohibiting the engineer from invoking competitive harm or market disadvantage as a defense to ethics violations, and establishing that the integrity of the profession and public welfare take precedence over the engineer's individual competitive position, as established by BER Cases 76-6 and 96-5 and the categorical rejection of situational ethics.
Competitor Firm Incumbent Information Advantage Non-Exploitation Organizational Capability
Organizational capability of a private engineering firm that has hired a former government agency engineer to recognize, assess, and refrain from exploiting the competitive advantage created by that engineer's prior access to confidential and proprietary information submitted by competitor companies to the government agency — including implementing information barriers, recusal arrangements, and internal policies that prevent the firm from benefiting competitively from the engineer's prior government access to third-party proprietary information.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a private AE firm to assess whether recruiting a former senior public official creates an unfair incumbent advantage in future procurement competitions with the former official's agency — including evaluating the nature and extent of the official's prior contracting authority, the firm's existing contract history with the agency, and the competitive distortion that would result from exploiting the recruited official's relationships and insider knowledge — and to make an informed judgment about whether and how to proceed with the recruitment and subsequent procurement activities.
Competitor Gift-Practice Non-Justification Compliance Obligation
He is further told that other firms have adhered to the local practice in regard to such gifts.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refuse to use the fact that competing engineering firms have adhered to a corrupt local practice — such as gift-giving to contract-awarding officials — as ethical justification for engaging in the same conduct, recognizing that the prevalence of a corrupt practice among competitors does not transform that practice into an ethically permissible one, and that each engineer bears independent personal professional accountability for their own ethical compliance regardless of what peers or competitors do.
Competitor Gift-Practice Non-Justification Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and reject the argument that the corrupt or unethical practices of competing engineering firms — including adherence to local gift-giving customs — constitute ethical justification for the engineer's own participation in those practices, including the ability to identify the logical fallacy in 'everyone else does it' reasoning and to correctly apply the principle that peer misconduct does not lower the individual engineer's ethical standard.
State in which a client authority with procurement influence over an upcoming contract contacts a competing professional firm to solicit technical opinions on the incumbent professional's work, where the competing professional recognizes that answering in a particular way could provide a competitive advantage in the upcoming selection process, creating direct tension between honest professional opinion, competitive self-interest, and obligations of fairness to the incumbent professional.
Competitor Interest Injury Self-Advancement Prohibition Obligation
Section 12 of the code makes it clear that Firms B and C are not permitted to attempt to injure the interests of Firm A for the purpose of advancing the interests of Firms B and C.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm that files a protest, critique, or complaint against a competing firm's procurement conduct to ensure that the protest is not motivated by — and does not function as — an attempt to injure the competitor's professional or business interests for the purpose of advancing the protesting firm's own competitive interests, recognizing that while safety-grounded protests directed to proper authorities are ethically permissible, protests whose primary purpose is competitive self-advancement rather than genuine public safety concern violate the engineer's duty of collegial fairness and the prohibition on malicious or false attacks on competitors.
Competitor Misconduct Reporting Competitive Interest Neutrality Constraint
Engineer A questions whether this proposal/marketing practice is misleading to clients and unethical
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who holds an obligation to report a competitor's licensing rule violations to a licensing board must ensure that the reporting decision is grounded in genuine public interest and professional ethics — not in competitive self-interest — and must disclose to the board any competitive relationship with the reported firm, prohibiting the use of mandatory reporting obligations as a mechanism for competitive harassment or the suppression of legitimate competition, while simultaneously prohibiting the engineer from allowing competitive self-interest to deter reporting of genuine violations that the engineer is obligated to report.
Competitor Misconduct Reporting Threshold Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether identified potential misconduct by a competing engineer or firm — including suspected misrepresentation in qualification proposals — rises to the threshold of 'knowledge or reason to believe' that triggers a mandatory written reporting obligation to the applicable state licensing board, and to make an informed, principled judgment about fulfilling this reporting obligation across multiple jurisdictions with potentially different reporting requirements.
Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has knowledge or reason to believe that a competing engineer or engineering firm has violated state licensing board rules governing qualification proposals and solicitation materials — including rules prohibiting misrepresentation of past accomplishments or requiring project-level attribution of prior-employer projects — to report such knowledge or belief to the licensing board of each jurisdiction in which the violation occurred, in writing, as required by the applicable state rules, notwithstanding that the reporting engineer's firm is a commercial competitor of the reported firm.
Competitor Qualification Visibility Advantage State
Engineer B submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state
State in which a competing professional, participating in the same public procurement process, has obtained and reviewed a rival firm's submitted qualifications prior to finalizing and submitting their own — creating an asymmetric informational advantage that is legally permissible under public records law but raises ethical questions about competitive fairness, the spirit of qualification-based selection, and whether the advantage constitutes an improper use of public disclosure mechanisms to gain procurement leverage.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer or firm, participating in a public procurement process, uses a statutory public records request (such as a Freedom of Information Act request) to obtain a competitor's submitted qualifications or procurement materials before or after submitting their own — creating a condition where the acquisition is legally permissible under applicable public records law but raises ethical questions about timing, competitive fairness, and the appearance of impropriety, particularly when the request is made before the requesting firm has submitted its own qualifications.
Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation Capability
The state provides the information to Engineer B.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has lawfully obtained a competitor's qualifications submission through a public records or FOIA request to recognize the ethical boundaries on using that information — specifically, to refrain from exploiting the competitor's proprietary qualification content to gain competitive advantage in the same procurement, and to limit use of such information to legitimate competitive awareness purposes that do not disadvantage the competitor through non-merit means.
Competitor Qualifications Content Non-Exploitation Obligation
Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has lawfully obtained a competitor's qualifications submission through a FOIA request to refrain from using the substantive content of that submission — including project descriptions, personnel credentials, methodologies, and competitive differentiators — to tailor, improve, or strategically position the engineer's own qualifications submission for the same procurement, recognizing that such use converts a lawful public records request into an instrument of unfair competitive advantage.
Competitor Regulatory Non-Compliance Discovery State
State in which an engineer discovers that a competing firm or engineer is operating in violation of jurisdictional regulatory requirements — such as lacking a required certificate of authority — creating a condition where the discovering engineer's reporting obligations conflict with competitive self-interest, and where the ethical imperative to protect the public and the profession must be distinguished from improper use of regulatory mechanisms to disadvantage a competitor.
Competitor Reputation Injury Prohibition Constraint
Section III.7 states that Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer — including through critical commentary made in a competitive procurement context where the critiquing engineer stands to benefit from the reputational damage caused — establishing that the prohibition applies regardless of whether the engineer believes the criticism to be truthful, when the criticism is offered without full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances and in a context structured to benefit the critiquing engineer competitively, as established by NSPE Code Section III.7 and BER Case 01-1.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from providing critical opinions about a competitor's professional work to a client or procurement authority in a manner that is structured — whether explicitly or implicitly — to damage the competitor's professional reputation, prospects, or employment, particularly when the critiquing engineer stands to benefit competitively from the damage caused, as established by NSPE Code Section III.7 prohibiting engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers, and BER case precedent establishing that competitive self-interest does not justify disparagement of incumbent engineers.
Competitor Reputation Injury Through Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has departed from a former employer and is competing for that employer's clients to refrain from making predictive or speculative representations to those clients that are designed to injure the former employer's professional reputation or undermine client confidence in the former employer's ability to perform — including representations that the former employer will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully — recognizing that such statements, whether technically grounded or not, constitute disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation and violate the engineer's duties of honesty, fairness, and collegial respect.
Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who learns that a competing engineering firm is performing engineering services in the engineer's licensing jurisdiction without the required certificate of authority or firm-level licensure to report that violation to the appropriate state licensing board, provided the engineer has verified the facts and is motivated by professional duty to protect the public and the integrity of the licensure system rather than by competitive self-interest, and provided the conduct meets the jurisdiction-specific threshold for reportable misconduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that an unlicensed individual is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering — including reviewing and directing revisions to signed and sealed engineering documents — to report that individual's violation to appropriate professional bodies and licensing authorities, so that the public is protected from unqualified engineering practice and the integrity of the licensure system is preserved.
Competitor Unlicensed Practice Reporting Motivation Purity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is considering reporting a competing engineer or firm for unlicensed practice or other professional misconduct to examine and ensure that the motivation for the report is grounded in professional duty to protect the public and the integrity of the licensure system — rather than in competitive self-interest, desire to eliminate a competitor, or malicious intent — recognizing that a report motivated primarily by competitive advantage rather than genuine professional concern may itself constitute an ethics violation under provisions prohibiting malicious or false injury to another engineer's professional reputation.
Complete Comparative Advisory Analysis Obligation
Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to provide an advisory recommendation on project delivery methods, procurement approaches, or comparable strategic options to a non-engineer public client to present all viable and approved options completely and objectively — including options the engineer is not qualified or positioned to deliver — rather than selectively presenting only those options from which the engineer's firm could commercially benefit, so that the client can make a fully informed decision among all available alternatives.
Complete Comparative Design Alternatives Presentation Obligation
Each should be presented completely, and the advantages and disadvantages of each should be included.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified multiple design alternatives for a public infrastructure project to present each alternative completely and objectively to the client decision-makers, including all advantages, disadvantages, long-term risks, cost tradeoffs, sustainability implications, and disproportionate impact considerations, so that decision-makers can make a fully informed choice among the alternatives.
Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer present each identified design alternative completely and objectively — including all advantages, disadvantages, costs, risks, and long-term performance characteristics — prohibiting selective or incomplete presentation of alternatives that would deprive the client of the information necessary for informed decision-making, as established by NSPE Code Section II.3.a and BER Case 21-7 precedent.
Complete Design Delivery Obligation in Full-Service Engineering Contracts
It is clear that Engineer A had an obligation to provide a complete set of design drawings and specifications on the project in which Engineer A was engaged.
Domain-specific principle establishing that when an engineer is retained under a contract that requires delivery of complete design drawings and specifications — as distinguished from contracts with specific design delegation clauses, design-build arrangements, or provisions for partial pre-contractor design — the engineer bears a non-delegable obligation to deliver a complete and buildable set of design documents, and may not treat partial delivery as acceptable performance regardless of time pressure, funding expectations, or other external circumstances
Complete and Unfiltered Upward Reporting Obligation
Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years.
Duty of a licensed engineer intern or subordinate engineer who discovers and reports a safety deficiency to communicate all material facts to the supervising licensed professional engineer — including not only the current defect but also any historical pattern of missed inspections, prior non-reporting, or systemic failures that bear on the severity, duration, and root cause of the identified risk — without omitting information that would materially alter the supervisor's understanding of the situation or the appropriate corrective response.
[Case 57] Professional principle requiring engineers and engineering interns who discover and report a safety deficiency to communicate all material facts bearing on that deficiency to their supervisor — including facts that reveal systemic failures, duration of neglect, or aggravating circumstances — rather than reporting only the immediate defect while omitting contextual information that would materially affect the supervisor's assessment of severity, urgency, and appropriate response
Completed Safety Testing with Residual Concern State
Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
State in which a company's formal safety testing process has been completed and has demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters, yet a professional engineer employed by the company has independently observed product performance inconsistencies that, in their professional judgment, raise safety concerns not captured by the completed testing — creating tension between the official test-passed status of the product and the engineer's unresolved professional concern, and activating obligations to recommend further investigation while the company retains authority to reject that recommendation.
Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
Professional principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly non-engineer clients who lack independent capacity to evaluate the completeness of the advice — to present all material options, alternatives, and relevant information bearing on the decision, rather than selectively presenting only those options that favor the engineer's own commercial interests, even when the omitted options are technically valid and the client did not explicitly request a comprehensive analysis.
[Case 123] Professional principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly non-engineer clients who lack independent capacity to evaluate the completeness of the advice — to present all material options, alternatives, and relevant information bearing on the decision, rather than selectively presenting only those options that favor the engineer's own commercial interests, even when the omitted options are technically valid and the client did not explicitly request a comprehensive analysis
[Case 4] Professional principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly non-engineer clients who lack independent capacity to evaluate the completeness of the advice — to present all material options, alternatives, and relevant information bearing on the decision, rather than selectively presenting only those options that favor the engineer's own commercial interests, even when the omitted options are technically valid and the client did not explicitly request a comprehensive analysis
[Case 73] Professional principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly non-engineer clients who lack independent capacity to evaluate the completeness of the advice — to present all material options, alternatives, and relevant information bearing on the decision, rather than selectively presenting only those options that favor a particular stakeholder interest, even when the omitted information was not explicitly requested.
Completeness in Responsive Technical Testimony
Engineer H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek.
Professional principle requiring engineers who provide technical testimony or responses to questions before regulatory bodies to address all material technical issues raised by other parties — including underground and subsurface risk scenarios — rather than selectively responding only to surface-level or less consequential concerns, when the omitted issues are within the engineer's domain of competence and bear on public welfare decisions being made by the regulatory body
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly non-engineer clients who lack independent capacity to evaluate the completeness of the advice — to present all material options, alternatives, and relevant information bearing on the decision, rather than selectively presenting only those options that favor the engineer's own commercial interests, even when the omitted options are technically valid and the client did not explicitly request a comprehensive analysis.
Compliance Certification Guarantee Deception Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's act of formally certifying compliance with a specific regulatory framework constitutes a guarantee that the certified statements are correct — prohibiting an engineer from issuing such a certification when the engineer lacks the substantive knowledge required to verify the truth of the certified statements, on the grounds that such a certification would be misleading and deceptive, as the engineer would be representing a level of verified knowledge they do not possess, regardless of whether the engineer believes the statements may be true, as established by NSPE Code II.2.b and the BER's analysis of compliance certification as a form of professional guarantee.
Comprehensive Code Integration Constraint
It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer's obligation to the client/employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern, when facing competing or apparently conflicting provisions of a professional code of ethics, endeavor to integrate all applicable code provisions into a unified solution rather than treating one provision as automatically superseding another — prohibiting the simplistic conclusion that the faithful agent obligation to the client or employer takes precedence over sustainability or other encouraged provisions without first exploring whether a solution exists that honors both obligations simultaneously.
Compromised Test Condition Replication State
State in which a professional engineer has conducted comparative or confirmatory testing under conditions that materially differ from the original conditions being evaluated — including use of different equipment, different procedural sequences, or equipment failures during testing — such that the test results cannot reliably be applied to assess the original work, yet the engineer's report treats the results as if conditions were equivalent.
Computational Tool Competence Prerequisite State
State in which an engineer is deploying or intends to deploy advanced computational design tools (such as CADD or AI-assisted design systems) in the performance of professional services, triggering an obligation to possess requisite background, education, and training sufficient to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations — and to ensure the tool supplements rather than substitutes for professional engineering judgment. The state activates heightened scrutiny of whether the engineer can critically evaluate tool outputs and assume full professional responsibility for the resulting work product.
Concurrent Conflict Disclosure Timing Capability
Engineer D announces plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicates that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm in the City
Capability to recognize the precise moment at which employment negotiations with a private firm create a conflict of interest requiring immediate disclosure to the public agency employer — including understanding that the disclosure obligation arises at the initiation of negotiations, not at acceptance of employment — and to act on that recognition by making timely, proactive disclosure before the conflict matures or becomes irreversible.
Concurrent Discovering Engineer Concurrence Reporting Constraint
Since Engineer A was the person who got Engineer R involved in the first place, if Engineer A took the lead in reporting the matter, the report could be styled to note Engineer R's concurrence.
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when multiple licensed professional engineers have independently discovered or been informed of the same peer licensee's violations — establishing that when one engineer (such as the referring engineer) takes the lead in reporting to the State Board, the other discovering engineer's independent reporting obligation may be discharged through concurrence in that report, but prohibiting the discovering engineer from treating the other engineer's anticipated report as a complete substitute for independent action when it is uncertain whether the lead engineer will in fact report.
Concurrent Discovering Engineer Coordinated Reporting Constraint
Concurrent Employment Negotiation Conflict Avoidance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role with contracting authority to refrain from negotiating or accepting private employment with any firm over which the engineer currently exercises or recently exercised contracting authority, while still holding that public position, and to disclose any such employment discussions to the public employer immediately upon their initiation so that appropriate recusal or conflict management measures can be implemented.
Concurrent Employment Negotiation Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role with contracting authority must immediately disclose to the public agency any employment negotiations with a private firm over which the engineer holds or has recently held contracting authority, prohibiting the engineer from continuing to exercise procurement or contract authority over that firm while simultaneously negotiating personal employment with it, as established by NSPE Code Section II.4.a and the principle that undisclosed concurrent negotiations constitute an unmitigated conflict of interest.
Concurrent Joint Engineering Action Coordination Capability
It is important to note that Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical.
Capability of two or more licensed professional engineers who have jointly presented findings and recommendations to a public authority to coordinate their subsequent escalation and advisory actions — ensuring that actions are taken in concert while recognizing that individual actions need not be identical — including coordinating formal regulatory presentations, unified client advisories, and continued pursuit strategies, so that the joint professional position is maintained and reinforced through coordinated rather than fragmented individual actions.
Concurrent Private Negotiation Employer Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is still actively employed by a public agency to recognize the obligation to make immediate and full disclosure to the public agency employer upon initiating any negotiations with private consulting firms for post-employment work on projects within the engineer's public agency responsibilities — including the ability to identify the precise moment at which such negotiations trigger the disclosure obligation, to execute the disclosure proactively rather than waiting for the employment relationship to terminate, and to recognize that covert negotiation during active employment constitutes a breach of the faithful agent duty independent of any subsequent conflict of interest.
Condemned Bridge Reopening Without Licensed Engineering Inspection Resistance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has authorized the reopening of condemned infrastructure — specifically a bridge — following remediation performed without any follow-up licensed engineering inspection, to formally resist and document objection to that reopening decision, require that a licensed engineering inspection be conducted before public use resumes, and escalate to appropriate authorities if the inspection is not performed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a structural remediation has been performed on safety-critical infrastructure — such as crutch piles installed on a condemned bridge — without any subsequent licensed engineering inspection, to require that a formal, licensed engineering inspection be conducted before the infrastructure is reopened to public use, and to escalate to appropriate authorities if such inspection is not performed.
Condemned Bridge Replacement Authorization Timely Pursuit Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who has closed safety-critical infrastructure to promptly pursue authorization for permanent replacement — including coordination with state and federal transportation departments — rather than allowing the closure to persist indefinitely without a remediation pathway, so that the public safety risk is resolved through permanent structural replacement rather than temporary measures.
Conditional Ethical Permissibility Pending Disclosure Compliance State
the Board would caution that WXY will need to disclose further circumstances (e.g., private work in city, reviewing its own work, etc.) that might create a potential for a conflict of interest
State in which a dual-role professional arrangement has been determined ethically permissible under current facts, but that permissibility is explicitly conditioned on the engineer's ongoing compliance with a disclosure obligation — specifically, the duty to disclose any further circumstances (e.g., private work within the jurisdiction, reviewing one's own work) that could create or revive a conflict of interest. The ethical clearance is not absolute but contingent and revisable if factual conditions change.
Conditional External Regulatory Reporting Threat Proportionality Capability
Engineer A indicates that if prompt measures are not taken to correct the problem, he will be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly calibrate the issuance of a conditional threat of external regulatory reporting — recognizing that such a threat is ethically permissible only after internal escalation channels have been reasonably exhausted (initial report, reasonable waiting period, re-escalation), and that the threat must be proportionate to the severity and growing urgency of the safety concern, rather than issued prematurely before internal channels have been given a fair opportunity to respond.
Conditional External Regulatory Reporting Threat Proportionality Obligation
Engineer A brings the issue and his proposed solution to the attention of the appropriate manager
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has exhausted reasonable internal escalation channels — including initial reporting, a waiting period, and re-escalation — to issue a conditional threat of external regulatory reporting only after internal mechanisms have been genuinely explored and found insufficient, and to frame that threat as conditional on the employer's failure to take prompt corrective action rather than as an unconditional ultimatum, thereby preserving the possibility of internal resolution while signaling the engineer's ultimate obligation to protect public welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety concern in an employer's product or process to refrain from threatening external regulatory reporting to the employer as a coercive tactic before exhausting internal escalation channels — recognizing that issuing such a threat prematurely, before internal mechanisms have been genuinely explored, is ethically impermissible even when the underlying safety concern is legitimate, because it bypasses the collaborative internal resolution process that the ethics code requires as a prerequisite to external action.
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty
The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
Professional principle recognizing that an engineer who is reasonably confident — based on professional judgment — that significant public health, safety, or welfare impacts are unlikely may ethically proceed with a project while documenting that judgment in writing and noting in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it, establishing a conditional permission to proceed that is bounded by the engineer's honest assessment of the probability and magnitude of potential harm
[Case 88] Professional principle recognizing that an engineer who is reasonably confident — based on professional judgment — that significant public health, safety, or welfare impacts are unlikely may ethically proceed with a project while documenting that judgment in writing and noting in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring that engineers' public disclosures and technical opinions be grounded in established facts or completed professional assessments, distinguishing between unverified concerns (which may be shared prudentially) and confirmed findings (which must be disclosed), thereby balancing premature alarm against suppression of material information
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public health, safety, or welfare risk — but who is reasonably confident based on professional judgment that significant impacts are unlikely — to make the professional judgment to conditionally proceed with a project while formally documenting in writing and in public statements that the preliminary judgment has not been confirmed by detailed analysis, that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm the judgment, and that the engineer's confidence level is qualified rather than definitive, thereby fulfilling disclosure obligations without requiring full withdrawal when the risk threshold does not clearly mandate it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to disclose a material risk to public welfare that is based on preliminary professional judgment — rather than confirmed quantitative analysis — in a manner that accurately qualifies the preliminary nature of the finding, communicates the basis and confidence level of the judgment, identifies the additional analysis needed to confirm or refute the risk, and ensures that the disclosure is neither overstated nor understated, consistent with professional obligations to be objective and truthful while avoiding misrepresentation of uncertain findings.
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is reasonably confident — based on professional judgment — that significant public health, safety, or welfare impacts from a proposed project are unlikely, to document that judgment in writing and note in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it, as a condition of ethically proceeding with the project without conducting the specialized analysis; this obligation establishes the conditions under which proceeding without full specialized analysis is permissible, and is violated if the engineer proceeds without documentation when the engineer is not in fact confident that impacts are unlikely.
Conditional Proceeding Under Low-Risk Professional Judgment Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is reasonably confident — based on professional judgment — that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts from a proposed project are unlikely may ethically proceed with the project while documenting that judgment in writing and in public statements, and noting that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment, prohibiting both silent proceeding without documentation and treating low-risk professional judgment as a complete substitute for specialized analysis when the engineer is not in fact comfortable with that prediction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer's assessment of a material public health, safety, or welfare risk falls within a professional 'gray area' — where the potential impact is reasonably foreseeable but not yet confirmed by specialized analysis — establishing that the engineer must disclose the identified risk while simultaneously qualifying that disclosure as based on preliminary professional judgment requiring more detailed evaluation to confirm, and prohibiting both silence about the gray area risk and overstatement of its certainty as an established finding, as established by the principle that gray area judgments require disclosure with appropriate epistemic qualification.
Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal of Safety Disclosure Obligation
Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material public health, safety, or welfare risk, pursued graduated escalation with the client, and been refused both the opportunity to conduct recommended analysis and the opportunity to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration, to withdraw from the project — recognizing that continued participation in a project where the client has foreclosed all avenues for addressing identified public safety risks would make the engineer complicit in the suppression of those risks.
Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to withdraw from a project — arising from a client's refusal to address a material public health, safety, or welfare risk — is triggered only after the engineer has exhausted all available graduated engagement steps, including direct client discussion and proposal of intermediate disclosure mechanisms, prohibiting both premature withdrawal before intermediate steps are attempted and indefinite continuation after all intermediate steps have been refused, and establishing that withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory — not merely permissible — once the client has refused all available intermediate options.
Confidential Client Data Input Constraint
Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information
Constraint prohibiting engineers from inputting confidential client information into open-source, publicly accessible, or third-party AI systems where that information may be exposed to public domains, retained by the AI provider, or otherwise disclosed beyond the confidential professional relationship, arising from both confidentiality obligations and client data protection duties.
[proethica-intermediate] Boundaries on information disclosure and privacy (Dennis et al. 2016)
Confidential Client Information Constraint
Constraint limiting Engineer L's ability to disclose client financial information, project details, or client-confided information to third parties, while simultaneously being bounded by the overriding obligation to disclose public safety risks to regulatory authorities when client refuses to act.
Confidential Design Information Submitting Company
confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
A private company stakeholder role that submits confidential and proprietary engineering design information to a government agency as part of a regulatory approval process, bearing a legitimate expectation that such information will be protected from disclosure to competitors and will not be used by government engineers who subsequently transition to competing firms.
Confidential Information Mental Segregation Impossibility Recognition Capability
The Board could not accept the proposition that, following the termination of the relationship with the attorney for the plaintiff, Engineer A would 'blot all' of that information from his mind and start from 'square one' in performing his engineering and safety analysis report.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics reviewing bodies — to recognize that once an engineer has been exposed to confidential information, documents, and facts from one party in an adversarial proceeding, it is not realistically possible for the engineer to mentally segregate or 'blot out' that information when subsequently performing work for the opposing party — and to apply this recognition as a basis for declining side-switching engagements, consistent with BER Case 85-4's rejection of the proposition that an engineer can start from 'square one' after termination.
Confidential Information Submitted to Public Disclosure-Eligible Repository State
an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
State in which a professional engineer or firm has included confidential, proprietary, or sensitive information within a submission made to a public agency — such as a qualification statement, proposal, or procurement document — where applicable public records laws (e.g., FOIA) render that submission potentially subject to public disclosure upon request, creating a condition in which the submitting party bears the risk that information they consider confidential may be lawfully obtained and reviewed by competitors, members of the public, or other parties without the submitter's consent.
Confidential Regulatory Submission Information Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a government agency to recognize that confidential and proprietary design information submitted by private companies seeking regulatory approval constitutes protected information that must not be used, disclosed, or exploited for competitive purposes — including the ability to identify the precise boundary between permissible use of such information in the regulatory context and impermissible use in a subsequent private employment context adverse to the submitting company.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when sharing professional work product, technical documents, or information obtained in a client or employer relationship with third parties — even without ulterior motive — crosses the boundary of confidentiality obligations, including understanding that good intentions and the absence of deliberate wrongdoing do not render such sharing ethically permissible, and that client and employer information requires formal consent before disclosure to external parties.
Confidential Report Brief Mention Insufficiency for Public Authority Safety Notification Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that including a brief mention of known safety code violations in a confidential client report does not satisfy the independent professional obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations, and to correctly distinguish between client-directed written communication within a confidential report and the separate, non-waivable duty to bring safety code violations to the attention of the relevant public regulatory authorities — even when the engineer's scope of work does not include the discipline in which the violations occur.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that verbally mentioning a material environmental or safety concern to a developer client does not satisfy the professional obligation to include that concern in a written report submitted to a public regulatory authority, and to correctly distinguish between client-directed verbal communication and the independent duty to provide complete written disclosure to public authorities considering development proposals.
Confidential Safety Information Transmitting Client
A client stakeholder role in which a party retaining an engineer for professional services transmits confidential information concerning the client's own business affairs to the engineer during the course of service delivery, where that information implicates public health, safety, or welfare, thereby generating a tension between the engineer's duty to maintain client confidentiality and the engineer's paramount obligation to protect the public — and potentially constraining the engineer's ability to disclose or escalate the safety concern without client consent.
Confidential Submission Self-Protection in Public Procurement Capability
The Board would caution engineers that, in situations such as the one represented by the facts of this case, an engineer may wish to avoid including any confidential or proprietary information in this type of submission to a public agency since such information could be subject to public disclosure under applicable laws and regulations
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm submitting qualifications or other materials to a public agency in response to a public RFQ to recognize that such submissions may be subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and regulations, and to exercise appropriate judgment about what confidential or proprietary information to include — refraining from including information that the firm would not want disclosed publicly, in order to protect the firm's own confidential and proprietary interests.
Confidentiality-Absent Business-Relationship-Motivated Suppression Heightened Culpability Obligation
Unlike the facts in the earlier cases, Engineer B made no oral or written promise to maintain the client's confidentiality.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, unlike an engineer bound by an express confidentiality agreement, consciously and affirmatively suppresses or obscures hazardous material findings for the purpose of preserving a business relationship with a client — rather than to honor a confidentiality commitment — to recognize that such conduct is ethically more culpable than confidentiality-bound non-disclosure, because the engineer's primary motivation is commercial self-interest rather than a competing professional obligation, and that this heightened culpability requires correspondingly clear and complete hazard communication and regulatory notification.
Confidentiality-Bound Building Sale Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained to inspect a building under a confidentiality agreement, and during the engagement the client discloses known code violations in systems outside the engineer's specialty, bearing obligations to inform the client of the safety implications and note the disclosure in the report, but facing an ethical conflict between the confidentiality obligation and the paramount duty to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A property owner client role that retains a structural engineer to inspect a building prior to sale, and who confidentially discloses known code violations to the engineer while seeking to limit the scope of the engineer's reporting, bearing authority over the inspection engagement but subject to the engineer's overriding obligation to report known safety violations to appropriate authorities.
Confidentiality-Bound Government Agency Engineer
Engineer A works for a government agency involved in the design and construction of facilities
A licensed professional engineering role held by an engineer employed by a government agency who, in the course of official duties, receives access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by private companies seeking regulatory approval, bearing obligations to protect that confidential information from unauthorized disclosure and to refrain from using it to benefit subsequent private employers or competitors of the submitting companies.
Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer conducts a peer review of another engineer's design work under a contractual confidentiality agreement, bearing obligations to maintain confidentiality of review findings while retaining overriding obligations to notify the original design engineer of the review, discuss concerns directly with that engineer, and report public safety violations to appropriate authorities when collegial resolution fails.
Confidentiality-Bound Public Safety Inaction Engineer
there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, while providing professional services to a client, receives confidential information transmitted by the client concerning the client's business affairs that reveals a risk to public health, safety, or welfare, and — despite bearing the paramount obligation under the Code to notify appropriate authorities when professional judgment is overruled under circumstances endangering public safety — proceeds with the work without escalating or disclosing to relevant authorities, thereby subordinating the paramount public safety obligation to the duty of client confidentiality in violation of the Code of Ethics.
Confidentiality-Bound Structural Safety Discovering Engineer
Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by the engineer was to remain confidential
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained under a formal confidentiality agreement to assess a building's structural integrity for a client planning to sell the property 'as is,' and during the engagement learns from the client of known code violations in systems outside the engineer's specialty that pose injury risks to occupants, bearing obligations to inform the client of the safety implications, note the disclosure in the report, and — because the NSPE Code uses the term 'paramount' — report the safety violations to appropriate public authorities even when the confidentiality agreement and client instructions counsel silence.
Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation in Peer Review
Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
Relational principle governing the tension between contractual confidentiality obligations assumed by a peer reviewer and the overriding public welfare obligation to disclose safety code violations discovered during review, requiring the reviewer to first engage the reviewed engineer to seek resolution, then warn of intent to disclose, and finally report to appropriate authorities if resolution fails — even at the cost of breaching the confidentiality agreement
[Case 59] Relational principle governing the tension between contractual confidentiality obligations and the overriding public welfare obligation to disclose safety risks discovered in the course of professional engagement, requiring the engineer to notify appropriate parties of the danger even at the cost of breaching confidentiality instructions
Confidentiality-Directed Replacement Design Engineer
franchiser specifically told Engineer B not to disclose to their relationship to Engineer A
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a client to replace an incumbent engineer and is explicitly instructed by the client to keep the new engagement confidential from the incumbent, bearing obligations as a faithful agent and trustee to honor client confidentiality instructions while balancing duties of fair dealing and transparency toward professional peers.
Confidentiality-Directed Successor Design Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a client to review and ultimately replace an incumbent engineer's design work, under a client instruction to conceal the new engagement from the incumbent, bearing obligations to disclose the relationship to the incumbent engineer despite client confidentiality direction, to conduct an objective technical review, and to avoid using the confidentiality instruction as a means of gaining unfair competitive advantage.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer conducts a peer review of another engineer's design work under a contractual confidentiality agreement, bearing obligations to maintain confidentiality of review findings while retaining overriding obligations to notify the original design engineer of the review, discuss concerns directly with that engineer, and report public safety violations to appropriate authorities when collegial resolution fails.
Confidentiality-Instructing Engineering Services Client
Engineer B was told by client not to tell Engineer A about Engineer B's relationship with the client
A client role borne by a party that retains a successor or reviewing engineer and explicitly instructs that engineer to keep the new engagement confidential from the incumbent or original engineer, generating a conflict between the client's legitimate confidentiality interest and the reviewing engineer's professional obligation to notify the engineer whose work is under review.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Bar to Public Authority Safety Code Violation Reporting Constraint
the obligation of the engineer to refrain from revealing confidential information, data, and facts concerning the business affairs of the client without consent of the client is a significant ethical obligation. (However) matters of public health and safety must take precedence.
Ethical and legal constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is operating under a client confidentiality agreement cannot invoke that agreement as a basis for withholding knowledge of building code violations — including electrical and mechanical deficiencies — from the appropriate public authorities when those violations pose a risk of injury to building occupants, prohibiting the engineer from treating contractual confidentiality as a complete defense to the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety, and establishing that the NSPE Code's use of the word 'paramount' to describe the public safety obligation signals its precedence over confidentiality duties in cases of genuine safety risk.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Excuse for Known Safety Code Violation Reporting Obligation
in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A did not report the safety violations to any third party
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is operating under a client confidentiality agreement and who becomes aware of electrical, mechanical, structural, or other safety code violations that pose a risk of injury to building occupants or the public, to report those violations to the appropriate public authorities notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement, recognizing that the NSPE Code of Ethics designates the obligation to protect public health and safety as 'paramount' — a designation that expressly supersedes contractual confidentiality obligations — and that a brief mention of the hazard in a confidential report does not satisfy the engineer's duty to ensure that public authorities with enforcement jurisdiction are actually informed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that professional confidentiality obligations — which protect clients' technical processes and business affairs — do not extend to bar disclosure of engineering findings that bear on public health, safety, and environmental welfare, where the disclosure concerns a regulatory violation or public danger rather than the client's proprietary technical or commercial information, and where the engineer's paramount duty to protect public welfare requires communication of those findings to appropriate regulatory authorities.
Confidentiality Agreement Non-Supersession of Imminent Danger Disclosure Obligation
the Board discounted the attorney's statement that the engineer was legally bound to maintain confidentiality, noting that any such duty was superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants
Relational principle establishing that a contractual or attorney-directed confidentiality obligation assumed by an engineer does not supersede — and is legally and ethically overridden by — the engineer's professional duty to disclose conditions that constitute an immediate and imminent danger to the safety of building occupants or the public, recognizing that any purported legal duty of confidentiality in such circumstances yields to the paramount public safety obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that professional confidentiality obligations — which protect clients' technical processes and business affairs — do not bar an engineer from advising proper authorities of an apparent danger to the public interest arising from the client's activities, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and does not constitute disclosure of protected confidential information in the relevant sense
Confidentiality Agreement Scope Limitation for Imminent Structural Safety Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained under a formal confidentiality agreement to assess structural integrity of an occupied building to recognize that the confidentiality obligation does not extend to bar disclosure of electrical, mechanical, or structural code violations that pose imminent danger to occupants, and to correctly determine that the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' to describe the public safety obligation means that confidentiality agreements are superseded by imminent occupant safety threats, even when the violations fall outside the engineer's primary discipline.
Confidentiality Duration Indeterminacy Principle
How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained, the Board is not prepared to state at this time
Professional principle acknowledging that the duration of an engineer's post-relationship confidentiality obligation to a former client or employer cannot be precisely specified in advance and must be determined contextually based on the nature of the information, the circumstances of the relationship, and the potential for harm from disclosure — establishing that the duty of confidentiality and trust does not automatically terminate upon the end of the formal professional relationship
Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Principle
it is clear that, unlike Case No. 89-7, which involved facts and circumstances that were openly conveyed directly to Engineer A from a client, in the present case, the circumstances bearing on the public safety were revealed to the engineer as part of the engineer's inspection and professional observations
Relational principle establishing that the strength of a client's legitimate expectation of confidentiality over information in an engineer's possession is materially affected by the source through which that information was obtained: information directly and voluntarily conveyed by the client in the course of a business relationship generates a stronger confidentiality expectation than information independently discovered by the engineer through professional observation and inspection, such that the latter category may carry a diminished or absent confidentiality expectation even in the absence of an explicit disclosure agreement.
Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
State in which a client, attorney, or retaining party has explicitly instructed a professional engineer to withhold, suppress, or not prepare a written report documenting findings that constitute a risk to public health, safety, or welfare — creating direct tension between the confidentiality or loyalty obligation to the instructing party and the paramount professional obligation to protect the public through disclosure to appropriate authorities.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
Relational principle establishing that professional confidentiality obligations — which protect clients' technical processes and business affairs — do not bar an engineer from advising proper authorities of an apparent danger to the public interest arising from the client's activities, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and does not constitute disclosure of protected confidential information in the relevant sense
[Case 132] Relational principle establishing that professional confidentiality obligations do not bar an engineer from advising proper authorities of an apparent danger to the public interest arising from conditions observed during client engagement, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code.
[Case 136] Relational principle establishing that professional confidentiality obligations — which protect clients' technical processes and business affairs — do not bar an engineer from advising proper authorities of an apparent danger to the public interest arising from the client's activities, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and does not constitute disclosure of protected confidential information in the relevant sense.
[Case 78] Relational principle establishing that professional confidentiality obligations do not bar an engineer from advising proper authorities of an apparent danger to the public interest arising from the client's activities, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code.
[Case 83] Relational principle establishing that professional confidentiality obligations — which protect clients' technical processes and business affairs — do not bar an engineer from advising proper authorities of an apparent danger to the public interest arising from the client's activities, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and does not constitute disclosure of protected confidential information in the relevant sense.
[Case 86] Relational principle establishing that professional confidentiality obligations — which protect clients' technical processes and business affairs — do not bar an engineer from advising proper authorities of an apparent danger to the public interest arising from the client's activities, because such disclosure serves the public welfare purpose of the ethics code and does not constitute disclosure of protected confidential information in the relevant sense.
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether a professional confidentiality obligation — such as that arising under §7 of the NSPE Code of Ethics — bars disclosure of technical findings to regulatory authorities, and to correctly determine that confidentiality does not apply when the disclosure involves apparent danger to the public interest rather than the client's technical processes or business affairs, thereby enabling the engineer to proceed with disclosure without violating confidentiality obligations.
Confidentiality Non-Bar to Environmental Regulatory Violation Disclosure Constraint
The installation of the fill material is a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty of confidentiality to a former client does not bar disclosure of an observed environmental law violation — including unpermitted wetland fill — to regulatory authorities when the client refuses to remediate the violation after being contacted, prohibiting the engineer from treating confidentiality obligations as an absolute bar to regulatory disclosure when public welfare and environmental protection are at stake, and establishing that the NSPE Code confidentiality obligation is defeasible in the face of the paramount public welfare duty when confirmed environmental law violations are involved.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to maintain client confidentiality does not bar disclosure of completed technical findings to a regulatory authority when those findings establish that the client's activity will violate established environmental or public safety standards — prohibiting the engineer from treating confidentiality obligations as an absolute bar to regulatory disclosure when public health and welfare are at stake, and establishing that the NSPE Code Section 7 confidentiality obligation is defeasible in the face of the paramount public safety duty under Section 2.
Confidentiality Non-Bar to Safety-Critical Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to maintain client confidentiality does not bar disclosure of completed technical findings to a regulatory authority when those findings establish that the client's activity will violate established environmental or public safety standards — prohibiting the engineer from treating confidentiality obligations as an absolute bar to regulatory disclosure when public health and welfare are at stake, and establishing that the NSPE Code Section 7 confidentiality obligation is defeasible in the face of the paramount public safety duty under Section 2.
[Case 132] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to maintain client confidentiality does not bar disclosure of completed technical findings to a regulatory authority when those findings establish that the client's activity will violate established environmental or public safety standards — prohibiting the engineer from treating confidentiality obligations as an absolute bar to regulatory disclosure when public health and welfare are at stake.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint limiting Engineer L's ability to disclose client financial information, project details, or client-confided information to third parties, while simultaneously being bounded by the overriding obligation to disclose public safety risks to regulatory authorities when client refuses to act.
Confidentiality Non-Override of Imminent Structural Safety Obligation
Engineer discovered serious structural defects which Engineer believes constitute an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as an expert witness or forensic consultant under a confidentiality agreement — whether express or implied by the attorney-client relationship — who discovers structural defects or safety conditions constituting an immediate threat to the safety of building occupants or the public, to notify the affected parties and appropriate public authorities of the danger notwithstanding the confidentiality obligation, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare pre-empts contractual confidentiality obligations when the safety risk is immediate and serious.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer conducting a peer review who discovers that the reviewed engineer's work may violate state or local safety code requirements — placing public health, safety, and welfare at risk — to first discuss the concerns with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and resolution, and if resolution cannot be achieved, to advise the reviewed engineer of the obligation to inform appropriate authorities before doing so, and then to inform those authorities, notwithstanding any contractual confidentiality agreement assumed as part of the peer review engagement.
Confidentiality Obligation vs. Imminent Public Danger Competing Duties State
there may be facts and circumstances in which the ethical obligation of engineers in protecting the public health and safety conflict with the ethical obligation of engineers to maintain the right of confidentiality
State in which an engineer simultaneously holds a professional confidentiality obligation to a client and possesses knowledge of an imminent danger to third parties (occupants, public), such that the two obligations directly conflict and require ethical prioritization, with the public safety obligation recognized as paramount and activating a code-based exception to confidentiality.
Confidentiality Pre-emption by Public Safety Recognition Capability
The BER found that Engineer's obligation to protect the public health, safety, and welfare pre-empted Engineer's duty of confidentiality to Attorney and Attorney's client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer operating under a confidentiality obligation — whether arising from attorney-client privilege, client instruction, or contractual confidentiality — to recognize when a discovered safety deficiency is sufficiently serious that the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare pre-empts the confidentiality duty, and to act on that recognition by notifying affected parties and appropriate public authorities despite the confidentiality obligation, consistent with BER Case 90-5 precedent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to understand, design, and operate within confidentiality frameworks governing peer review processes — including recognizing when confidentiality agreements encourage cooperation and build trust, understanding the conditions under which confidentiality obligations may be overridden by public safety imperatives, and navigating the tension between contractual confidentiality and mandatory safety disclosure obligations when safety code violations are discovered during a confidential peer review.
Engineer A is told he must maintain this information as confidential as it is part of a lawsuit.
Must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements.
[Case 172] Relational principle requiring engineers to protect confidential information obtained in the course of professional engagements from disclosure or use against the interests of the confiding party
Confidentiality Scope Limitation for Public Danger Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that professional confidentiality obligations — which protect clients' technical processes and business affairs — do not extend to bar disclosure of engineering findings that bear on public health, safety, and environmental welfare, where the disclosure concerns a regulatory violation or public danger rather than the client's proprietary technical or commercial information, and where the engineer's paramount duty to protect public welfare requires communication of those findings to appropriate regulatory authorities.
Confidentiality of Employer Information in Public Agency Context
Relational principle requiring engineers employed by public agencies to recognize that information held by the agency — including as-built drawings, site conditions, and technical records — constitutes employer information that may not be shared selectively or informally without institutional authorization, even when the engineer's intent is benign and the information would improve project outcomes
Confirmation Bias Resistance and Variance Data Disclosure Obligation
the Board said it was unethical for an engineer to fail to include certain unsubstantiative data in a report
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who compile technical data for reports — including research reports — to include and engage with data that is at variance with or inconsistent with their conclusions, rather than omitting such data on the grounds that it would distort or detract from the report's essential thrust; the engineer's subjective conviction in the soundness of their conclusions does not excuse omission of ambiguous or contradictory data, because the real challenge of technical inquiry is to wrestle with difficult and sometimes insoluble issues that are at variance with other results, not merely to present consistent findings that support a predetermined premise
Confirmation Bias Resistance in Technical Report Preparation Constraint
the challenge...is not to develop consistent or precise findings that one can identify and categorize neatly, nor is it to identify results that are in accord with one's basic premise
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer preparing a technical report or research document actively resist confirmation bias — the tendency to omit, discount, or minimize data that is at variance with the report's primary conclusions — establishing that the engineer's obligation is not to produce findings that are consistent, precise, or in accord with a basic premise, but rather to wrestle directly with difficult and sometimes insoluble issues that surface and to seek understanding of why certain data is at variance with other results, prohibiting the omission of ambiguous or inconsistent data on the grounds that its inclusion would detract from or distort the essential thrust of the report, as established by BER Case 85-5.
Confirmation Bias Resistance in Technical Reporting Capability
the challenge...is not to develop consistent or precise findings that one can identify and categorize neatly, nor is it to identify results that are in accord with one's basic premise. The real challenge...is to wrestle head-on with the difficult and sometimes insoluble issues that surface and try to gain some understanding of why they are at variance with other results.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and resist the cognitive tendency to omit, discount, or suppress data that is at variance with the engineer's conclusions — even when the engineer is genuinely convinced of the soundness of those conclusions and believes the discrepant data would distort the report's thrust — and instead to include all compiled data, wrestle analytically with the variance, and seek to understand why discrepant findings arise, in fulfillment of the obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports.
Confirmed-Fatality-Linked Incidental Observation Mandatory Written Escalation Obligation
Engineer A surmises that the defective condition may have been a contributing factor in the wall failure and notes this in his engineering notes.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing contracted work, incidentally observes a structural defect that the engineer professionally surmises may have causally contributed to a confirmed fatality, to escalate that observation beyond a verbal report to the immediate client chain — specifically by producing written documentation of the finding and notifying appropriate public authorities — recognizing that the confirmed-fatality context elevates the incidental observation from a discretionary disclosure to a mandatory written escalation, regardless of whether the defect falls within the contracted scope of work.
Confirmed-Fatality-Linked Structural Defect Causal Surmise Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who observes a structural defect in proximity to a confirmed fatal accident site to form a professional surmise — based on engineering judgment and field observation — that the observed defect may have causally contributed to the fatal event, and to recognize that this surmise, even if not conclusively proven, elevates the professional obligation to document, report, and escalate the finding beyond what would be required for a defect with no known fatality linkage.
Confirmed-Fatality Causal Surmise Mandatory Written Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer, while performing contracted work, incidentally observes a structural condition and professionally surmises — even without confirmed expert-level certainty — that the condition may have causally contributed to a confirmed fatal accident on public infrastructure, the engineer is constrained to produce a written escalation to the responsible public authority, prohibiting reliance on verbal-only notification or scope-limitation as a complete discharge of the safety obligation, and establishing that the combination of confirmed fatality and professional surmise of causal contribution creates a heightened mandatory written reporting threshold that overrides client suppression instructions.
Confirmed-Fatality Context Corrective Action Monitoring and Conditional External Escalation Obligation
the Board is of the opinion that Engineer A has an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action is taken by the public agency.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally reported an out-of-scope, speculative safety observation — in a context where a confirmed fatality may be causally linked to the observed condition — to follow through to ensure that correct corrective action is taken by the responsible public agency, and to consider escalation to external authorities only if the public agency does not take corrective action; recognizing that the confirmed-fatality context elevates the monitoring obligation above a purely discretionary follow-through, while the speculative character of the observation prevents immediate mandatory external escalation, creating a conditional obligation structure in which the engineer must actively monitor and be prepared to escalate if corrective action is not forthcoming.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally reported an out-of-scope safety observation through the client chain — and who has agreed not to include the observation in a formal written report — to follow through to ensure that correct corrective action is taken by the responsible public agency within a relatively short period of time, and to escalate reporting to public authorities if corrective action is not taken within that period, recognizing that the agreement to withhold the finding from the formal report is conditioned on the expectation that the client chain will ensure appropriate corrective action.
Confirmed-Fatality Escalation Trigger Principle
Police Officer B loses control of his patrol car. The vehicle crashed into the bridge wall. The wall failed to restrain the vehicle, which fell to the river below, killing Police Officer B.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer's incidentally observed safety finding is causally connected — even by reasonable professional surmise — to a confirmed fatality that has already occurred, the engineer's public safety obligation is materially heightened beyond the ordinary out-of-scope discretionary response standard, such that client instructions to suppress the finding from written reports must be resisted and, if not resolved, escalated to appropriate public authorities.
Confirmed-Fatality vs Future-Risk Escalation Threshold Differentiation Capability
Also in Case No. 89-7, there was the possibility of a dangerous condition developing at some point in the future, while in the present case, loss of life had already occurred.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to recognize and apply the material distinction between: (a) cases where loss of life has already occurred and a structural defect may be causally linked to that fatality — creating a heightened escalation threshold; and (b) cases where only a future dangerous condition is possible — creating a lower escalation threshold — and to correctly calibrate the professional response to each scenario, including recognizing that the confirmed-fatality context elevates the obligation to follow through on corrective action monitoring even when the defect observation itself remains speculative.
Confirmed Absence of Undisclosed Private Interest in Public Advocacy State
There is no indication that the consulting engineer was representing any client or that he was using his criticism as a means to advance his own personal interests.
State in which a professional engineer who has publicly criticized a government agency's technical conclusions or proposed an alternative engineering approach is found, upon ethical review, to have no undisclosed private client, financial interest, or personal gain motivating the advocacy — thereby satisfying the threshold condition that public engineering commentary must not be inspired or paid for by private interests without disclosure. The state clears the primary ethical concern about self-interested advocacy and shifts evaluation to the substantive quality and factual basis of the criticism itself.
Confirmed Environmental Law Violation Remediation Monitoring State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having identified a confirmed violation of federal and/or state environmental laws by a client and having confronted the client about the violation, is now in an active monitoring posture — waiting to determine whether the client will take adequate corrective action within a reasonable timeframe — where the engineer's obligation to report to authorities is contingent on the client's failure to remediate, and the engineer bears an affirmative duty to follow through rather than treat the initial confrontation as sufficient discharge of their obligation.
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
additional studies identify a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed
State in which a professional has identified and documented a specific risk through completed analysis, notified the client of that risk, and the client has refused to implement the protective measures identified as necessary, creating an active tension between project continuation and public safety obligations.
Confirmed Violation vs. Speculation Proportionality Constraint
In contrast, the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the scope and immediacy of a licensed professional engineer's reporting and escalation obligations upon discovering a client's apparent wrongdoing is calibrated to whether the discovered condition constitutes a confirmed, observable violation of law versus mere speculation or surmise — prohibiting the application of the more measured, deferential approach appropriate for speculative concerns to situations involving confirmed, visible violations of federal and state environmental law, and requiring that confirmed violations trigger direct client contact, remediation direction, and regulatory escalation if the client fails to act.
Confirmed vs Speculative Violation Reporting Calibration Capability
Similarly, in BER Case No. 97-13, the engineer's evaluation was based upon general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall, based entirely upon a visual inspection without anything more.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to distinguish between (a) an observed condition that constitutes a confirmed, identifiable violation of law or regulation within the engineer's domain of expertise — which triggers a direct and immediate obligation to contact the client and report to authorities if the client fails to act — and (b) an observed condition that is speculative, based on visual inspection without technical confirmation, and outside the engineer's domain expertise — which warrants a more measured, cautious approach before taking action — and to correctly calibrate the reporting obligation and urgency to this distinction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to distinguish between preliminary professional concerns or suspicions that do not yet constitute established technical facts, and confirmed findings that rise to the level of fact requiring mandatory disclosure, thereby correctly calibrating disclosure obligations under professional codes
Conflict-Exploiting Dual-Role Engineering Firm
A private consulting engineering firm that actively exploits its position as a city's regulatory review and inspection agent to market private engineering services to the same developers it regulates, using the promise of reduced inspection costs as a competitive advantage — generating obligations to cease such exploitation, disclose the conflict to the city, and maintain strict separation between regulatory and commercial roles.
Conflict-Exploiting Public Position as Marketing Tool Prohibition
Domain-specific principle prohibiting engineers who hold public agency roles — including inspection, review, or oversight authority over private parties — from actively marketing their private commercial services to those same regulated parties by leveraging the structural advantages of their public position, including promises of cost savings derived from the dual-role arrangement, because such marketing constitutes exploitation of a public trust position for private commercial gain and creates an irreconcilable appearance of impropriety
Conflict-of-Interest Absence Confidentiality Disclosure Permissibility Condition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether a conflict of interest exists between the nominal client (e.g., a retaining attorney) and the beneficial owner or principal on whose behalf the client acts, and to correctly determine that the absence of such a conflict of interest removes a key ethical barrier to disclosure — specifically, that when the nominal client and the beneficial owner share aligned interests, the confidentiality rationale protecting the beneficial owner from harm by disclosure is absent, making disclosure to protect the beneficial owner's interests and public safety permissible rather than a breach of confidentiality obligations.
Conflict-of-Interest Absence Confidentiality Disclosure Permissibility Condition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer considering whether to disclose client information to third parties to assess whether a conflict of interest exists between the nominal client (e.g., an attorney) and the ultimate beneficiary of the engagement (e.g., the property owner) — recognizing that the absence of such a conflict removes a key basis for finding an ethical violation in disclosure, and that where the attorney retained the engineer on behalf of and for the benefit of the owner with no divergent interests, the confidentiality analysis differs materially from cases where disclosure would prejudice one client against another.
Conflict-of-Interest Absence as Confidentiality Disclosure Permissibility Condition
Unlike the facts presented in BER Case 82-2 , there is not any conflict or potential conflict of interest that exists between owner and attorney with regard to the information.
Relational principle establishing that the ethical permissibility of disclosing client information to protect the public is materially affected by whether a conflict of interest exists between the client and the attorney or intermediary through whom the engineer was retained — specifically, that when no conflict exists between the nominal client (attorney) and the ultimate beneficiary (building owner), the engineer's disclosure obligation to protect third parties is not constrained by the same confidentiality concerns that would apply when disclosure would advantage one party against another in an adversarial relationship.
Conflict Avoidance Pre-Engagement Interrogation Duty Constraint
it should have been quite clear to him that a conflict of interest was inevitable
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer, when approached by a prospective client for retention, conduct sufficient pre-engagement inquiry into the prospective client's plans, interests, and relationship to any existing clients or engagements to identify whether a conflict of interest is inevitable — establishing that the failure to conduct this inquiry before accepting the engagement constitutes an independent ethical deficiency, and that a conflict of interest that would have been apparent through reasonable pre-engagement interrogation cannot be treated as an unforeseen circumstance, as established by BER Case 76-3 and the principle that engineers must endeavor to avoid conflicts of interest.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is solicited to serve as an expert witness in adversarial litigation must, before accepting the engagement, conduct a thorough conflict of interest assessment — including identifying all professional relationships between the engineer and the opposing expert, any shared committee memberships, supervisory relationships, prior collaborative work, and any other circumstances that could create an appearance of compromised impartiality — prohibiting acceptance of the expert witness engagement without completing this pre-acceptance conflict assessment and disclosing all identified conflicts to the retaining attorney.
XYZ Consultants provided a report to the Water Commission indicating that insufficient information was available to predict the severity of any potential public health and safety risk
Professional norms governing the ethical obligations of engineers when a subsequent expert report contradicts or undermines a prior engineer's safety findings, including the obligations of the original engineer to respond, the standards for the subsequent report's completeness, and the ethical implications of reports that introduce uncertainty to delay protective action
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of engineering reports and professional communications, prohibiting selective omission of material facts, misrepresentation of community input, and framing of findings in ways that mislead clients or the public
Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics review bodies — to recognize and apply the principle that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, where reasonable persons might perceive a conflict but no actual conflict exists under the applicable ethics code provisions, does not constitute a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics, and that the engineer is not obligated to decline engagements solely because they create an appearance of conflict when the underlying facts do not establish an actual conflict — specifically, when prior engagements were unrelated, no confidential information is implicated, and the engineer's objectivity is not compromised.
Conflict of Interest Appearance Without Actual Conflict Non-Violation Principle
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest — where reasonable persons might perceive a potential conflict — does not constitute an actual ethics violation when objective analysis reveals no actual conflict exists; the ethics code prohibits actual conflicts and requires disclosure of conflicts that could influence or appear to influence professional judgment, but does not treat the appearance of a conflict as equivalent to an actual conflict sufficient to constitute a code violation
Conflict of Interest Appearance vs. Actual Conflict Discrimination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and professional ethics review bodies to recognize and apply the principle that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest — arising from prior multi-party service history or adverse engagement against a former client in an unrelated matter — does not constitute an actual conflict of interest prohibited by the NSPE Code of Ethics, including the ability to distinguish between situations where reasonable persons might perceive impropriety and situations where a genuine, code-violating conflict exists, and to resist conflating appearance with actuality when evaluating the permissibility of forensic engagements.
Conflict of Interest Code Evolution Historical Awareness Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand and apply the historical evolution of conflict-of-interest provisions in engineering codes of ethics — including awareness that earlier codes required engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest, that this absolute avoidance standard was replaced by a disclosure-based standard recognizing that conflicts are an immutable fact of professional practice, and that the current standard requires prompt disclosure of known or potential conflicts rather than categorical avoidance — enabling the engineer to correctly apply the current evolved standard rather than the superseded absolute avoidance standard when evaluating conflict situations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional standards governing conflict-of-interest management have evolved over time — including understanding that the current evolved standard requires prompt disclosure of all known conflicts rather than relying on older, less stringent approaches — and to apply the current standard rather than outdated interpretations when assessing and managing conflicts arising from prior government employment, prior client relationships, or side-switching situations.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance Obligation
codes were changed and engineers were implored to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to their employers or clients by promptly informing them of any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to comply with the current, evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management — which requires prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts of interest to employers or clients, including any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence the engineer's judgment or the quality of services — rather than applying the outdated absolute-avoidance standard, recognizing that the profession has moved from mandatory conflict avoidance to mandatory conflict disclosure and management as the operative ethical requirement.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Principle
Fundamental ethical principle recognizing that the engineering profession's approach to conflicts of interest has evolved from an absolute avoidance standard to a disclosure-and-management standard — acknowledging that conflicts of interest are a virtually immutable fact of professional engineering practice, and that the profession's ethical response is to require prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts rather than mandatory recusal in all cases
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard in Recommendation Contexts
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to fully disclose all viable options and their own financial or competitive interest when providing professional recommendations to clients, particularly when the engineer stands to benefit from the recommended option and has omitted alternatives from which they cannot benefit
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Supersession of Absolute Avoidance Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the evolved professional standard for conflict-of-interest management — requiring prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts to employers and clients — supersedes the earlier absolute-avoidance standard, prohibiting engineers from applying the outdated absolute-avoidance framework as a basis for refusing all engagements that could place them in a position adverse to a former client, while simultaneously requiring that disclosure be made promptly and completely so that the employer or client can make an informed decision about the engineer's continued participation.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Advisory Engagements
Relational principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly recommendations about project delivery methods, procurement structures, or other decisions that will determine which firms are eligible to compete for subsequent work — to affirmatively disclose any personal, financial, or commercial interest they hold in the outcome of the recommendation, so that the client can assess the objectivity of the advice and seek independent verification if warranted.
[Case 104] Relational principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly recommendations about project delivery methods, procurement structures, or other decisions that will determine which firms are eligible to compete for subsequent work — to affirmatively disclose any personal, financial, or commercial interest they hold in the outcome of the recommendation, so that the client can assess the objectivity of the advice and seek independent verification if warranted
[Case 129] Relational principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly recommendations about project delivery methods, procurement structures, or other decisions that will determine which firms are eligible to compete for subsequent work — to affirmatively disclose any personal, financial, or commercial interest they hold in the outcome of the recommendation, so that the client can assess the objectivity of the advice and seek independent verification if warranted
[Case 20] Relational principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly recommendations about project delivery methods, procurement structures, or other decisions that will determine which firms are eligible to compete for subsequent work — to affirmatively disclose any personal, financial, or commercial interest they hold in the outcome of the recommendation, so that the client can assess the objectivity of the advice and seek independent verification if warranted
[Case 96] Relational principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients — particularly recommendations about project delivery methods, procurement structures, or other decisions that will determine which firms are eligible to compete for subsequent work — to affirmatively disclose any personal, financial, or commercial interest they hold in the outcome of the recommendation, so that the client can assess the objectivity of the advice and seek independent verification if warranted
Conflict of Interest Disclosure to New Private Employer Regarding Prior Government Access Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a government agency role — in which the engineer received access to confidential and proprietary design information from private companies — to proactively disclose to the new private employer the nature and extent of the confidential information accessed during public service, including the identity of submitting companies whose information was accessed, so that the new employer can implement appropriate conflict management measures and avoid inadvertently exploiting the engineer's prior regulatory access for competitive advantage.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who transitions from a senior public agency role with contracting authority over private AE firms to a position at one of those firms to proactively disclose the nature and extent of their prior public authority relationship to all relevant stakeholders — including the municipality, the new employer, and prospective clients — so that conflicts of interest arising from the revolving door transition can be identified, evaluated, and appropriately managed.
Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard
Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ
Professional norms, ethical codes, and procedural rules governing when a public official or reviewing engineer must recuse themselves from approving work due to prior employment, financial relationships, or other affiliations with the firm whose work is under review
[Case 96] Professional norms, ethical codes, and procedural rules governing when a public official or reviewing engineer must recuse themselves from approving work due to prior employment, financial relationships, or other affiliations with the firm whose work is under review.
Conflict of Interest Evolution Standard Compliance Capability
The aforementioned cases represent the longstanding BER positions relating to the question of conflicts of interest and the duty of engineers who gain, or are perceived to have gained, access to knowledge that may be advantageous to one client and disadvantageous to another.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional standards governing conflict-of-interest management have evolved over time — including understanding that the current evolved standard requires prompt disclosure of all known conflicts rather than relying on older, less stringent approaches — and to apply the current standard rather than outdated interpretations when assessing and managing conflicts arising from prior government employment, prior client relationships, or side-switching situations.
Conflict of Interest Evolved Standard Self-Application Capability
Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional standards governing conflict-of-interest disclosure have evolved to require prompt and affirmative disclosure of all financial relationships with interested parties — including industry compensation for regulatory testimony — and to apply this current evolved standard to one's own conduct rather than relying on older, less stringent approaches that may have tolerated non-disclosure or passive omission of financial relationships.
Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
Capability to recognize when a prior professional relationship — including former employment with a private firm — creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest in a current public role, and to assess whether recusal, disclosure, or other remedial action is required to preserve the integrity of professional review, approval, or oversight functions, consistent with professional ethics obligations to avoid situations that compromise or appear to compromise independent judgment.
members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
Relational principle requiring engineers in public or quasi-public roles to recuse themselves from reviewing, approving, or otherwise acting on work submitted by former employers or clients when the prior relationship is sufficiently recent or substantial to compromise the engineer's objectivity and impartiality, or to create a reasonable public perception of bias
Conflict of Interest Recusal from Former Employer Work Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a private firm to a public agency role to recuse themselves from reviewing, approving, or otherwise acting on submissions made by their former employer when the transition was recent (within approximately one year), recognizing that recent employment relationships create loyalty obligations and appearance-of-bias concerns that compromise the objectivity required of a public plan review function.
Constructability Deficiency Identifying Contractor
Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes
A construction contractor role in which the contractor, upon reviewing awarded contract documents at the pre-construction stage, identifies and formally raises significant design deficiencies, missing details, or unbuildable elements in the drawings and specifications, bearing obligations to communicate these findings clearly to the owner and design engineer and to decline to proceed on deficient documents without resolution.
Constructability Information Equitable Access Design Capability
rather than consulting solely with Contractor B, Engineer A could have conducted a publically (sic) advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome.
Capability of a public agency or design engineer who recognizes the value of contractor input on constructability issues to design and implement a process for obtaining that input that provides equal access to all interested contractors — such as a publicly advertised constructability meeting — rather than consulting selectively with individual contractors, thereby gaining the benefit of broader input while avoiding favoritism and appearance of impropriety.
Another option would have been for Engineer T to request a constructability review, or an independent construction safety review, or to inquire whether the contractor's construction safety plan had flagged the heightened safety risk
Professional practice norms governing the optional or recommended use of constructability reviews, independent construction safety reviews, and contractor safety plan consultations during the design phase to identify and mitigate foreseeable construction risks before they materialize
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and procedural standards governing the conduct of third-party independent engineering reviews, including the methodologies, scope, and reporting obligations for firms engaged to assess the adequacy of prior engineering work following complaints or failures
Constructability Review and Contractor Consultation Standard
Engineer A would like to also discuss constructability issues with a local contractor, Contractor B
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conditions under which design engineers may consult with contractors during the design phase to improve constructability, and the ethical constraints on such consultations when the contractor may subsequently bid on the construction contract, including obligations to avoid providing unfair competitive advantage in public bidding processes.
Constructability and Construction Safety Input Solicitation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has selected a structural design approach involving unusual, constrained-access, or ergonomically challenging construction conditions to recognize the ethical opportunity — though not mandatory obligation — to proactively solicit constructability review, independent construction safety review, or contractor input on safety planning before construction commences, including the ability to identify appropriate parties from whom such input should be sought (contractor, construction safety specialist, independent reviewer) and to recognize that failure to solicit such input, while not an ethical violation when standard of care is met, represents a missed opportunity to more fully protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Constructability and Construction Safety Review Solicitation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has selected a structural design approach that involves unusual, constrained, or heightened construction safety risk — even when construction safety responsibility has been contractually transferred to the contractor — to consider actively soliciting constructability review, independent construction safety review, or inquiry into the contractor's safety plan to verify that the heightened risk has been identified and addressed, particularly when the engineer lacks formal training in construction safety methods.
Construction Contract Safety Allocation Standard
Contractor shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction (Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee [EJCDC], C-700, Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract, Article 7, Paragraph 7.01A)
Standard contractual provisions, particularly from the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC), that formally allocate responsibility for construction means, methods, safety programs, and worker protection to the contractor, transferring risk and responsibility away from the design engineer
Construction Contractor DOT Inspection Repair Employer
OPQ Construction is a construction contractor hired by the state department of transportation to inspect and repair a series of state highway and parkway 'on and off' ramps
A construction contractor stakeholder role in which a firm is hired by a state department of transportation to inspect and repair highway and parkway infrastructure, bearing authority to direct employed engineers in design tasks and obligations to ensure that work assignments account for foreseeable site hazards, comply with applicable safety standards, and do not expose workers or the public to unreasonable risk.
Construction Contractor Reuse Decision Maker
the construction contractor determined that the beam could be reused on the project
A construction contractor participant role in which the contractor makes a field determination — without independent structural engineering verification — that a fire-damaged or otherwise compromised structural member can be reused in an ongoing construction project, creating a public safety risk that triggers the retained forensic engineer's reporting obligations.
a dispute arises between the Owner and the General Contractor concerning the acceptability of a concrete pour by the Contractor
A general contractor stakeholder role in which the contractor is party to a dispute with the project owner over the acceptability of completed work, requests the retained engineer's impartial interpretation of contract documents, and ultimately prevails in the engineer's ruling based on owner-approved changes to the work.
Construction Dispute Impartial Interpreter Engineer
Engineer A, sought to remain impartial in the dispute, citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained by an owner for both design and construction-phase services is contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract document requirements and judge of the acceptability of work, bearing obligations to act impartially, neutrally, and objectively when disputes arise between the owner and contractor — even when the owner asserts that loyalty should override impartiality — fulfilling the faithful agent duty through candid, objective interpretation rather than partisan advocacy.
Engineer A is retained by an Owner to provide both design and construction phase services
A client stakeholder role borne by a project owner who has retained an engineer for both design and construction-phase services and who, upon a dispute arising with the general contractor, requests the engineer's impartial interpretation of contract documents, while simultaneously asserting that the engineer's duty of loyalty should override impartiality and produce a finding in the owner's favor.
Construction Observation Engineer with Adjacent Third-Party Safety Observation
Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is engaged to perform construction observation services for a client on a specific project and, while performing those services, observes potential safety issues arising from work conducted on an adjacent property by parties with whom the engineer, their firm, and their client have no direct contractual or professional relationship, generating an obligation to assess and appropriately act upon the observed safety risk in the interest of public welfare despite the absence of any formal duty to the adjacent property owner.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained as a sub-consultant with a narrowly defined scope of work and, while performing that work, observes a condition outside the contracted scope that may implicate public safety, bearing obligations to verbally report the observation to the prime consultant or client, document findings in field notes, and monitor whether corrective action is taken — but not necessarily to include speculative findings in formal reports or independently escalate to public authorities before the prime consultant has had reasonable opportunity to act.
Construction Period Services Continuity Obligation
The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has designed an infrastructure project to remain available and engaged during the construction period to provide design clarifications, respond to field conditions, and address design deficiencies — particularly when the engineer knows or should know that the design contains uncertainties or areas outside their competence — and to communicate clearly to the client when the engineer's absence from construction period services creates material risk of construction problems.
Construction Period Services Scope Advisory Capability
Capability to advise a client about the risks of proceeding with construction without the design engineer's involvement in construction period services — including the risk of unresolved field conditions, design intent misinterpretation, quantity discrepancies, and budget overruns — and to communicate clearly the professional and practical value of design engineer participation in construction administration, inspection, and field revision management.
Construction Period Services Withdrawal Risk Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a client elects to use internal staff rather than the design engineer for construction period services, requiring the design engineer to affirmatively communicate to the client the risks of proceeding without the design engineer's involvement — particularly when the design contains domain-competence limitations — and prohibiting the engineer from passively accepting the client's decision without disclosing how the absence of design engineer oversight during construction may compound existing design deficiencies.
Construction Phase Dangerous Condition On-Site Supervision Need Recognition Capability
Because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase, Engineer A recommends to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative be hired for the project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing complete engineering services to recognize, based on the nature of the design and the foreseeable hazards of its implementation, that the construction phase of a project is sufficiently dangerous to require a full-time, on-site project representative for adequate safety oversight — and to communicate that determination to the client as a professional recommendation rather than a mere suggestion, understanding that the recommendation carries the weight of the engineer's professional safety obligation.
Construction Phase Safety Recommendation Abandoning Engineer
Engineer A recommended to the client that a full-time, on-site project representative should be hired for the project
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained to provide complete engineering services for a project, identifies a public safety risk during the construction phase requiring a specific protective measure (e.g., full-time on-site project representative), makes a professional recommendation consistent with that obligation, but then abandons the recommendation and proceeds with the work when the client raises cost objections — thereby subordinating the paramount public safety obligation to the client's economic concerns in violation of the Code of Ethics.
Construction Phase Safety Staffing Insistence or Withdrawal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that the dangerous nature of a construction phase requires a full-time on-site project representative to insist that the client hire such a representative — and, if the client refuses on cost grounds, to either persist in persuasion or withdraw from the project — rather than proceeding with the work absent the safety staffing the engineer's own professional judgment identified as necessary, recognizing that proceeding without the required safety measure constitutes passive acquiescence to a known safety risk in violation of the paramount public welfare obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers safety code violations or hazardous conditions during the performance of professional services, and whose client refuses to take remedial action, to insist that the client take appropriate corrective action or, if the client continues to refuse, to withdraw from the project — recognizing that passive acquiescence without dissent or comment in the face of known safety violations constitutes an ethical violation, and that the engineer's paramount public welfare obligation requires active insistence rather than silent compliance.
Construction Safety Aware Design Engineer
to what extent are design engineers obligated to account for construction safety risks in their designs if they are not trained or have experience in construction safety methods
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for structural or civil design who, while not contractually obligated for construction means and methods, bears an ethical opportunity (though not a strict obligation) to consider construction worker safety risks in design decisions, explore alternative design approaches that reduce construction hazards, seek constructability reviews, and disclose heightened safety risks to clients and contractors early in the project delivery process.
Construction Safety Awareness in Structural Design
Engineer T selected a straightforward approach that required making structural connections immediately beneath floor level on an upper floor, in a tightly constrained space.
Domain-specific principle requiring structural design engineers to consider foreseeable construction safety risks when selecting among design alternatives, including the ergonomic and physical hazards imposed on construction workers by constrained-access connection details, even absent formal training in construction safety methods
[Case 140] Domain-specific principle requiring structural and temporary-works design engineers to consider foreseeable construction safety risks when selecting among design alternatives, including hazards imposed on construction workers by site geometry, traffic exposure, and environmental constraints, even absent formal training in construction safety methods
Construction Safety Competence Boundary Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer T was not trained in construction safety either by education (since civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety) or by specific experience (working for a construction contractor), Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk posed by the connection location.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to accurately recognize and articulate the boundaries of their own competence with respect to construction safety assessment — including understanding that civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety training, that specific construction contractor experience is required to assess worker safety risks in constrained-access conditions, and that the absence of such training and experience defines a competence boundary that is relevant to error characterization and professional accountability determinations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize and articulate the boundary between one's established domain of professional competence and adjacent or unrelated technical fields — including distinguishing between general engineering education and specific field experience — and to correctly classify whether a solicited assignment falls within or outside that competence boundary, drawing on precedent from analogous cases (BER 98-8, BER 94-8) to calibrate the assessment.
Construction Safety Consideration in Structural Design Obligation
Duty of a licensed structural design engineer, when selecting among feasible design approaches for structural modifications, to consider foreseeable construction safety risks to workers — including the ergonomic and physical hazards posed by constrained-access connection details — and to explore alternative design concepts that would reduce those risks to an acceptable level, even when the engineer lacks formal training in construction safety, provided that the safety risk is reasonably foreseeable from the design documents themselves.
Construction Safety Domain Competence Boundary Constraint
Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk posed by the connection location.
Competence constraint arising from a structural design engineer's lack of formal education or specific practical experience in construction safety assessment, which limits the degree to which that engineer can be held professionally responsible for identifying and mitigating construction worker safety risks arising from design geometry — establishing that the engineer's professional obligation to consider construction safety is bounded by the competence they could reasonably be expected to possess given their educational background and experience, and prohibiting the imposition of professional error findings based on failure to assess risks outside that competence boundary.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that professional competence requires both foundational education and domain-specific practical experience, prohibiting engineers from accepting assignments based solely on general licensure or education in an adjacent field when they lack the experiential component necessary for competence in the specific technical domain involved, as established by NSPE Code II.2.a and BER case precedent.
Construction Safety Domain Incompetence State
Engineer T was not trained in construction safety either by education (since civil engineering education typically does not include construction safety) or by specific experience (working for a construction contractor)
State in which a licensed structural or civil engineer, competent in their primary design domain, lacks the education or experience in construction safety to assess the worker safety risks posed by specific design details — such as constrained-access connection locations — because construction safety is not typically included in civil engineering education and the engineer has no contractor-side experience, creating ambiguity about the scope of the engineer's professional responsibility for foreseeable construction hazards.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer holds valid licensure and possesses competence in one or more engineering domains but lacks the education, training, or experience required to perform competently in a specific technical subdomain or practice area for which they have accepted an assignment, creating a gap between general professional standing and domain-specific capability.
Professional norms and educational standards governing the expected scope of construction safety knowledge for structural engineers, including what risks engineers can reasonably be expected to identify and mitigate in design, and the boundaries of responsibility between design engineers and construction contractors for worker safety.
Construction Safety Responsibility Transfer Reliance Constraint
Through these legal/contractual mechanisms, risk and responsibility for worker safety during construction are formally transferred to the contractor, the contractor being the party best positioned to provide for project safety.
Ethical and legal constraint establishing the boundaries within which a licensed structural or civil engineer may rely on formal contractual transfer of construction safety responsibility to a contractor — including standard EJCDC provisions assigning sole responsibility for means, methods, techniques, sequences, and safety programs to the contractor — as a sufficient discharge of the engineer's safety obligations, while prohibiting the engineer from treating such transfer as an absolute shield against ethical scrutiny when the design contains unusual, constrained-access, or heightened-risk construction elements that the engineer has affirmatively identified.
Construction Safety Responsible Contractor
Contractor shall be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction
A contractor role that, through standard contractual provisions, accepts sole responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction, including initiation, maintenance, and supervision of all safety programs and precautions on the construction site, bearing obligations to protect workers and all persons affected by the work.
Construction Safety Risk Recognition in Structural Design Capability
Capability of a licensed structural design engineer to recognize, during the design phase, that a selected structural approach creates foreseeable construction safety risks for workers — including ergonomic hazards, constrained-access connection requirements, and contorted working conditions — and to assess whether those risks warrant exploration of alternative design approaches, solicitation of constructability review, or notation in design documents, even when the engineer lacks formal construction safety training.
Construction Safety Staffing Determination Written Documentation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has made a professional determination that a full-time on-site project representative is required for a dangerous construction phase, and whose client has refused that recommendation on cost grounds, to document in writing: (1) the professional basis for the safety staffing determination, (2) the client's cost-driven refusal, and (3) the engineer's professional position that the refusal creates unacceptable safety risk — creating a contemporaneous record that protects the engineer's professional accountability and provides a basis for subsequent escalation or withdrawal.
Construction Scaffolding Design Engineer
Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer employed by a construction contractor designs temporary inspection and construction scaffolding for infrastructure projects, bearing obligations to identify and report foreseeable safety hazards—including those arising from illegal third-party conduct such as unauthorized commercial vehicle traffic—that could endanger construction workers and the public during the scaffolding's use.
Construction Scaffolding Safety Standard
Engineer A is directed by his supervisor to design inspection and construction scaffolding for a noncommercial parkway cloverleaf ramp with limited height and width clearance
Technical standards, professional norms, and regulatory requirements governing the design, erection, and use of inspection and construction scaffolding in proximity to active roadways and traffic, including clearance requirements, load ratings, and worker protection from vehicle intrusion hazards
Consultant-as-Public-Officer Client vs. Employer Relationship Characterization State
the relationship between the engineer and the municipality must be one of engineer to client (municipality) and not engineer to employer (municipality) for this principle to be valid
State in which a consulting engineer serving in a designated public role (e.g., municipal engineer) must maintain the relationship as engineer-to-client rather than engineer-to-employer in order for the arrangement to be ethically permissible — specifically, the condition where the consulting engineer's authority to also provide full engineering services through their own organization is contingent on the municipality being treated as a client (with recommendations subject to municipal approval or disapproval) rather than as an employer directing the engineer's work, as required by applicable ethics code provisions prohibiting public-role participation in decisions regarding one's own private services.
Consultant Firm Proposed as Municipal City Engineer with Existing Contracts State
WXY currently has three contracts directly with the city for separate projects
State in which a private engineering firm that already holds active contracts with a municipality is being considered for appointment as the municipality's city engineer, creating a structural dual-role situation where the firm would simultaneously serve as public engineering authority and private contractor for the same client entity.
Consulting-Practice Workforce Flexibility Non-Transferability to Statutory Public Employment Obligation
in the instant situation, from a practicality standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects for the county
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators — to recognize that the structural flexibility available to consulting engineering firms (engaging subconsultants, forming joint ventures, hiring qualified personnel to fill competence gaps) does not transfer to statutory public employment positions, because the dynamic workforce-restructuring mechanisms available in private consulting practice are not available to a statutory public officer who must personally exercise the oversight and judgment functions of the position; and therefore to decline acceptance of a statutory public position whose technical duties fall outside the engineer's competence, even if a consulting firm in an analogous situation could ethically discharge the obligation by retaining specialists.
Consulting Context Competence Remediation Flexibility State
Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently.
State in which a consulting engineering firm or individual consultant, unlike an employee in a fixed role, retains structural flexibility to cure a domain-specific competence gap by retaining specialists, forming joint ventures, hiring qualified personnel, or restructuring the workforce — provided the engagement scope is broad enough that the specialist supplements rather than replaces the consultant's entire contribution. This state represents the ethical escape valve available in private consulting practice that distinguishes it from employment contexts, and activates the obligation to exercise that flexibility rather than proceed with incompetent performance.
Engineer A, a consulting engineer, presents signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides consulting services by preparing, signing, and sealing design contract documents submitted to a public agency for review and approval, bearing obligations of technical competence, public safety, and professional accountability for submitted work products.
[proethica-intermediate] A professional role involving engineering practice and responsibilities
Consulting Engineer Discovering Regulatory Violation
Engineer Doe concluded that the discharge from the plant would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained by a corporate client to perform consulting services discovers, through study, that the client's operations violate established environmental or regulatory standards, is subsequently terminated and instructed not to produce a written report, and bears an obligation to report findings to the relevant regulatory authority upon learning of a public hearing at which the client is misrepresenting the facts.
Consulting Engineer Municipal Employee Status Non-Equivalence Recognition Capability
For the purpose of this discussion an 'employee' is defined as one who is subject to the direction of his employer-in this case the appropriate municipal authorities.
Capability of a consulting engineering firm principal designated as statutory municipal engineer, and of municipal clients and ethics adjudicators, to recognize that a consulting engineer paid on a fee or retainer basis is not an 'employee' in the formal sense — i.e., not subject to the direction of municipal authorities in the manner of salaried staff, not on the municipal payroll, and not subject to municipal tax and benefit regulations — and to correctly distinguish this consultant status from formal employment status when applying ethics code provisions (such as former Section 8(b)) that govern the conduct of engineers 'in public service as a member, advisor, or employee of a governmental body.'
Consulting Engineer Municipal Employee Status Non-Equivalence Recognition Obligation
Duty of consulting engineers designated as statutory municipal engineers, municipal clients, and ethics adjudicators to recognize that a consulting engineer serving as 'municipal engineer' on a fee or retainer basis — whose recommendations are subject to approval or disapproval by appropriate municipal processes — is not an 'employee' in the formal sense (i.e., a salaried staff member subject to employer direction, tax withholding, and employee benefit regulations), and that this non-employee consultant status is ethically significant because it preserves the engineer's professional independence and enables the dual-role arrangement to satisfy the engineer-to-client relationship requirement necessary for ethical permissibility.
Consulting Firm Collaborative Crutch Pile Adequacy Verification and Supervisor Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that an inadequate structural remediation — specifically crutch piles installed on a deteriorated bridge without follow-up inspection — has been implemented by a non-engineer official, to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original signed and sealed inspection report to determine whether the crutch pile design with a five-ton limit is structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the engineer's supervisor before escalating externally.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that an inadequate remediation measure has been implemented on safety-critical infrastructure — such as crutch piles installed on a deteriorated bridge without follow-up inspection — to collaborate with the engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the remediation design is structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the appropriate supervisory authority.
Consulting Firm Principal Appointed Municipal Engineer
a state law that required that every municipality have a municipal engineer whose duties and compensation are to be fixed by a municipal ordinance
A licensed professional engineering role in which a principal of a private consulting engineering firm is formally appointed as the municipal engineer for a small municipality (pursuant to state law requiring every municipality to have a municipal engineer), with the firm thereafter being retained for capital improvement engineering services for that same municipality — bearing obligations to serve the public interest of the municipality, ensure the arrangement is sanctioned by applicable law, avoid conflicts of interest between the firm's private interests and the municipality's needs, and provide the most competent engineering services the municipality can acquire.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which a private-practice engineer serves simultaneously as a part-time municipal engineer and as a private consultant eligible to perform design work for the same municipality, bearing heightened obligations to avoid divided loyalties, disclose conflicts of interest, and ensure advisory judgments are not influenced by the prospect of private design commissions.
Consulting Firm Workforce Restructuring Competence Gap Remediation Permissibility Constraint
In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job for which the firm is being retained.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a consulting engineering firm retained to perform services that include technical domains outside the firm's current competence may ethically remedy that competence gap through workforce restructuring mechanisms — including establishing joint ventures, entering subcontracts, hiring additional qualified personnel, or making other arrangements — provided that the firm's engagement is not a sole-purpose retention for the specific task in which the gap exists, recognizing the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice as distinguished from employment contexts, and grounding this permissibility in NSPE Code II.2 and BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 85-3.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint recognizing that the degree of flexibility available to a licensed professional engineer to remediate a competence gap differs fundamentally between consulting and employment contexts — establishing that consulting firms may structure their workforce through subcontracts, joint ventures, or additional hires to supply missing competence, while employment contexts typically preclude such arrangements, making it effectively impossible for an employed engineer to ethically perform duties requiring competence they do not possess, and prohibiting engineers in employment contexts from accepting positions whose core duties fall outside their competence on the assumption that consulting-style remediation mechanisms will be available, as established by BER Cases 85-3 and 94-8 and NSPE Code II.2.a.
Consulting Municipal Engineer Employee-Status Non-Requirement Permissibility Constraint
it is not clear whether the intent is to require that the municipal engineer must be an employee of the municipality in the formal sense
Ethical and legal constraint establishing that a consulting engineer designated as 'municipal engineer' by a small municipality need not be a formal employee of the municipality — defined as one subject to the direction of municipal authorities, in a salaried position with tax and benefit compliance — in order to fulfill the statutory municipal engineer role, and that fee- or retainer-based consulting arrangements satisfy the legal requirement provided the engineer is competent and the relationship is structured as engineer-to-client rather than engineer-to-employer, as established by BER Case 74-2.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that when state law requires every municipality to have a municipal engineer and smaller communities cannot afford full-time engineers, the public interest is best served by permitting a consulting firm principal to serve simultaneously as municipal engineer and as the firm providing engineering services for capital improvement projects — establishing that this dual arrangement is ethically permissible under the stated conditions because the public interest in providing small municipalities with the most competent engineering services they can acquire justifies the arrangement, and that state law mandating municipal engineers was intended to achieve this public interest end, as established by BER Case 74-2.
Consulting Practice Competence Gap Subconsultant Engagement Obligation
if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the NSPE Code, the firm should retain individuals with that expertise.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm retained to perform engineering services that include technical domains outside the firm's competence to engage qualified subconsultants, establish joint ventures, or hire additional qualified personnel to fill those competence gaps, rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly, recognizing that the dynamic nature of consulting practice affords greater flexibility than employment contexts to structure the workforce to meet client needs while maintaining competence standards.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies that a proposed infrastructure project raises technical questions — particularly regarding climate-adjusted hydraulic risk to third parties — that exceed the engineer's own domain competence or available analytical tools to formally recommend to the client the engagement of a specialized subconsultant capable of performing the required analysis, and to document that recommendation in writing, so that the client can make an informed decision about whether to authorize the specialized work and cannot later claim ignorance of the technical gap.
Consulting Practice Sole-Purpose Retention Competence Scope Non-Expandability Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a contractor or client in a consulting capacity for a sole and exclusive engineering purpose to recognize that the consulting-practice flexibility to engage subconsultants or restructure the workforce — which applies when a firm is retained for broad multi-discipline services — does not apply when the retention is specifically and exclusively for a single defined task; in such cases, the engineer must possess the competence to perform that specific task directly, and cannot discharge the obligation through sub-delegation without rendering the retention itself purposeless.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm retained to perform engineering services that include technical domains outside the firm's competence to engage qualified subconsultants, establish joint ventures, or hire additional qualified personnel to fill those competence gaps, rather than performing the out-of-competence work directly, recognizing that the dynamic nature of consulting practice affords greater flexibility than employment contexts to structure the workforce to meet client needs while maintaining competence standards.
Consulting Practice Structural Flexibility Non-Transferability to Statutory Employment Roles
Domain-specific principle establishing that the structural flexibility available to consulting engineering firms — including joint ventures, subcontracts, specialist hiring, and dynamic workforce reconfiguration — to cure competence gaps in any given engagement does not transfer to statutory public employment roles. In consulting practice, a firm lacking expertise in a required discipline may ethically proceed by retaining qualified specialists or forming joint ventures; but a statutory public position (such as county surveyor) is a personal appointment whose duties are non-delegable in their essential character, such that the incumbent cannot cure a fundamental competence deficiency through the same structural mechanisms available to consulting firms. The ethical obligation to possess relevant competence therefore applies with greater rigidity to statutory public roles than to consulting engagements.
Consulting Practice Workforce Structuring Competence Gap Remediation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm in a consulting practice context to recognize and utilize the organizational flexibility available in private consulting — including establishing joint ventures, engaging subconsultants, hiring additional qualified personnel, and making other structural arrangements — to remediate competence gaps between the firm's established expertise and the technical requirements of a solicited project, while correctly identifying the limits of this flexibility (e.g., sole-purpose retention arrangements where sub-delegation is infeasible, or employment contexts where such structural options are unavailable).
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewer to correctly distinguish between the competence obligations applicable in a consulting practice context — where firms have flexibility to structure their workforce, engage subconsultants, form joint ventures, and hire qualified personnel to fill competence gaps — versus an employment context — where such structural flexibility is typically unavailable and the individual must personally possess the competence required for the role. Enables correct application of NSPE Code provisions to each context and identification of when competence gaps cannot be remediated through organizational arrangements.
Consulting vs. Employment Competence Remediation Asymmetry State
there are important distinctions in applying the Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
State in which the same domain-specific competence gap that could be ethically remediated in a consulting context — through subcontracting, joint ventures, hiring qualified specialists, or workforce restructuring — cannot be remediated in a fixed employment context because the structural characteristics of employment (fixed role definition, statutory duties, absence of subcontracting authority) eliminate the flexibility mechanisms available to consulting firms. This asymmetry means that identical competence gaps carry different ethical consequences depending on the professional context: permissible with remediation in consulting, impermissible without remedy in employment. The state activates when an engineer attempts to apply consulting-context ethical reasoning (retain a specialist) to an employment-context role where that reasoning does not transfer.
Consulting vs. Employment Context Competence Flexibility Differential Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint recognizing that the degree of flexibility available to a licensed professional engineer to remediate a competence gap differs fundamentally between consulting and employment contexts — establishing that consulting firms may structure their workforce through subcontracts, joint ventures, or additional hires to supply missing competence, while employment contexts typically preclude such arrangements, making it effectively impossible for an employed engineer to ethically perform duties requiring competence they do not possess, and prohibiting engineers in employment contexts from accepting positions whose core duties fall outside their competence on the assumption that consulting-style remediation mechanisms will be available, as established by BER Cases 85-3 and 94-8 and NSPE Code II.2.a.
Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Concern Recognition Capability
Technical and ethical capability of a licensed professional engineer working in consumer product design and manufacturing to recognize that observed inconsistent product performance — even when the product has passed standard safety testing — may indicate unique safety concerns that require further investigation, including the ability to identify the specific performance inconsistencies, assess their potential safety implications for consumer use, and correctly classify the situation as one requiring escalation beyond standard testing protocols.
Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is employed by a product manufacturer to participate in the design and safety testing of a new consumer product, bearing obligations to identify and report safety concerns that fall outside existing national standards, recommend additional testing when product performance raises unique safety risks, and advocate for consumer protection even when the employer rejects additional testing on cost or schedule grounds.
Consumer Product Safety Testing Standard
Company X's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
General and standard product safety-testing policies, procedures, and national standards governing the safety evaluation of consumer products, including acceptable safety parameters and testing protocols used by manufacturers and engineers to assess product safety prior to market release.
Engineer T expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged
State in which a licensed professional engineer believes a professional error may have occurred, a supervising engineer has concluded no error occurred, and a subsequent legal proceeding is actively determining whether an error was made and by whom, placing the engineer in tension between a personal sense of professional obligation to acknowledge error and legal counsel's direction to report facts without volunteering error characterizations.
Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the nature, specificity, and demonstrability of an engineer's safety concern — combined with the presence or absence of applicable regulatory standards, the existence of confirmed incidents, and the severity of potential harm — collectively determine the scope, urgency, and form of the engineer's public safety reporting obligation, such that general concerns without confirmed incidents in an absent-standards context generate a different (though still real) reporting obligation than specific, demonstrative concerns with confirmed incidents in a regulated context
[Case 140] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the nature, specificity, and demonstrability of an engineer's safety concern — combined with the presence or absence of applicable regulatory standards, the existence of confirmed incidents, and the severity of potential harm — collectively determine the scope, urgency, and form of the engineer's public safety reporting obligation
[Case 142] Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics reviewing bodies — to calibrate the nature, specificity, and required demonstrability of a safety concern before determining the scope and form of the applicable public safety reporting obligation, recognizing that: (a) clear, demonstrable, specific safety defects with confirmed incidents trigger stronger and more immediate external reporting obligations; (b) general good faith concerns about inconsistent performance without confirmed incidents or specific defects trigger a more limited obligation to bring concerns to regulatory attention through appropriate channels such as public standards hearings; and (c) the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards is a relevant contextual factor that affects both the employer's reasonableness in declining additional testing and the engineer's calibrated reporting obligation.
[Case 150] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the nature, specificity, and demonstrability of an engineer's safety concern — combined with the presence or absence of applicable regulatory standards, the existence of confirmed incidents, and the severity of potential harm — collectively determine the scope, urgency, and form of the engineer's public safety reporting obligation.
[Case 157] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the nature, specificity, and demonstrability of an engineer's safety concern — combined with the presence or absence of applicable regulatory standards, the existence of confirmed incidents, and the severity of potential harm — collectively determine the scope, urgency, and form of the engineer's public safety reporting obligation, such that general concerns without confirmed incidents in an absent-standards context generate a different (though still real) reporting obligation than specific, demonstrative concerns with confirmed incidents in a regulated context.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers to calibrate their public safety reporting obligations to the nature, imminence, and severity of the identified risk, distinguishing between (a) clear and imminent risks to life safety that unambiguously trigger mandatory reporting, (b) risks to property and system functionality that trigger faithful agent notification obligations, and (c) speculative or de minimis risks that do not independently generate reporting duties — and to apply the appropriate obligation to each category
Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
we are inclined to the more charitable view that his action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis. This is an established and accepted form of sales technique in which the seller proclaims all of the virtues of his product and conveniently ignores its less desirable features.
Professional honesty principle establishing that an engineer's selective emphasis of certain qualifications on a resume — without affirmative misstatement — may be ethically permissible when the emphasis reflects a genuine, if minor, aspect of the engineer's actual experience, the purpose is to present the engineer's qualifications in the most favorable truthful light, and no material harm to the prospective employer's engineering decision-making results; distinguished from impermissible misrepresentation by the absence of deliberate intent to obscure truth and the absence of material deception as to the engineer's actual competence to perform the role sought
Contextual Safety Reporting Calibration Capability
it appears that Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics reviewing bodies — to calibrate the nature, specificity, and urgency of public safety reporting obligations to the specific factual context of the safety concern — including distinguishing between general, non-demonstrative safety concerns based on inconsistent product performance (which support permissible good-faith hearing participation and general regulatory notification) versus specific, confirmed safety deficiencies with demonstrated harm potential (which trigger more immediate and direct mandatory reporting obligations) — and to correctly apply the appropriate reporting standard to each context rather than treating all safety concerns as triggering identical obligations.
Contextually Calibrated Public Safety Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to calibrate the form, urgency, and scope of public safety reporting obligations to the specific contextual factors of the situation — including whether a public hearing is scheduled, whether the engineer has direct personal knowledge of the relevant facts, whether the engineer was personally involved in the engineering decision-making, whether domain-specific expertise is possessed, whether confirmed incidents exist, and whether applicable regulatory standards apply — recognizing that these contextual factors collectively determine the appropriate escalation pathway and that a situation with fewer triggering factors (no hearing, no direct involvement, no expertise, no confirmed incidents, no applicable standards) generates a different but still real reporting obligation than a situation with all triggering factors present.
Continuing Competence Currency Obligation
new and improved design methods have recently been developed to address the severe weather conditions in the location in which Engineer A practices
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to maintain active currency with evolving technical standards, published design methods, and emerging literature relevant to their practice area, such that reliance on established but superseded methods — when updated methods have been published and are reasonably accessible — may constitute a failure of professional competence even absent deliberate neglect.
Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty Obligation State
while an engineer may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, the engineer still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty
State in which a professional engineer's formal contractual or employment relationship with a client has been terminated — including full payment of fees — but the engineer retains a continuing ethical obligation of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality to that former client with respect to information and facts gained during the relationship, such that the termination of the formal relationship does not extinguish the duty of trust and loyalty, and the duration of that continuing duty remains indeterminate and context-dependent.
Contract Award Conditionality Non-Acquiescence Principle
while the condition is not to be included in the contract, his failure to make the gifts will result in no further work being awarded to the firm and to expect poor cooperation in performing the first contract
Fundamental principle establishing that an engineer must not acquiesce to conditions — whether explicit or implicit — that tie the award or continuation of a professional contract to the provision of personal gifts, payments, or other benefits to decision-making officials, even when such conditions are presented as informal, unwritten, or legally permissible in the host jurisdiction, because acquiescence corrupts the professional selection process and violates the engineer's integrity obligations regardless of contractual form
Contract Signatory Estoppel Self-Application Capability
we find it somewhat incongruous that the Owner should complain because the Engineer was complying with the terms and conditions of a contract that the Owner presumably read and understood before signing.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate that a party who has read, understood, and signed a contract containing a specific provision — such as designating the engineer as an impartial dispute resolver — is estopped from complaining when the engineer faithfully performs that contractually designated role, and to apply this principle in resisting owner pressure to deviate from contractual obligations by pointing to the owner's own contractual commitment.
Contract Signatory Estoppel from Impartial Determination Complaint Constraint
Ethical and contractual constraint establishing that an owner-client who has read, understood, and signed a contract designating the engineer as the impartial initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability is estopped from complaining that the engineer's impartial determination — rendered in strict compliance with those contractual terms — violated the engineer's duty of loyalty, on the grounds that the owner's prior informed acceptance of the contractual impartiality clause negates the legitimacy of a post-determination loyalty-based complaint, as established by BER Case 93-4.
Contract Signatory Owner Impartial Arbiter Clause Estoppel Obligation
Duty of a project owner who has read, understood, and signed a contract designating the engineer as the initial impartial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability to refrain from subsequently complaining that the engineer acted unethically by rendering an impartial finding adverse to the owner's interests — recognizing that the owner's voluntary execution of the contract constitutes acceptance of the impartial arbiter mechanism, and that the engineer's compliance with the contractually designated role fulfills rather than violates the engineer's ethical and legal responsibilities under the agreement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of the acceptability of work — in a dispute between an owner and a contractor — to render an impartial, objective, and technically grounded determination based solely on the merits of the contract documents and the facts of the dispute, refraining from finding in favor of the owner merely because the owner is the engineer's client, recognizing that impartial performance of the contractually designated role constitutes the highest form of faithful agent service to the owner and fulfills the engineer's legal and ethical responsibilities under the terms of the agreement.
Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Duty Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the termination of a client contract — including full payment for services rendered — does not extinguish professional obligations to public health, safety, and welfare that arose during the engagement, and to correctly identify that post-termination professional duties persist independently of the contractual relationship, particularly when completed findings reveal risks to public welfare that have not been disclosed to regulatory authorities.
Contract Termination Non-Extinguishment of Public Safety Duty Obligation
the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the principle that the termination of a client contract — even with full payment — does not extinguish the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and that when completed findings indicate a material risk to public welfare, the engineer must fulfill reporting and disclosure obligations to appropriate regulatory authorities independent of the former client relationship.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been discharged from a project following disclosure of public health and safety risks to continue to fulfill reporting obligations to appropriate regulatory authorities — including state environmental or public health agencies — notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship, when the engineer has credible technical evidence that a public authority's decision poses imminent or ongoing risk to public health and safety.
Contracted Scope Boundary Faithful Agent Maintenance Capability
Engineer A, who happens to have both structural and fire protection credentials, is hired by Homeowner to design a retaining wall system to stabilize a rear yard
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety deficiency outside the contracted scope of work to correctly maintain the boundary between the contracted scope — which must continue to be performed faithfully and competently — and the out-of-scope safety obligation, recognizing that the duty to disclose and notify regarding the out-of-scope deficiency does not expand the contracted scope, does not authorize the engineer to perform remediation work without additional engagement, and does not diminish the obligation to complete the contracted work faithfully.
Contractor-Engineer Bid Submission on Deficient Documents State
Engineer C's actions in bidding on an 'unbuildable' contract is also very troubling
State in which a contractor who is also a licensed engineer submits a low bid on a construction project after having had the opportunity to review engineering drawings and specifications that are materially incomplete or inadequate — without requesting clarification, flagging the deficiencies in the bid, or including appropriate bid items for additional services — thereby assuming the risk of unbuildability and forfeiting the ability to assign fault to the engineer of record for problems encountered during construction.
Contractor Adverse Claim Forensic Retaining Client
Engineer A is retained by the contractor on this project, who has filed a claim against the U.S. government for additional compensation
A contractor stakeholder and client role in which a construction contractor who has filed a claim for additional compensation against a project owner retains a licensed professional engineer as a forensic expert or technical consultant to support that claim — where the retained engineer previously conducted forensic work for the opposing party (the project owner) on the same matter, creating an irresolvable conflict of interest.
Contractor Competence Verification Duty Before Specialist Retention Constraint
the construction contractor separately retains the services of a Engineer B, a professional engineer to design structural footings as part of the facility
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a construction contractor retaining a licensed professional engineer for a specialized technical task — such as structural footing design — bears a duty to verify that the retained engineer possesses demonstrated competence in the specific technical domain required, and that the contractor's failure to perform this verification does not transfer or diminish the retained engineer's independent ethical obligation to decline work outside their area of competence; establishing that the contractor's selection decision is not a substitute for the engineer's own competence self-assessment.
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
Domain-specific professional integrity principle establishing that a licensed contractor — including a professional engineer who holds a contractor's license — may not permit an unrelated, unlicensed individual or entity to use the contractor's license number on projects in which the licensee has no actual involvement, because such 'license lending' enables unlicensed practice, deceives regulatory authorities and the public about who bears professional responsibility, and undermines the protective purpose of the licensing system
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed contractor or professional engineer who holds a contractor's license from allowing any individual or entity unrelated to their contracting firm to use their contractor license number on a project — establishing that license numbers are personal professional credentials that may not be lent, shared, or transferred to facilitate unlicensed contracting activity, and that doing so constitutes a form of facilitation of unlicensed practice that is grounds for license revocation and reflects adversely on the engineer's professional character and integrity.
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who holds or has held a contractor's license to refrain from allowing any unlicensed individual unrelated to the licensed firm to use the contractor license number on a separate project, recognizing that such license-lending undermines the public protection purpose of licensure, exposes the public to unqualified work, and constitutes adjudicated professional misconduct that reflects on the engineer's fitness for professional practice.
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Self-Awareness Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who holds or has held a contractor's license to recognize that allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to the contracting firm to use the contractor license number on a project constitutes a serious professional violation — one that exposes the engineer to license revocation — and to refrain from such conduct, understanding that the license number is a professional credential that may not be lent, transferred, or made available to unaffiliated parties regardless of the engineer's intent or the apparent benefit to the project.
Contractor License Revocation Disclosure Standard
Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to disclose the revocation of a contractor's license (or analogous non-engineering license) on employment applications, particularly when the revocation is material to the employer's assessment of the engineer's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional, even if the application question is framed narrowly around engineering licensure.
Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm, which was required to have a contractor's license
A professional engineering role in which a licensed engineer, when applying for employment at an engineering firm, omits material facts about the revocation of a contractor's license (distinct from a PE license) on an employment application, bearing obligations of objective truthfulness and disclosure of adjudicated wrongdoing that constitutes a material fact about professional conduct, even when the application question is narrowly worded to reference only engineering licensure.
Contractor Structural Reuse Authorization Non-Reliance Constraint
Engineer A learns that the construction contractor determined that the beam could be reused on the project.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has determined through structural calculations that a structural member is seriously under-designed cannot treat a construction contractor's independent determination that the member may be reused as a resolution of the structural safety concern — requiring the engineer to maintain and communicate the professional finding of inadequacy regardless of the contractor's contrary determination, and prohibiting the engineer from deferring to a non-engineer's structural adequacy judgment.
Contractor Structural Reuse Decision Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
Capability of a construction contractor to recognize that determining whether a structurally compromised or potentially under-designed member is safe for reuse constitutes an engineering judgment requiring licensed professional engineering verification, and that making such a determination unilaterally — without independent structural engineering analysis — exceeds the contractor's professional competence boundary and creates public safety risk.
Contractual Dispute Interpreter Role Scope Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A, seeks to remain impartial in the dispute, citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly identify when a contract provision designates the engineer as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability, to understand the full scope and implications of that role — including its impartiality requirements, its independence from the retaining party's preferences, and its distinction from the general faithful agent role — and to execute that role accordingly.
Contractual Impartiality Obligation State
Engineer A sought to remain impartial in the dispute, citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work
State in which a professional engineer, retained by a client for both design and construction-phase services, is contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract document requirements and judge of work acceptability — creating a structural obligation of impartiality that supersedes the general duty of loyalty to the client when disputes arise between the client and contractor, such that the engineer's faithful agency is fulfilled through objective interpretation rather than partisan advocacy for the client.
Contractual Risk Transfer Ethical Residual Awareness Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that formal contractual transfer of construction safety responsibility to a contractor — through standard provisions assigning sole responsibility for means, methods, and safety programs — satisfies the legal and ethical minimum standard of care, while simultaneously recognizing that a residual ethical awareness obligation persists to consider whether the design itself creates foreseeable heightened construction safety risks that go beyond what standard contractual transfer adequately addresses, and to calibrate professional conduct accordingly.
Contractual Risk Transfer and Ethical Residual Awareness
Domain-specific principle recognizing that while engineers may lawfully transfer construction safety risk and responsibility to contractors through standard contractual provisions, such transfer does not extinguish the engineer's ethical awareness of foreseeable safety risks in design choices, and engineers retain an opportunity — though not always an obligation — to proactively surface those risks through design alternatives, constructability reviews, or safety consultations
Contractual Safety Transfer Scope Limitation Constraint
The contractor had not raised questions regarding the construction safety risk or safer construction alternatives.
Legal and contractual constraint arising from standard construction contract provisions — particularly EJCDC C-700 — that formally transfer responsibility for construction means, methods, safety programs, and worker protection to the contractor, establishing that the design engineer's professional obligations regarding construction worker safety are bounded by this contractual allocation and do not extend to independently assessing or mitigating construction execution risks that fall within the contractor's exclusive domain of responsibility.
Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability to render impartial, objective determinations in construction disputes — based solely on the contract documents and technical facts — independent of the retaining party's preferences, recognizing that impartial dispute resolution fulfills rather than violates the duty of loyalty to the owner-client.
Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality Constraint
Ethical and contractual constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer has been contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability — establishing that the engineer must render impartial, objective determinations based solely on the contract documents and technical facts, prohibiting the engineer from finding in favor of the client-owner merely because of a general duty of loyalty, and establishing that impartial dispute resolution fulfills rather than violates the faithful agent obligation when the contract itself designates the engineer as neutral interpreter, as established by BER Case 93-4.
Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of the acceptability of work — in a dispute between an owner and a contractor — to render an impartial, objective, and technically grounded determination based solely on the merits of the contract documents and the facts of the dispute, refraining from finding in favor of the owner merely because the owner is the engineer's client, recognizing that impartial performance of the contractually designated role constitutes the highest form of faithful agent service to the owner and fulfills the engineer's legal and ethical responsibilities under the terms of the agreement.
Contractually Transferred Safety Responsibility State
State in which a design engineer has formally transferred responsibility for construction worker safety to the contractor through standard contractual provisions — including clauses assigning sole responsibility for means, methods, techniques, sequences, and safety programs to the contractor — such that the engineer's legal and professional obligation for construction-phase safety is discharged by contract, while an ethical question remains about whether the engineer could or should have done more to protect worker safety through design choices.
Contradicted Public Testimony by Uninformed Peer State
Doe concluded that the change would not meet minimum standards and apprised the client of that decision
State in which a licensed professional engineer possesses documented technical findings that directly contradict testimony presented at a public hearing by another engineer who was unaware of material factors known to the first engineer, creating an obligation to report those findings to the appropriate regulatory authority to prevent a regulatory decision from being made on the basis of incomplete or incorrect technical information.
State in which a licensed professional engineer's documented safety assessment — identifying specific public health risks — has been formally contradicted or undermined by a subsequent report from a replacement consultant retained by the client, where the replacement report characterizes the risk as indeterminate rather than confirmed, creating evidentiary conflict that may influence regulatory decision-making and public understanding of the risk.
Contradicting Replacement Consultant Objective Reporting Obligation
The MWC discharged Engineer B and ABC Engineers from project involvement in the water source change, and retained XYZ Consultants to assist with implementation.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm retained to replace a discharged engineer on a project — particularly where the discharge followed the original engineer's public health and safety warnings — to provide objective, complete, and technically honest reports to the client, and to refrain from providing reports that minimize, obscure, or contradict the prior engineer's safety findings without adequate technical basis, recognizing that the replacement role creates heightened risk of client-pleasing bias that must be actively resisted.
Contradicting Replacement Engineering Consultant
A licensed professional engineering consulting firm or role retained by a client specifically to replace a discharged engineer, providing a technical report that contradicts or minimizes the safety findings of the original engineer, bearing obligations of objectivity and completeness and raising ethical concerns when the replacement report is used to justify proceeding with a course of action the original engineer identified as a public health risk.
Contradictory Hearing Data Correction Testimony Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who possesses completed technical findings that directly contradict data presented by a former client at a public regulatory hearing — where the contradictory data is being used to obtain a permit or regulatory approval that would harm public health or environmental welfare — to come forward at or after the hearing to correct the record by presenting accurate findings to the regulatory authority, even after contract termination and without client authorization, so that the regulatory body's decision is based on complete and accurate technical information.
Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Capability
Previously, Engineer B had said, 'We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to maintain consistency in professional explanations for decisions and omissions — recognizing that issuing contradictory explanations (e.g., first claiming pile driving records were outside scope of work, then claiming they were disbelieved) constitutes an artfully misleading pattern that violates professional obligations of honesty and non-deception, and to identify when contradictory explanations collectively create a false impression about the basis for professional decisions.
Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from issuing contradictory explanations for professional decisions or omissions — particularly when queried about the basis for conclusions in a professional report — recognizing that providing one explanation (scope-of-work limitation) and then substituting a different, incompatible explanation (disbelief of records) when the first is challenged constitutes a violation of the professional honesty obligation and undermines the credibility and integrity of the engineer's professional work product.
Contradictory Professional Explanation Non-Issuance in Forensic Context Obligation
When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has issued a forensic report and is subsequently queried about the basis for omissions or conclusions in that report to refrain from providing contradictory explanations — specifically, providing one explanation (scope-of-work limitation) and then substituting a different, incompatible explanation (disbelief of records) when the first is challenged — recognizing that contradictory post-hoc justifications for professional omissions constitute a violation of the professional honesty obligation and undermine the credibility and integrity of the engineer's professional work product.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from issuing contradictory explanations for professional decisions or omissions — particularly when queried about the basis for conclusions in a professional report — recognizing that providing one explanation (scope-of-work limitation) and then substituting a different, incompatible explanation (disbelief of records) when the first is challenged constitutes a violation of the professional honesty obligation and undermines the credibility and integrity of the engineer's professional work product.
Contradictory Professional Justification Non-Issuance Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from offering mutually inconsistent explanations for a methodological omission or professional decision — particularly in adversarial or quasi-legal proceedings — establishing that the engineer must provide a single, consistent, and honest account of the basis for professional decisions, and that offering contradictory justifications (e.g., first claiming scope limitation, then claiming disbelief of records) constitutes an artfully misleading statement violating the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception provisions.
Contradictory Public Hearing Data Correction Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who possesses completed technical findings to recognize when a client or third party presents data at a public regulatory hearing that directly contradicts those findings, and to take affirmative corrective action — including appearing at or submitting findings to the hearing — to ensure that the regulatory authority and public record contain accurate technical information, even when the engineer's contract has been terminated and the client has instructed silence.
State in which a professional engineer offers mutually inconsistent explanations for a methodological omission in a professional report — providing one justification when initially queried and a different, incompatible justification upon further inquiry — indicating either post-hoc rationalization or lack of a principled basis for the omission, and undermining the credibility and integrity of the professional work product.
Contradictory Scope Justification for Omission State
State in which a professional engineer, when queried about a material omission in a forensic report, offers two mutually inconsistent explanations for that omission — first claiming the omitted data was outside the scope of work, then claiming the data was disbelieved — indicating post-hoc rationalization rather than a principled methodological basis, and undermining the credibility and integrity of the professional work product.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer offers mutually inconsistent explanations for a methodological omission in a professional report — providing one justification when initially queried and a different, incompatible justification upon further inquiry — indicating either post-hoc rationalization or lack of a principled basis for the omission, and undermining the credibility and integrity of the professional work product.
Contributing Third-Party Action Complicating Causation State
State in which one or more third parties — such as property owners — have taken independent actions (e.g., construction of impervious surfaces, installation of undersized culverts) that contributed to or exacerbated the harm being attributed to a professional's design, creating causal complexity that must be assessed to fairly apportion responsibility between the design professional and the third-party actors.
Convenience-Based Sole Source Prohibition Constraint
City D's Engineer acknowledges that the two most recent contracts with Firm Z did not comply with contracting requirements but dismisses the need for corrective action, citing the convenience and longstanding relationship with Firm Z as justification
Ethical and legal constraint prohibiting public agency engineers from justifying non-competitive, sole-source contract awards on the basis of administrative convenience, established relationships, or familiarity with a vendor, when statutory procurement procedures mandate competitive qualification-based selection processes, regardless of the perceived quality or reliability of the incumbent firm.
Conventional Address-Licensure Inference and Rebuttal Obligation
a conventional assumption prevails; namely, that the engineer whose name and 'P.E.' designation appears on a business card is licensed in the state indicated by the physical address on the card
Relational principle establishing that a conventional presumption exists in professional engineering practice that an engineer whose name and PE designation appear on a business card is licensed in the state indicated by the physical address on the card; where this presumption would be false — because the engineer's business address is in a state where the engineer is not licensed — the engineer bears an affirmative obligation to rebut the presumption by clearly identifying on the card the specific state(s) in which licensure is actually held
Engineer P left the State X highway department and joined the AE firm not as an 'employee' but as an 'independent contractor'
State in which a professional subject to a mandatory or customary waiting period before accepting private employment following public service attempts to circumvent that restriction through a technical reclassification of their employment relationship (e.g., as independent contractor rather than employee), while the substantive nature of the engagement remains equivalent to the prohibited relationship.
A licensed professional engineering role in which a former senior public official voluntarily or mandatorily abstains from participation in procurement and contracting matters before their former public employer or related agencies for a defined period following departure from public service, bearing obligations to honor the spirit of revolving-door constraints and avoid circumventing cooling-off requirements through employment classification subterfuge.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A senior licensed professional engineering role held by a public official who transitions from a municipal engineering leadership position to private employment with a firm that conducted business with the municipality during their tenure, generating ethical obligations regarding conflicts of interest, public trust, and the spirit of professional conduct codes even absent explicit contractual prohibitions.
an embargo or 'cooling off' period, often one-year duration, can ameliorate such concerns
A professional practice framework specifying an embargo or waiting period (typically one year) during which a transitioning public official or engineer voluntarily abstains from participation in procurement matters or related activities before former public agencies, designed to ameliorate conflicts of interest arising from revolving door employment transitions
[Case 96] A professional practice framework specifying an embargo or waiting period (typically one year) during which a transitioning public official or engineer voluntarily abstains from participation in procurement matters or related activities before former public agencies, designed to ameliorate conflicts of interest arising from revolving door employment transitions.
Cooling-Off Period Sufficiency Assessment Constraint
Approximately one-year after ABC Engineering completes the peer review, the state agency issues an RFP soliciting proposals for design-build services to complete the major road transportation project.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that completed an independent external peer review of a project assess whether a cooling-off period of approximately one year between completion of the peer review and issuance of a design-build RFP for the same project is sufficient to mitigate the conflict of interest arising from privileged access to non-public project information — establishing that the one-year interval is a relevant but not automatically dispositive factor, and that the sufficiency of the cooling-off period must be assessed in light of the nature and scope of the insider knowledge gained, the degree to which that knowledge remains competitively advantageous, and applicable state law requirements.
Cooperative Disclosure Pathway Available State
Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work
State in which a licensed professional engineer who is obligated to report a peer's ethical or legal violation has access to a cooperative, private disclosure pathway — such as a confidential discussion with the State Board involving the violating engineer's knowledge and approval — that may satisfy the reporting obligation while minimizing unnecessary injury to the peer's professional standing, reputation, or practice.
Cooperative Impaired Practice Complicity Recognition Capability
Engineer Intern C is not yet a licensed professional engineer but an intern, and thus is working within the safety net of Engineer B's guidance and direct supervision. While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility.
Capability of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer to recognize when their own professional actions — including performing substantive engineering design work and preparing construction drawings under an arrangement with a medically or cognitively impaired supervisor — constitute ethical complicity in unlicensed or inadequately supervised practice, even when the intern is not subject to legal censure under the state engineering practice act, and to correctly identify the ethical obligations triggered by that recognition including refusal, escalation, and reporting.
Professional principle requiring engineers who have jointly presented findings and recommendations to a client or governing body to act in concert — though not identically — when escalating safety concerns after their engineering judgment is overruled, such that the coordinated nature of their original engagement creates a shared but individually dischargeable obligation to pursue formal escalation together
Corrective Action Follow-Through Monitoring After Verbal Out-of-Scope Report Capability
At the same time, the Board was of the opinion that Engineer A had an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action was taken by the public agency.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally reported an out-of-scope safety observation through the client chain — and who has agreed not to include the observation in the final written report — to recognize the continuing professional obligation to follow through and monitor whether the public agency takes correct corrective action within a relatively short period of time, and to assess whether the absence of corrective action triggers an obligation to escalate the matter to public authorities independently.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has confronted a client about an environmental or legal violation — and received the client's assurance that remedial steps will be taken — to monitor the situation over time until sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been fully remediated in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the ability to assess the adequacy of remediation progress, identify when promised corrective action is not being taken, and determine when the monitoring obligation has been discharged.
Corrective Action Follow-Through Monitoring Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally reported an out-of-scope safety observation through the client chain — and who has agreed not to include the observation in a formal written report — to follow through to ensure that correct corrective action is taken by the responsible public agency within a relatively short period of time, and to escalate reporting to public authorities if corrective action is not taken within that period, recognizing that the agreement to withhold the finding from the formal report is conditioned on the expectation that the client chain will ensure appropriate corrective action.
[proethica-intermediate] Duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (NSPE I.1)
Corrective Action Monitoring Sub-Consultant Engineer
Engineer A has an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action is taken by the public agency
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, having verbally reported an out-of-scope safety-relevant observation to the prime consultant or client and documented it in field notes, bears a continuing obligation to follow through and verify that the client or public agency takes appropriate corrective action — and to consider independent escalation to public authorities only if corrective action is not taken within a reasonable period.
Corrective Action Options Identification and Presentation for Illegal Traffic Hazard Obligation
This might include heightened law enforcement on the parkway and ramps, closing down traffic on the affected exits, a design accommodating commercial vehicles, or some other method for the protection of the inspection and construction employees as well as others
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a foreseeable safety hazard from illegally operating prohibited vehicles on a restricted roadway adjacent to a construction worksite to identify and present to the responsible supervisor a range of corrective action options — including heightened law enforcement, traffic closure of affected exits, design accommodation for prohibited vehicle types, or other protective measures — so that the supervisor and employing contractor can make an informed decision about which corrective measure to implement before scaffolding design is finalized and construction commences.
Corrective Action Pre-Construction Resolution Identification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer designing temporary construction infrastructure on an active roadway to identify, develop, and present to supervisors a range of specific corrective action options — such as heightened law enforcement, traffic lane closure, design accommodation for prohibited vehicles, or other protective measures — that must be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the infrastructure, ensuring that the safety hazard is resolved before construction workers are exposed to the identified risk.
Corrective Action Pre-Design Completion Prerequisite Constraint
appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding by Engineer A and OPQ Construction
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a foreseeable safety hazard to workers arising from illegal third-party conduct at a worksite must ensure that appropriate corrective action has been considered and initiated — through supervisor notification, DOT engagement, law enforcement notification, or design modification — before finalizing and implementing the scaffolding or temporary structure design, prohibiting the engineer from completing and submitting the design as if the hazard does not exist when the hazard has been personally observed and reported but not yet addressed.
Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Calibration Obligation
In such cases, professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact to determine, after pointing out the situation to the client and relevant authorities, how far the obligation to seek corrective action extends — recognizing that this determination is itself a professional ethical judgment requiring calibration to the nature, imminence, and breadth of the risk, and that the engineer cannot simply stop at the first disclosure but must actively assess whether further pursuit is warranted.
Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Determination Obligation
professional engineers must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation to seek corrective action reaches.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers a public safety risk to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities notified to the imminence and breadth of the risk — distinguishing between situations requiring a full-bore multi-authority campaign (imminent, widespread danger such as a bridge collapse) and situations requiring a more limited but still multi-step escalation (non-imminent but potentially widespread danger such as a subdivision structural defect) — and to fulfill the escalation level appropriate to the specific risk profile rather than defaulting to either the minimum or maximum response.
Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Self-Calibration After Initial Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact and made initial disclosures — including advising the client and contacting a regulatory official — to determine, through professional ethical judgment, how far the obligation to seek corrective action extends beyond those initial steps, recognizing that the obligation is not discharged by a single unanswered phone call, and that the scope of pursuit must be actively assessed and re-assessed as circumstances evolve, including determining when the obligation has been sufficiently discharged.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact and made initial disclosures to determine, through professional ethical judgment, how far the obligation to seek corrective action extends — recognizing that this determination requires calibration to the nature, imminence, and breadth of the risk, that the engineer cannot simply stop at the first disclosure, and that the scope of pursuit must be actively assessed and re-assessed as circumstances evolve, including determining when the obligation has been sufficiently discharged.
Corrective Action Pursuit Scope Self-Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact and made initial disclosures to determine, through professional ethical judgment, how far the obligation to seek corrective action extends — recognizing that this determination requires calibration to the nature, imminence, and breadth of the risk, that the engineer cannot simply stop at the first disclosure, and that the scope of pursuit must be actively assessed and re-assessed as circumstances evolve, including determining when the obligation has been sufficiently discharged.
[Case 132] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact and pointed it out to a client and regulatory authority to determine, through principled professional judgment, how far the obligation to seek corrective action extends — including assessing whether the initial notification was sufficient, whether follow-up escalation is required given unresponsiveness, and what additional steps must be taken to discharge the professional obligation, consistent with the principle that pointing out a concern does not automatically discharge the full professional duty.
Corrective Action Scope Proportionality Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact calibrate the scope and intensity of corrective action pursuit to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified danger — establishing that non-imminent, localized risks require proportionate graduated escalation (client notification, written follow-up, supervisor escalation) rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent, widespread dangers, and prohibiting both under-response (treating non-response as discharge) and over-response (treating every structural concern as requiring immediate multi-authority mobilization).
[Case 132] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact calibrate the scope and intensity of corrective action pursuit to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified danger — establishing that non-imminent, localized risks require proportionate graduated escalation (client notification, written follow-up, supervisor escalation) rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent, widespread dangers, and prohibiting both under-response and over-response.
Corrective Stormwater Remediation Design Capability
Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
Technical capability to design and specify a workable corrective stormwater management system for a subdivision whose original design failed to comply with municipal post-development peak flow requirements — including identifying feasible remediation alternatives, performing hydrological analysis to confirm regulatory compliance of the corrective design, and producing construction-ready plans sufficient to bring the subdivision into compliance and protect affected property owners.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical capability to design stormwater management systems that adequately protect surface water watersheds and drinking water sources, incorporating protective measures, environmental compliance requirements, and risk mitigation strategies
Corrosion Control Pre-Condition Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer advising a public water authority on a proposed change in water supply source to explicitly disclose, prior to any decision to proceed, that adequate corrosion control infrastructure must be in place before the source change occurs in order to prevent lead leaching from aging service pipes into drinking water at levels exceeding regulatory standards, and to communicate the specific capital investment and timeline required to achieve that pre-condition.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer advising a public water authority on infrastructure changes with public health implications to ensure that the authority's decision-makers have complete, accurate, and understandable information about the public health risks of proposed courses of action — including the specific populations at risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, and the consequences of deferring protective measures — so that the authority can make a genuinely informed decision rather than proceeding on incomplete or minimized risk information.
Corrosion Control Pre-Condition Technical Assessment Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer evaluating a water source change to identify, analyze, and communicate the specific infrastructure pre-conditions — including corrosion control system design, capital investment requirements, and construction timelines — that must be satisfied before a change in water supply source can be safely implemented without causing lead leaching from aging service pipes in excess of drinking water standards.
Corrupt Payment Prohibition in Professional Engagement Procurement
Under the laws of Engineer A's home country, it is not illegal for individuals and companies to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials.
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineers are prohibited from offering, authorizing, or facilitating cash payments, kickbacks, gifts, or in-kind property to public officials or decision-makers in order to obtain, retain, or influence the award of professional engineering work — regardless of whether such payments are legal under applicable domestic or foreign law — because such payments corrupt the integrity of the professional selection process, undermine fair competition, and constitute deceptive and dishonest conduct incompatible with professional engineering ethics
Corrupt Procurement Competitive Disadvantage Non-Excuse Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's competitive disadvantage resulting from compliance with the NSPE Code of Ethics in markets where corrupt payment practices are prevalent does not excuse, justify, or mitigate the engineer's obligation to comply with the Code — prohibiting the engineer from invoking competitive harm or market disadvantage as a defense to ethics violations, and establishing that the integrity of the profession and public welfare take precedence over the engineer's individual competitive position, as established by BER Cases 76-6 and 96-5 and the categorical rejection of situational ethics.
Corrupt Procurement Domestic-Foreign Analogy Recognition Capability
This approach is not dissimilar to the arguments advanced by those who have so recently been revealed as offering financial payments to public officials to influence the award of contracts for architect-engineer services.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize the structural and ethical equivalence between domestic corrupt procurement practices (e.g., financial payments to public officials to influence AE contract awards) and foreign corrupt procurement practices (e.g., gift-giving to foreign government officials to secure engineering contracts) — including the ability to apply the same ethical condemnation to both configurations, to identify when a 'foreign context' framing is being used to obscure the fundamental equivalence of the corrupt conduct, and to resist the argument that geographic or legal differences between the two contexts justify differential ethical treatment.
Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a substantial risk to life, property, and environmental welfare to determine — and communicate to the client — that when a client's legitimate cost-reduction interest is weighed against an apparent substantial risk to life and property, the safety consideration must prevail, and that the engineer cannot subordinate the professionally determined safety standard to the client's economic preference.
Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination and Communication Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a substantial risk to life, property, and environmental welfare to determine and communicate to a client that the client's legitimate cost-reduction interest, when weighed against the apparent substantial risk to life and property, must yield to the safety consideration — including the ability to articulate the specific risk magnitude, explain why cost savings do not justify accepting the identified risk level, and maintain this determination in the face of client pressure to adopt a less stringent standard.
Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Non-Subordination Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer has determined that a client's cost-reduction interest conflicts with a professionally grounded safety standard, the safety consideration must prevail — prohibiting the engineer from subordinating the paramount public safety obligation to the client's legitimate but lesser economic interest, and establishing that the magnitude of the identified risk to life, property, and environmental welfare is the controlling factor in the cost-benefit determination.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from structuring an advisory report or professional recommendation in a manner that subordinates long-term public welfare considerations — such as sustained grid reliability and protection of vulnerable populations — to short-term gains — such as carbon footprint reduction, cost savings, or political expediency — establishing that the engineer's obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount requires explicit identification and disclosure of long-term welfare trade-offs when short-term benefits are presented, as established by BER Case 98-5 (grandfathering ordinance for short-term economic gain) and the principle that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to public health and safety.
Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
A private development client role that retains a consulting engineer for infrastructure design and permitting, bears authority over project scope and budget decisions, and directs the engineer to forgo recommended specialized technical analyses on cost grounds unless required by regulatory authorities, thereby generating a conflict between client cost-minimization authority and the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public safety and disclose known risks.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A private development client role that commissions engineering and environmental analysis for real estate development projects, bearing authority over project scope decisions and subject to environmental regulatory compliance obligations.
Cost-Objecting Safety Staffing Refusing Client
A client stakeholder role in which a party retains an engineer for complete engineering services on a project, is advised by the engineer that a specific safety staffing measure (such as a full-time on-site project representative) is required due to the dangerous nature of the construction phase, and refuses to authorize that measure on grounds of cost — thereby generating pressure on the engineer to abandon the safety recommendation and proceed without the required safeguard.
some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline
A stakeholder role filled by community members who participate in public engagement processes and express preference for lower-cost, faster-implementation infrastructure approaches, whose input engineers must faithfully represent alongside competing stakeholder preferences when advising clients.
Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A proceeded with the work on the project even though he had recommended that a full-time, on-site project representative should be hired.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has made a professionally grounded safety recommendation — such as requiring a full-time on-site project representative for a potentially dangerous construction project — to refrain from abandoning that recommendation and proceeding with the work when the client objects on cost grounds, recognizing that proceeding without the recommended safety measure constitutes a subordination of the paramount public welfare obligation to the client's economic concerns, in violation of NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Self-Application Capability
when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A abandoned the ethical duty and proceeded with work on the project
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has made a professionally grounded safety recommendation — based on education, expertise, and experience — to recognize that a client's cost-driven objection to that recommendation does not constitute a professionally acceptable basis for abandoning it, and to refrain from proceeding with the project as though the safety concern had been resolved, understanding that capitulating to cost pressure while believing the project to be potentially dangerous constitutes a violation of the paramount public safety obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified safety code violations or hazardous conditions during professional services to recognize that the professional obligation requires either insisting that the client take appropriate remedial action or refusing to continue work on the project — and that going along without dissent or comment, or making only a brief mention in a confidential report, does not satisfy this obligation — consistent with the principle that the NSPE Code uses the term 'paramount' to describe the engineer's obligation to protect public safety, health, and welfare.
Cost-Reduction Pressure Overriding Safety Timeline State
In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source
State in which a governing authority or client has directed that a project proceed on an accelerated schedule primarily to achieve financial savings (e.g., reduced expenditures, lower rates), despite professional engineering recommendations that a longer timeline is necessary to implement safety-critical infrastructure improvements before the change takes effect, creating direct tension between economic objectives and public health protection obligations.
A private development client role that retains a consulting engineer for coastal risk assessment and design standard recommendations, bears authority over project scope and construction cost decisions, and refuses to adopt the engineer's recommended protective design standard (e.g., 100-year storm surge elevation) on grounds of increased cost, thereby generating a conflict between client cost-minimization authority and the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public safety in the absence of applicable building codes.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A private development client role that retains a consulting engineer for infrastructure design and permitting, bears authority over project scope and budget decisions, and directs the engineer to forgo recommended specialized technical analyses on cost grounds unless required by regulatory authorities, thereby generating a conflict between client cost-minimization authority and the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public safety and disclose known risks.
County Building Official Certificate of Occupancy Authority
A public regulatory official role responsible for issuing certificates of occupancy following construction or modification of buildings, bearing authority to investigate structural safety concerns raised by licensed engineers, and whose failure to respond to engineer notifications of structural hazards triggers the engineer's obligation to escalate to supervisors and other authorities having jurisdiction.
County Building Official Non-Response to Safety Notification State
Engineer A brought his concerns to Client B and also contacted the county building official who did not return Engineer A's phone call
State in which a professional engineer has reported a structural safety concern to a county building official — the primary regulatory authority with jurisdiction over building safety — and that official has failed to return the engineer's communication, leaving the safety concern unaddressed by the authority with direct jurisdiction and triggering an obligation to escalate to the official's supervisor and other agencies with jurisdiction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer has formally notified a regulatory or governmental authority (such as a county building official) of a documented structural safety concern, and that authority has failed to respond, acknowledge, or take any action — leaving the safety risk unaddressed and creating an obligation on the engineer to escalate to supervisory or alternative authorities rather than treating the initial notification as sufficient discharge of their safety obligation.
County Commission Bridge Reopening Authority
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission.
An elected county legislative body that receives public petitions and engineering safety reports regarding compromised bridge infrastructure, holds authority to reopen or keep closed a bridge under a safety restriction, and whose decisions to override engineering safety recommendations generate escalation obligations for the responsible licensed engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] An elected or appointed political official role (such as a city council chairman) who holds authority over municipal resource allocation and ordinance-making, engages with professional engineers on matters of public safety and code enforcement, and may propose politically-motivated compromises that trade public safety concessions for resource commitments, generating engineer obligations to refuse such bargains and insist on paramount public health and safety standards.
County Commission Informed Bridge Safety Briefing Obligation
Engineer A explained the extent of the damages and the efforts under way to replace the bridge.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who has closed safety-critical infrastructure to provide the governing authority — such as a county commission — with a complete, accurate, and technically grounded briefing on the extent of structural damages, the basis for the closure decision, and the efforts underway to replace or remediate the infrastructure, so that the governing body can make an informed decision about reopening requests and resist political pressure based on accurate technical information.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who has closed safety-critical infrastructure based on professional engineering judgment to maintain that closure determination against public pressure — including organized rallies, petitions, and political demands for reopening — and to explain the technical basis for the closure to governing authorities, rather than yielding the professional safety determination to community sentiment or political pressure.
County Construction Period Services Staff Engineer
the County decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services
A county government engineering staff role responsible for providing construction administration and inspection services during the construction phase of a public infrastructure project, bearing obligations to identify and resolve design deficiencies, manage field revisions, and protect the public investment within budget constraints.
County Drainage Board Regulatory Authority
Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing
A public regulatory body or board responsible for reviewing and approving drainage, stormwater, and site development plans for proposed construction projects, bearing authority to approve or deny projects and obligations to consider public safety, environmental protection, and technical concerns raised during public hearings.
County Engineer Own-Plans Recommendation Prohibition Constraint
then as county engineer recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving as a county engineer — with institutional authority and responsibility to submit engineering plans to the county planning board with a recommendation for approval or rejection — from exercising that recommendation authority with respect to plans that the engineer personally prepared in a private consulting capacity, establishing that the governmental recommendation role creates an irresolvable conflict of interest when the plans under review are the engineer's own private work product, regardless of whether the engineer also holds a voting seat on the approval body, as established by the principle that the county engineer's responsibility to submit plans with recommendation is itself a form of governmental participation in the approval process.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who serves in a public official capacity — including as a governmental engineer or planning board member — from participating in the review, recommendation, or approval of engineering plans that the engineer prepared in a private consulting capacity, establishing that the dual role creates an irresolvable conflict of interest regardless of whether the engineer abstains from the final vote, because the engineer's governmental role creates influence over the approval process that cannot be neutralized by partial recusal, as established by BER Case 67-1 and the principle that the engineer would be in violation of the NSPE Code even if not a member of the planning board by virtue of the county engineer's responsibility to submit plans with recommendation.
John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice.
A licensed professional engineering role in which a county engineer simultaneously serves as a voting member of the county planning board, bearing obligations to avoid voting on or recommending approval of plans that the engineer prepared in a private consulting capacity, and more broadly to avoid any situation in which governmental decision-making authority is exercised over the engineer's own private work product.
County Engineer Self-Designed Plan Approval Recommendation Non-Issuance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a county engineer — with authority to recommend approval or rejection of subdivision plans submitted to the county — to refrain from issuing any recommendation for approval of plans that the engineer personally prepared in a private consulting capacity, recognizing that: (1) such a recommendation is structurally self-serving as it advances the engineer's private commercial interest; (2) it eliminates the independent technical review that the county engineer recommendation function is designed to provide; (3) it divides the engineer's loyalty between the county (which requires objective review) and the private client (whose plans the engineer prepared); and (4) no disclosure can restore the objectivity that the recommendation function requires.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time county engineer who simultaneously acts as a private consultant submitting plans of a private developer to the county for approval to refrain from offering any recommendation for approval of those plans in the county engineer capacity — recognizing that such a recommendation is both ethically impermissible (as it divides loyalty between the county and the developer) and logically superfluous (as it is axiomatic that an engineer will not submit plans that do not represent the best interests of the client, making any approval recommendation a useless act that merely creates the appearance of independent review where none exists).
County Engineer Self-Designed Plan Recommendation Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as county engineer to recognize that recommending approval of subdivision or development plans that the engineer personally prepared in a private consulting capacity is ethically prohibited — understanding that such a recommendation is both structurally conflicted (the engineer cannot objectively evaluate their own work) and a useless act (the engineer is axiomatically assumed to favor their own design) — and to correctly refrain from issuing any such recommendation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal engineer who simultaneously acts as a private consultant submitting plans of a private developer to the municipal authority for approval to recognize that offering any recommendation for approval of those privately-submitted plans in the municipal engineer capacity is ethically prohibited — understanding that such a recommendation is both a useless act (because the engineer is axiomatically assumed to believe the plans represent the client's best interests) and a structural conflict that compromises the integrity of the municipal review function — and to correctly refrain from issuing any such recommendation.
County Engineer Submission Authority Over Own Private Plans State
He would be in violation of Section 8(b) even if he had not been a member of the county planning board by virtue of his employment as the county engineer and the responsibility of the county engineer to submit the plans to the county planning board with recommendation.
State in which a professional engineer employed as a county engineer holds the institutional responsibility to submit engineering plans to the county planning board with a recommendation — and simultaneously prepares those same plans in private practice — creating a dual-layer conflict: both as the submitting authority and as the private preparer of the submitted work. This state is distinct from mere board membership because the conflict arises from the engineer's official submission and recommendation duty, independent of any voting or deliberative role.
County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort
A county government client role that retains consulting engineering services for public infrastructure design projects, bearing authority over contractor selection, project award decisions, and construction-period service arrangements, while subject to obligations of prudent procurement, quality oversight, and stewardship of public resources.
A county-level governmental body (typically county commissioners) holding statutory authority to appoint individuals to fill mandated public engineering or surveying positions, bearing obligations to ensure appointees meet legal qualification requirements and possess competencies commensurate with the position's technical duties.
A local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
A local government ordinance specifying that the position of county surveyor must be filled by a licensed Professional Engineer, establishing minimum credential requirements for public engineering oversight roles at the county level
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State statutory provisions defining the legal scope of engineering practice, establishing licensure requirements, and specifying what activities constitute the practice of engineering under state law, including review and approval of engineering design documents
Covert Advisory Continuation Safety Preservation Obligation
Engineer A continues in her capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City Administrator C.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been formally removed from responsible charge of a safety-critical engineering system by a non-engineer administrator — and who is prohibited from openly advising — to continue providing covert technical guidance to the unlicensed technician now assigned to that system, as a partial ethical compliance measure to preserve public safety, when the engineer reasonably concludes that the technician lacks the competence to manage the system safely without guidance and that overt advisory would result in termination without improving safety outcomes.
Covert Advisory Continuation Under Termination Threat State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having been formally removed from engineering responsibility and placed under threat of termination for further communication, continues to provide technical guidance to the unlicensed person now nominally in charge — covertly and without the administrator's knowledge — creating tension between the engineer's obligation to protect public safety through available means and the ethical constraints on deception and insubordination.
Covert Advisory Continuation as Partial Ethical Compliance Principle
Professional virtue principle recognizing that when an engineer is removed from formal responsibility for a safety-critical system and replaced by an unlicensed person, the engineer's continued covert advisory engagement with that unlicensed person — without the knowledge of the suppressing supervisor — represents a partial but ethically insufficient response to the underlying public safety obligation. While such advisory continuation may mitigate immediate risk, it does not discharge the engineer's full obligation to escalate the improper assignment and the public safety threat through legitimate channels.
Covert Competitive Solicitation Without Employer Disclosure State
Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them
State in which an engineer, while still actively employed and bound by faithful agent obligations, engages in promotional or solicitation activities targeting the employer's current clients for personal competitive benefit, without disclosing those activities to the employer. This state is distinct from post-employment competition (which is generally permissible) because the engineer retains full access to employer client relationships, confidential information, and goodwill at the time of solicitation, and the concealment of the activity from the employer constitutes both a breach of the duty of loyalty and a 'questionable method of competition' under professional codes. The state activates regardless of whether the engineer is certain the conduct is unethical — knowledge that the conduct is 'problematic and dubious' is sufficient.
Covert Competitor Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from providing critical opinions about a competitor's professional work to a client or procurement authority in a manner that is structured — whether explicitly or implicitly — to damage the competitor's professional reputation, prospects, or employment, particularly when the critiquing engineer stands to benefit competitively from the damage caused, as established by NSPE Code Section III.7 prohibiting engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers, and BER case precedent establishing that competitive self-interest does not justify disparagement of incumbent engineers.
Covert Fund Diversion Formational Harm Prohibition Constraint
The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a senior licensed professional engineer who supervises an engineer intern from directing or facilitating a covert diversion of public funds through design manipulation — not only because such diversion violates employer policy and professional ethics — but also because the act of directing an intern to participate in or witness such conduct causes independent formational harm to the intern's professional identity and ethical development at a critical early-career stage, establishing that the supervisory relationship amplifies the ethical gravity of policy-circumventing directives and prohibits senior engineers from using the supervisory relationship as a mechanism to normalize unethical conduct.
Covert Fund Diversion Recognition and Refusal Capability
If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed design manipulation — including artificially creating utility conflicts to shift cost allocations — would result in the covert diversion of public agency funds to benefit a third party without authorization, and to correctly classify such diversion as an ethical violation regardless of the beneficial purpose of the diversion, and to refuse to participate in or facilitate such diversion.
Covert Peer Review Client Instruction Resistance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client to review an active incumbent engineer's work to resist and decline to comply with client instructions that would require the reviewing engineer to conduct the review covertly — without the incumbent's knowledge — recognizing that such instructions, even when framed as legitimate confidentiality directives, cross the boundary from permissible client loyalty into facilitation of an ethical violation against a professional peer, and that the reviewing engineer's obligation to the incumbent's professional dignity and collegial rights supersedes the client's interest in confidential review.
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
State in which a client has instructed a reviewing engineer to conduct a peer review of another engineer's work without notifying or obtaining consent from the engineer whose work is under review, creating direct tension between client authority and the professional obligations of transparency, fairness, and courtesy owed to the reviewed engineer.
Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a peer review from proceeding with that review without first notifying the engineer whose work is being reviewed, arising from NSPE Code Section III.7.a and professional courtesy norms establishing that an engineer may not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, and prohibiting client instructions that direct the reviewing engineer to conduct the review covertly.
secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village
State in which a public agency engineer has directed or is directing a design modification that would result in the covert diversion of public funds — without employer knowledge, authorization, or disclosure — to benefit a third party outside the scope of the funded project, such that the diversion would never be discovered absent voluntary disclosure, creating direct tension between the engineer's fiduciary duty to the employer, obligations of truthfulness, and the apparent public benefit of the diversion.
Covert Review Instruction Resistance Capability
Capability to recognize and resist client instructions to conduct a professional review, assessment, or evaluation of another professional's work in a covert manner — without the knowledge or consent of the professional whose work is being reviewed — and to correctly identify that such instructions, even when issued by a legitimate client, violate professional ethics obligations of fairness, transparency, and collegial respect, and must be declined regardless of client authority.
Covert Safety Advisory Continuation Ethical Permissibility Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been formally removed from responsible charge of a safety-critical system to assess the ethical permissibility of continuing to provide informal safety guidance to the unlicensed technician who has been assigned responsible charge in their place — recognizing that such covert advisory activity, while procedurally irregular, may be ethically justified as a means of preserving public safety when the alternative is leaving an unlicensed technician to manage a safety-critical system without any engineering guidance, and to calibrate the scope and limits of such advisory activity.
Covert Safety Advisory Continuation Ethical Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has been formally removed from engineering responsible charge of a safety-critical system by administrative order — but who retains professional knowledge of imminent danger — is ethically permitted, and in some circumstances obligated, to continue providing covert technical guidance to the unlicensed person placed in charge, when the purpose is to prevent imminent public harm and no other safety mechanism is available, while simultaneously pursuing formal escalation through proper authorities.
Creative Alternative Generation Obligation in Condemnation-Adjacent Scenarios
Among these might include an offer to physically move the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers retained by public agencies who identify that the technically optimal or legally available solution to a public infrastructure challenge would require condemnation or forced displacement of unwilling property owners to actively identify and present creative alternative solutions — such as physical relocation of structures, modified alignments, or compensatory arrangements — that may achieve the public purpose while avoiding or mitigating the most severe impacts on affected parties, before recommending condemnation as the default resolution
Creative Amicable Resolution Alternative Generation Capability
there may be alternative creative solutions that might exist to address the issue. Among these might include an offer to physically move the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency who has identified that the technically optimal infrastructure route would require condemnation of a historically significant or otherwise sensitive private property to generate, evaluate, and present creative alternative solutions — such as physical relocation of the historic structure to another appropriate site — that may achieve the public agency's infrastructure objectives while avoiding or minimizing harm to the affected property owner, and to advise the client on the feasibility and reasonableness of such alternatives as part of the professional obligation to seek amicable resolution.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to move beyond binary design alternatives and generate creative third-path or hybrid solutions that combine elements of competing approaches to mitigate disadvantages of each — including combining traditional engineered systems with sustainable provisions to address disproportionate community impacts — drawing on analogical reasoning from prior cases and applying engineering creativity to resolve tensions between competing design objectives.
Creative Engineering Title Misuse Prohibition Obligation
Use of creative titles such as 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer' and 'Sanitation Engineer' misrepresents qualifications.
Duty of engineering firms, government agencies, and licensed professional engineers to refrain from using or permitting the use of creative or variant engineering titles — including 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' 'Sanitation Engineer,' 'Transportation Engineer,' or similar formulations — for individuals who do not meet applicable state licensure and educational requirements, recognizing that such creative titles misrepresent qualifications and convey a false impression of professional competence to the public.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer, engineering firm, and government agency to refrain from assigning, permitting, or facilitating the use of engineering titles — including 'Engineer,' 'Transportation Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' or creative variants — by individuals who do not meet the educational, examination, and licensure requirements established by applicable state law, and to correct any such misrepresentation upon discovery, so that the public is not misled about the qualifications of individuals performing engineering-related functions.
Creative Engineering Title Misuse Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize when engineering firms, government agencies, or employers are using creative or non-standard engineering titles — such as 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' 'Sanitation Engineer,' or 'Transportation Engineer' — to assign engineering-related authority or responsibilities to individuals who do not hold engineering degrees or professional engineering licenses, and to correctly identify such title usage as misrepresentation of qualifications that violates professional ethics codes and state licensing act provisions, regardless of whether the title is industry-standard or agency-conventional.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when an individual or organization is using engineering-related titles — such as 'Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' or 'Transportation Engineer' — in a manner that misrepresents the holder's professional qualifications, licensure status, or engineering credentials to clients, the public, or regulatory bodies, and to identify the professional and ethical obligations triggered by such misrepresentation, including obligations to report and to refuse to acquiesce in the misrepresentation.
Creative Hybrid Solution Design Capability
In BER Case 15-12, the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another highway route — could the farmhouse be relocated?
Capability to move beyond binary design alternatives and generate creative third-path or hybrid solutions that combine elements of competing approaches to mitigate disadvantages of each — including combining traditional engineered systems with sustainable provisions to address disproportionate community impacts — drawing on analogical reasoning from prior cases and applying engineering creativity to resolve tensions between competing design objectives.
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having identified a binary choice between two design approaches each carrying distinct harms or tradeoffs, is obligated to explore and present hybrid or creative third-path solutions that may mitigate the adverse impacts of either option alone, rather than limiting analysis to the original binary framing.
Creative Solution Generation Obligation in Disproportionate Impact Scenarios
In BER Case 15-12 , the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another highway route — could the farmhouse be relocated?
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who identify that available design alternatives will impose disproportionate adverse impacts on identifiable communities — particularly underserved or vulnerable populations — to engage in creative problem-solving beyond the binary of available options, seeking hybrid, phased, or innovative design combinations that reduce disparate impacts, rather than treating the choice as limited to the presented alternatives
Creative Third-Path Solution Exploration Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer confronted with design alternatives that each carry significant disadvantages — including disproportionate harm to vulnerable communities — to explore and present creative hybrid or third-path solutions that may mitigate or resolve the ethical tension between the alternatives, rather than limiting analysis to a binary choice, consistent with the engineer's role as a trustee applying full professional knowledge and creativity to the client's problem.
Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
A licensed professional engineer who owns or leads an engineering firm and distributes promotional materials (e.g., brochures, resumes) that misrepresent the firm's personnel or qualifications — either by listing departed employees as current staff or by implying expertise the firm no longer possesses — bearing obligations of truthfulness, avoidance of deceptive acts, and faithful agency toward prospective clients.
Credential-Misrepresenting Marketing Director Engineer
the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature
A licensed engineer serving in a marketing or business development director role within a consulting firm who, upon being notified of a material misrepresentation of a staff engineer's discipline in promotional literature, acknowledges the error but fails to correct it within a reasonable period, thereby perpetuating deceptive representations to prospective clients and bearing obligations of honesty, accuracy in firm marketing, and timely correction of known misrepresentations.
Credential Designation Non-Misleading Presentation in Expert Reports Obligation
Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who provides forensic expert opinions or expert testimony to present credential designations in report signature blocks and professional communications in a manner that does not create a false or misleading impression about the engineer's jurisdictional licensure status — including refraining from using alternative credential titles (such as 'Consultant' or board certification designations alone) in a manner that obscures the absence of required licensure in the jurisdiction of the engagement, when a reasonable reader of the report could interpret the credential presentation as implying full jurisdictional qualification to provide engineering expert services.
Credential Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Constraint
In BER Case 92-2, an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE. The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months, the documents had not been corrected.
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that when a licensed engineer or engineer intern discovers that firm advertising, official documents, or agency records misrepresent their own or associates' qualifications — including listing unlicensed personnel under engineering titles or listing an EI as a PE — the engineer must report the misrepresentation to the responsible party and, if not corrected within a reasonable time after actual knowledge is established, escalate the matter to appropriate authority, prohibiting indefinite passive acceptance of known credential misrepresentation after initial notification has failed to produce correction.
Credential Misrepresentation by Firm State
BER Case 95-10 considered an engineering firm, ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer.'
State in which a professional firm has listed or continues to list personnel with titles implying engineering qualifications — such as 'Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' or 'Associate Engineer' — when those individuals do not hold the requisite engineering degrees or professional licenses, and the firm has been notified of the misrepresentation but has failed to correct it within a reasonable period, creating ongoing ethical and legal exposure for the firm and its licensed members.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional presents credentials or titles that imply or assert engineering qualifications in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice engineering, creating a gap between represented status and actual licensure standing, and triggering obligations of accurate self-representation under state registration laws.
Credential Omission in Professional Submission State
State in which a licensed professional engineer signs or submits a professional report, opinion, or document using only non-licensure credentials (such as a board certification or consultant title) while omitting any reference to their licensure status — where that omission is material because the submission is made in a context where licensure is legally required or professionally relevant, thereby creating a misleading impression about the professional's standing and compliance with applicable requirements.
Credential Presentation Accuracy in Forensic Engagements
Professional principle requiring engineers who provide forensic evaluations, expert opinions, or litigation support to present their credentials — including licensure status, jurisdictional scope of licensure, and professional certifications — in a manner that is complete, accurate, and not misleading by omission, so that retaining counsel, opposing parties, and courts can accurately assess the engineer's qualifications and legal authority in the relevant jurisdiction
Credential Presentation Accuracy in Testimonial Contexts
Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X. Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who provide testimony — whether at regulatory hearings, legal proceedings, or public forums — to present their credentials, employment affiliations, and the capacity in which they are testifying in a manner that is complete, accurate, and not misleading by omission or implication, prohibiting the use of governmental or institutional affiliations to lend unwarranted credibility to testimony that is in fact provided in a private consulting capacity
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who provide forensic evaluations, expert opinions, or litigation support to present their credentials — including licensure status, jurisdictional scope of licensure, and professional certifications — in a manner that is complete, accurate, and not misleading by omission, so that retaining counsel, opposing parties, and courts can accurately assess the engineer's qualifications and legal authority in the relevant jurisdiction
Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was charged with the criminal offense of theft in the first degree and pleaded guilty.
Obligation of a professional engineer who has been convicted of a criminal offense involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — including theft, fraudulent check-writing, or filing fraudulent tax returns — to recognize that such conviction is categorically incompatible with the character standards required of a licensed professional engineer, and to submit to appropriate professional disciplinary review by the relevant ethics body or state registration board, which is in turn obligated to treat such conviction as falling within its disciplinary jurisdiction regardless of whether the offense was directly related to engineering practice.
Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a criminal conviction for an offense involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — such as theft, fraudulent check-writing, or filing fraudulent tax returns — is inherently incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice, and to understand that such a conviction triggers professional ethics obligations including submission to disciplinary review, honest disclosure to employers, and cessation of conduct that further damages the profession's image.
Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure Obligation
During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm and while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks.
Obligation of a professional engineer who has been convicted of a criminal offense — particularly one involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — to honestly disclose that conviction when accepting engineering employment, recognizing that an employer extending professional trust and employment opportunity to an engineer during or after a criminal proceeding is entitled to make an informed decision, and that accepting employment without disclosure of a material criminal conviction constitutes a deceptive act incompatible with the honesty standards required of professional engineers.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional engineer completing an employment application that asks about prior disciplinary history to disclose all adjudicated findings of professional misconduct — including revocations or suspensions of any professional license held in connection with engineering practice, not only the engineering license itself — recognizing that an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing is categorically distinct from a mere allegation and cannot be withheld on privacy grounds, because it constitutes an actual demonstrated violation rather than an unproven charge.
Criminal Conviction Honest Employment Disclosure Execution Capability
During his period of probation he was employed as an engineer by another firm
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been convicted of a criminal offense — particularly one involving dishonesty or fraud — to honestly and proactively disclose that conviction and any associated probationary status to a prospective or current employer at the time of employment acceptance, recognizing that concealment of such material information constitutes a deceptive act that violates professional ethics obligations of honesty and integrity, and that the employment relationship requires candor about facts material to the employer's decision to hire.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a professional engineer to recognize that the employer-employee relationship is founded on trust and candor, and that failure to proactively disclose material adjudicated misconduct or professional disciplinary history at the outset of the employment relationship — before or at the time of hiring — undermines the foundational trust upon which the relationship depends, and to act accordingly by making such disclosures proactively rather than waiting to be asked or relying on narrow question wording to avoid disclosure.
Criminal Conviction Public Identification Reputational Harm to Profession Principle
The newspaper accounts of the case noted that he was an engineer.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer is publicly identified in their professional capacity in connection with a criminal conviction — particularly for offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — the reputational harm extends beyond the individual to the engineering profession as a whole, creating a professional ethics dimension to what might otherwise appear to be purely personal conduct, and triggering the profession's legitimate interest in addressing such conduct through its disciplinary mechanisms
Criminally Convicted Practicing Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer has been charged with, tried, and/or convicted of a criminal offense (e.g., theft, fraud) while actively practicing engineering, bearing obligations to uphold the integrity and public trust of the profession notwithstanding personal legal jeopardy, and whose criminal conduct — whether directly related to engineering practice or not — reflects on professional fitness and may trigger disciplinary action by licensure boards.
Cross-Case BER Precedent Consistent Safety Obligation Application Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer and professional ethics review bodies recognize and apply the consistent line of BER precedent cases addressing the fundamental obligation to protect public health and safety — establishing that the accumulated weight of multiple BER decisions on the paramount public safety obligation constitutes the operative ethical standard, that the same core principle applies consistently across varying factual contexts (confidentiality agreements, attorney-directed concealment, business relationship preservation, public and employment pressure), and that an engineer's failure to act in accordance with this consistent precedent line cannot be excused by the novelty of the specific factual circumstances.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer confronting a public health, safety, or welfare situation recognize and apply the accumulated body of BER precedent — including cases involving failing bridges reopened under public pressure, post-construction modifications causing structural failure, adjacent property safety violations, and parkway restriction violations — to calibrate the appropriate scope, urgency, and form of professional response, prohibiting the engineer from treating each situation as entirely novel when established BER precedent provides directly applicable guidance on the duty to act and the form of required action.
Cross-Case Ethical Precedent Analogical Transfer Capability
Although the facts in the present case are somewhat different than those in Case 96-4, the Board of Ethical Review believes that several points discussed in the previous case are pertinent to the case at hand.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to recognize when the ethical principles established in a prior BER case — even one involving a different technology domain — are analogically transferable to a novel technology case, including the ability to identify the shared normative structure across cases (e.g., new standard awareness in software testing and harm minimization in autonomous vehicles), articulate the points of similarity and difference, and apply the transferable principles to reach justified conclusions in the novel case.
Cross-Case Precedent Consistency in Public Safety Obligation
Meta-principle of ethics code interpretation establishing that the NSPE Board of Ethical Review applies a consistent approach across cases involving direct threats to public health and safety — such that the fundamental obligation to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare is not diminished by variations in the specific factual context (confidentiality agreements, attorney direction, business relationship motives, or public pressure) — and that this consistency itself constitutes evidence of the non-negotiable character of the public safety obligation.
Cross-Case Precedent Consistent Public Safety Obligation Application Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics review bodies to recognize and apply the principle that the fundamental obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare — as established through a consistent line of precedent cases — applies uniformly across different factual contexts involving direct threats to public safety, including cases involving confidentiality agreements, attorney-directed confidentiality, business relationship preservation, and political or employment pressure, and that this consistency of application is itself an ethical requirement.
Cross-Case Precedent Safety Obligation Consistent Application Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of professional ethics review bodies to recognize that the fundamental obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare — as established through a consistent line of precedent cases addressing confidentiality agreements, attorney-directed confidentiality, business relationship preservation, and political or employment pressure — applies uniformly across different factual contexts involving direct threats to public safety, and that this consistency of application is itself an ethical requirement that engineers must internalize and apply when facing novel safety dilemmas.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics review bodies to recognize and apply the principle that the fundamental obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare — as established through a consistent line of precedent cases — applies uniformly across different factual contexts involving direct threats to public safety, including cases involving confidentiality agreements, attorney-directed confidentiality, business relationship preservation, and political or employment pressure, and that this consistency of application is itself an ethical requirement.
Cross-Context BER Precedent Principle Extraction and Transfer Capability
While the facts in BER Case 85-5 are quite different than those in this case, the Board's discussion of the issues are quite relevant.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve a BER precedent case with materially different facts from the present case, extract the underlying normative principle from that precedent — distinct from its specific factual holding — recognize that the principle remains pertinent despite the factual differences, and apply the extracted principle to the present case to reach a justified ethical conclusion, as illustrated by the application of BER 85-5's confirmation-bias-resistance principle to a construction dispute resolution context.
Cross-Council Regulatory Testimony Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who serves as a member of one governmental or regulatory council from testifying on behalf of a private party before a parallel or equivalent council in another jurisdiction on subject matter within the same regulatory domain — establishing that the engineer's membership on a governmental advisory or regulatory body creates an appearance of impropriety and a structural conflict of interest when the engineer simultaneously advocates for private industry interests before an equivalent body, regardless of whether the two councils are in different states, because the dual role compromises the engineer's impartiality and the public's trust in both councils.
Cross-Cultural Corrupt Custom Diplomatic Navigation Capability
Roe is advised by a high-ranking government official of that country that it is established practice for those awarded contracts to make personal gifts to the governmental officials who are authorized to award the contracts, and that such practice is legal in that country
Capability of a licensed professional engineer operating in a foreign country with established corrupt procurement customs to navigate the social and diplomatic dimensions of refusing to participate in those customs — including the ability to decline gift-giving expectations carefully, delicately, and diplomatically without causing unnecessary offense, while maintaining firm ethical non-participation, and to identify culturally sensitive refusal strategies that preserve professional relationships to the extent possible without compromising ethical standards.
Cross-Cultural Corrupt Custom Diplomatic Sidestepping Obligation
engineers who are faced with this type of ethical quandary should make every attempt to carefully, delicately, and diplomatically sidestep the matter in order to remove any appearance of an ethical conflict
Duty of a licensed professional engineer practicing in an international or cross-cultural context — where local customs, cultural traditions, or host-country practices involve conduct that would violate the NSPE Code of Ethics — to make every attempt to carefully, delicately, and diplomatically sidestep or navigate around the ethically conflicting custom or expectation, so as to remove any appearance of an ethical conflict, rather than either passively acquiescing to the corrupt practice or engaging in culturally insensitive confrontation that could damage professional relationships or dishonor other engineers.
Cross-Cultural Engineering Practice Consistent Ethical Compass Obligation
engineers must always follow their ethical compass on matters of this type, and there can be no doubt that as a matter of general principle, engineers must be consistent in their ethical conduct regardless of where it is the engineer is rendering professional services
Duty of a licensed professional engineer rendering professional services across national borders or in culturally diverse international contexts to maintain a consistent ethical compass — applying the same fundamental ethical principles regardless of geographic location, cultural context, or the prevailing norms of the host country — recognizing that consistency in ethical conduct is a non-negotiable requirement of professional engineering practice and that the engineer's ethical obligations travel with the engineer regardless of where services are rendered.
Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflict Diplomatic Sidestepping Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer who encounters culturally embedded practices that conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics — such as gift-giving customs or facilitation payment expectations in foreign markets — to make every careful, delicate, and diplomatic attempt to sidestep or avoid the ethical conflict rather than either directly participating in the prohibited conduct or making a blunt confrontational refusal, as established by NSPE Code Section II.1.d and BER Case 96-5, which recognized that engineers must be sensitive to differing cultural traditions while maintaining consistent ethical conduct.
Cross-Disciplinary Threshold Recognition for Specialized Referral Capability
Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is not a specialist in a particular technical subdiscipline to apply sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of that subdiscipline to form a reasonable professional judgment about whether a proposed project raises technical questions that exceed the engineer's own competence and require engagement of a specialized subconsultant — including the ability to recognize the boundary between general engineering judgment and specialized modeling expertise, and to act on that recognition by recommending specialized engagement rather than proceeding beyond competence boundaries.
Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Design Engineer
Engineer B's degree and background is in chemical engineering
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer whose academic degree and professional background are in a discipline other than structural or civil engineering (e.g., chemical engineering) is retained to perform structural design work — such as foundation or footing design — for which they lack demonstrated training or experience, bearing heightened obligations to disclose competence limitations, decline work outside their domain, and protect public safety from structurally deficient designs.
Cross-Discipline Out-of-Competence Structural Footing Design Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that designing structural footings and foundations requires specific training and experience in structural/geotechnical engineering that is not conferred by a chemical engineering degree alone, and to correctly identify when another engineer's academic background and apparent lack of subsequent training in foundation design constitutes a competence deficiency for that specific structural task — including the ability to distinguish between general engineering education and the specialized competence required for structural footing design.
Cross-Discipline PE Appointment Public Role Domain Non-Sufficiency Constraint
Engineer A, a P.E. with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer's licensure in one engineering discipline (e.g., chemical engineering) does not constitute sufficient qualification for appointment to or acceptance of a public technical role whose core duties require competence in a materially different engineering discipline (e.g., surveying, highway engineering), prohibiting both the appointing authority from making such an appointment and the engineer from accepting it on the basis of cross-discipline PE licensure alone, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and the principle that PE licensure is discipline-specific in its competence implications even when formally general in its credential scope.
Cross-Discipline PE License County Surveyor Non-Sufficiency Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of the appointing authority — to recognize that holding a PE license in one engineering discipline (e.g., chemical engineering) does not confer, imply, or substitute for the technical competence required to fulfill the duties of a county surveyor position, which demands knowledge of surveying practice and highway engineering; including the ability to distinguish between satisfying a credential-based ordinance requirement (PE licensure) and satisfying the substantive competence requirement (domain-relevant education and experience) that underlies the ethical obligation to accept only work within one's area of competence.
Cross-Discipline PE License Non-Sufficiency for Structural Assignment Acceptance Obligation
While it is true that the engineer meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose academic degree and professional experience are confined to a non-structural engineering discipline (e.g., chemical engineering) to recognize that holding a PE license does not satisfy the ethical obligation to practice only within areas of competence, and therefore to decline acceptance of structural engineering assignments — including structural footing design — for which the engineer lacks the requisite education, training, and experience, regardless of the legal permissibility of the assignment under the engineer's PE license.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to verify, before accepting an assignment, that their competence — established by both education AND relevant experience in the specific technical field — is sufficient to perform the work to professional standards, recognizing that general engineering qualification or competence in a related domain does not substitute for demonstrated competence in the specific technical domain of the assignment, and that accepting assignments outside domain-specific competence is unethical regardless of general engineering credentials.
Cross-Domain Infrastructural Linkage Conflict Recognition Obligation
While the scope of his responsibilities (state highways vs. airports) are clearly different, there may be situations and circumstances where his role in one or another area could be compromised.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who hold dual public-private roles in nominally distinct infrastructure domains (e.g., highways and airports) to recognize and account for the practical, operational, and decisional linkages between those domains when assessing conflict of interest — because infrastructure systems are interconnected such that decisions in one domain predictably affect the other, making apparent domain-separation an insufficient basis for concluding that no conflict exists
Cross-Domain License Revocation Employment Application Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer completing an employment application disclose the revocation of a non-engineering professional license (such as a contractor's license) when that revocation reflects on the engineer's character, honesty, or fitness for professional practice — prohibiting the engineer from exploiting the narrow wording of a question referencing only engineering license discipline to omit an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing in a closely related occupational domain, particularly when the underlying misconduct (e.g., allowing unlicensed use of a license number) is directly analogous to integrity violations that would be material to a prospective engineering employer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer who has been the subject of an actual adjudication of wrongdoing — including revocation or suspension of any professional or occupational license, disciplinary finding, or formal sanction — must disclose that adjudicated finding on employment applications that ask about prior disciplinary history, even when the application question is narrowly worded to reference only engineering licenses, when the adjudicated wrongdoing reflects on the engineer's professional character, honesty, or fitness for practice — prohibiting the use of narrow application wording as a basis for omitting adjudicated findings that a reasonable employer would consider material, as established by BER Case 03-6.
Cross-Domain License Revocation Non-Disclosure State
Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application
State in which a professional engineer has had a license in a domain adjacent to or separate from professional engineering (such as a contractor's license) revoked or suspended for conduct reflecting on professional integrity, and has not disclosed this revocation on an employment application that narrowly asks only about professional engineering license discipline — creating a tension between the technical accuracy of the negative answer and the ethical obligation to disclose material information about professional conduct, particularly where the underlying conduct (e.g., allowing unlicensed use of a license number) reflects on the engineer's fitness and integrity regardless of the license domain.
Cross-Domain Same-Client Government-Private Consulting Non-Engagement Obligation
Engineer A reviews private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates submitted from outside entities (developers, municipalities) for traffic signal work performed on the state highway system.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency in a specific technical domain to refrain from accepting private consulting engagements — even in a technically distinct domain — when the private clients are the same entities (municipalities, developers, or regulated parties) that the engineer reviews, oversees, or interacts with in the governmental role, recognizing that the shared client relationship creates a structural conflict of interest that compromises the engineer's objectivity in the governmental review function and creates an appearance of impropriety regardless of whether the technical subject matter formally overlaps.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a governmental role to recognize that conflicts of interest may arise not only from direct overlap between governmental and private domains, but also from interrelated domains where decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere — including infrastructure domains that are physically or functionally linked — and to refrain from accepting private consulting engagements in any domain sufficiently interrelated to the governmental role that objectivity in either role could be compromised, even when the formal scope of responsibilities appears distinct.
Cross-Domain Same-Client Public-Private Conflict Prohibition
Relational principle prohibiting engineers from accepting private consulting work for clients (municipalities, developers, or other entities) over whom the engineer exercises any governmental authority, review power, or funding influence — even when the private consulting domain differs from the governmental domain — because the engineer's public position creates structural leverage, real or perceived, over those same entities as private clients, compromising the objectivity of both the public review function and the private advisory relationship
Cross-Domain Shared-Client Government-Private Conflict Boundary Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency to recognize that even when a proposed private consulting engagement involves a technically distinct domain from the engineer's governmental responsibilities, the shared client relationship — where the same municipalities interact with the engineer in both the governmental and proposed private capacity — creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest that cannot be resolved through disclosure alone, and to correctly determine that the cross-domain shared-client overlap is ethically equivalent to a same-domain conflict for purposes of the faithful agent obligation.
Cross-Employer Project Credit Attribution State
Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts
State in which a professional engineer or firm includes in qualifications proposals or marketing materials projects that were contracted and completed under a prior employer's name, presenting those projects as part of the individual engineer's experience — where the engineer did exercise responsible charge and the projects did not involve proprietary concepts — creating an obligation to assess whether the attribution practice satisfies applicable professional rules requiring identification of the prior employer and the engineer's specific role.
Cross-Firm Design Safety Deficiency Escalation Obligation
The engineers of Company 'B' in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that the final product might be unsuitable for the purposes of the ultimate users, and that the equipment, if built according to the original plans and specifications, might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it.
Duty of engineers employed by a production or manufacturing firm who, upon reviewing plans and specifications received from a designing firm, identify miscalculations or technical deficiencies that could endanger the lives of persons in proximity to the equipment, to escalate those safety concerns through their employer to the designing firm, and — if the designing firm dismisses the concerns and the production employer instructs continuation — to refrain from proceeding and to pursue further escalation to appropriate authorities, recognizing that the cross-firm nature of the relationship does not diminish the paramount public welfare obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a consulting firm who observes a safety hazard outside the contracted scope of work — particularly one affecting a third party with no contractual relationship to the engineer, the firm, or the client — to escalate the observed safety concern first through the employer/prime consultant as the appropriate organizational intermediary, rather than acting unilaterally, so that the firm can coordinate the appropriate response, determine whether direct notification to the affected third party is warranted, and fulfill the collective public welfare obligation through proper channels.
Cross-Firm Honest Safety Disagreement Impartial Expert Referral Obligation
Where, as in this case, there is an apparent honest difference of opinion as to the safety features of the machinery between the engineers of Company 'A' and the engineers of Company 'B' it would be appropriate for the question to be referred to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination
Duty of parties to an honest, irreconcilable technical safety disagreement between engineers of a designing firm and engineers of a production firm — where both sets of engineers hold genuine professional opinions about the safety of the design — to refer the dispute to an impartial body of experts (such as a technical engineering society in the relevant field of practice) for an independent determination, rather than allowing the designing firm's unilateral assertion of adequacy to govern production decisions affecting public safety, recognizing that honest disagreement among qualified engineers is a legitimate feature of engineering practice that requires impartial resolution rather than hierarchical override.
Cross-Firm Irreconcilable Safety Dispute Impartial Arbitration Referral Capability
Company 'A' replied that its engineers felt that the design and specifications for the equipment were adequate and safe and that Company 'B' should proceed to build the equipment as designed and specified.
Capability of parties to an irreconcilable technical safety dispute between engineers of a designing firm and engineers of a production or manufacturing firm to recognize that the dispute cannot be resolved through bilateral negotiation alone, and to identify, agree upon, and refer the matter to an appropriate impartial technical engineering society or expert panel in the relevant field of practice for independent adjudication — understanding that this referral mechanism protects public safety, preserves professional integrity, and provides an objective resolution pathway that neither party can unilaterally control.
Cross-Firm Safety Concern Graduated Internal Escalation Capability
The engineers of Company 'B' called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company 'A' of the concern expressed by the engineers of Company 'B'.
Capability of engineers employed by a production or manufacturing firm who have identified safety deficiencies in plans received from a designing firm to escalate those concerns through their own employer's officials as the appropriate internal channel — ensuring that the concern reaches decision-making authority within the production firm before any external escalation — while recognizing that internal escalation is a necessary but not sufficient step when the employer subsequently overrides the safety concern.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who identifies subcontractor specification deficiencies on a defense or public-works project to pursue graduated internal escalation through a sequence of written memoranda to management superiors — documenting concerns, seeking resolution at each level, and building a formal record — before requesting an external ethics review or escalating beyond the employing organization, recognizing that internal escalation through documented channels is the appropriate first step.
Cross-Firm Safety Dispute Impartial Technical Resolution Principle
Professional principle establishing that when two firms' engineers reach irreconcilable technical conclusions on a safety-critical matter — and neither firm's internal hierarchy can resolve the dispute — the appropriate mechanism for resolution is referral to an impartial, independent technical body (such as a professional engineering society panel) rather than unilateral assertion of authority by either party, recognizing that honest professional disagreement on safety matters requires objective third-party adjudication to protect the public.
Cross-Firm Technical Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
Capability of engineers employed by a production or manufacturing firm, upon reviewing plans and specifications received from a designing firm, to identify miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that would render the final product unsuitable for its intended purpose or dangerous to persons in proximity to it — including the ability to distinguish between minor technical imperfections and deficiencies that rise to the level of a genuine public safety concern requiring escalation.
Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?'
Professional honesty principle establishing that when an employment application asks specifically about discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering' or suspension/revocation of a professional engineering license, a disciplinary action taken against a separate contractor's license — not the PE license — falls outside the literal scope of the question, and a negative answer is not per se deceptive; however, where the underlying conduct giving rise to the contractor license revocation reflects on the engineer's professional character and integrity, the engineer bears a residual obligation to consider whether the overall impression created by the negative answer is materially misleading
Cross-Profession Ethics Code Scope Analogical Reasoning Capability
Thus it is that the NSPE Code of Ethics embraces language similar to that found in the codes of other professions to the effect stated in §3.
Capability of a professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to reason by analogy across professional codes of ethics — recognizing that the NSPE Code of Ethics embraces language similar to that found in the codes of other professions regarding integrity, honor, and dignity — and to use this cross-professional convergence as evidence that the foundational purpose of professional codes of ethics is broadly to protect public confidence in professional integrity, not narrowly to regulate only conduct during the performance of professional services.
Cross-Side Employment Adversarial Participation Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A worked for a private engineering company in the field of water rights.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from employment with one party in an active adversarial proceeding to employment with an opposing party in that same proceeding from actively participating in the proceeding on behalf of either party — arising from the principle that the engineer's prior specialized knowledge, insider access, and dual loyalty exposure create an irresolvable conflict of interest that cannot be mitigated by disclosure alone, requiring full recusal and organizational isolation from the matter, as established by NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions and the principle that engineers must not participate in proceedings where prior employment creates an appearance of compromised impartiality.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public official or reviewing engineer who previously held a principal or ownership role at a private firm must recuse themselves from administrative review, approval, or oversight of work submitted by that former firm, prohibiting the exercise of official authority over former employers regardless of the elapsed time since departure, when the prior relationship creates an appearance of compromised impartiality that cannot be adequately mitigated.
Engineer A resigned from their firm and went to work for the State – the State being an objector to the analysis Engineer A prepared
State in which a professional engineer transitions from employment with one party in an active legal or regulatory proceeding to employment with an opposing or objecting party in that same proceeding, creating ongoing obligations of loyalty and confidentiality to the former employer and client that constrain participation in the new role.
Cross-Side Retention After Confidential Plaintiff Access State
Engineer A, throughout his first analysis, had access to information, documents, etc., that were made available to him by the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner
State in which a professional engineer, having been retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding and having gained access to that party's confidential documents, communications, and strategic information in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner, is subsequently approached by the opposing party to provide services in the same proceeding — creating a structural prohibition on accepting the cross-side retention because the engineer cannot credibly partition the confidential knowledge gained from the first party, and because the opposing party's motivation for retention is transparently linked to the engineer's prior access rather than independent professional merit.
Crutch Pile Adequacy Collaborative Verification and Reporting Obligation
Engineer A also should have worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two-crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that an inadequate remediation measure has been implemented on safety-critical infrastructure — such as crutch piles installed on a deteriorated bridge without follow-up inspection — to collaborate with the engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the remediation design is structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the appropriate supervisory authority.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that an inadequate remediation measure has been implemented on safety-critical infrastructure — such as crutch piles installed on a deteriorated bridge without follow-up inspection — to collaborate with the engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the remediation design is structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the appropriate supervisory authority, so that an informed decision about continued use of the infrastructure can be made.
Crutch Pile Adequacy Verification Collaborative Obligation
Engineer A should have also worked with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two-crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that an inadequate remediation measure has been implemented on safety-critical infrastructure — such as crutch piles installed on a deteriorated bridge without follow-up inspection — to collaborate with the engineering firm that prepared the original inspection report to determine whether the remediation design is structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to the appropriate supervisory authority, so that an informed decision about continued use of the infrastructure can be made.
Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Assessment Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to collaborate with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original signed and sealed inspection report to jointly evaluate whether a proposed remedial structural solution — such as the installation of crutch piles under a bridge — combined with a weight restriction is structurally adequate to address the identified deficiencies, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to supervisory and governing authorities.
Crutch Pile Remediation Adequacy Collaborative Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who observes that an inadequate or potentially insufficient remediation measure has been implemented on safety-critical infrastructure — such as installation of crutch piles on a structurally compromised bridge — to work collaboratively with the consulting engineering firm that prepared the original signed and sealed inspection report to determine whether the remediation design is structurally adequate, and to report the findings of that collaborative assessment to supervisory and regulatory authorities.
Current-Client Covert Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Obligation
An engineer is expected to act, at all times in professional matters for the employer, as a faithful agent and trustee (Section I.4.).
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has received a termination notice from an employer but remains actively employed during a notice period to refrain from covertly soliciting the employer's current clients — as distinguished from former clients — for competing professional services without disclosing such solicitation activity to the employer, recognizing that: (1) the faithful agent and trustee duty under NSPE Code Section I.4 requires loyalty, good faith, and disclosure to the employer; (2) soliciting current clients (not former clients) while still employed constitutes a direct breach of that duty; and (3) the failure to disclose the solicitation activity to the employer independently compounds the violation by denying the employer the opportunity to respond. This obligation is distinct from the permissible post-departure solicitation of former clients established in BER Case 77-11, which applies only after all employment ties have been severed.
Current-Client Covert Solicitation While Employed Faithful Agent Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has received notice of forthcoming termination but remains actively employed is absolutely prohibited from covertly contacting the employer's current clients to offer competing professional services without disclosing such solicitation to the employer — distinguishing this from permissible post-departure solicitation of former clients (BER Case 77-11) on two critical grounds: (1) the clients solicited are current, not former, clients of the employer, and (2) the solicitation occurs while the engineer is still employed and bound by faithful agent duties of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure; establishing that the duty to disclose is an essential aspect of faithful agent obligations and that covert promotional activity to the employer's detriment is irreconcilable with those obligations, as established by NSPE Code Section I.4 and BER Case 82-5.
Current-Client Solicitation During Active Employment Prohibition Principle
In the instant case Engineer A notified 'current' and not former clients of Engineer B and offered professional services to them.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who is still actively employed — even after receiving a termination notice — may not ethically contact the employer's current clients to offer competing professional services without the employer's knowledge and consent; the prohibition distinguishes between soliciting 'current' clients (prohibited while employed) and 'former' clients (permissible after departure), and between employer-initiated termination (which relaxes some departure constraints) and the specific act of covert competitive solicitation of active client relationships during the employment period, which constitutes a breach of the faithful agent and trustee duty regardless of the termination's origin.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that an engineer who is still employed must not enter into promotional efforts or negotiations for work on behalf of a competing practice while still in that employment — but that the prohibition applies only to actual promotional efforts and negotiations, not to internal discussions or conceptual planning among prospective co-founders; the principle draws a literal boundary between actionable solicitation (prohibited) and mere ideation or discussion (permissible), requiring that the employed engineer's competitive activities remain dormant until after departure
Current-Employment Specialized Knowledge Disclosure Obligation Before Competitive Use
A related question under the facts of this case is whether Engineer A violated a duty of disclosure to all interested parties by entering into promotional efforts for work as a principal in connection with work for which Engineer A had gained a particular and specialized knowledge.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who, while still employed, seeks to use particular and specialized knowledge gained during employment to solicit or secure work for a competing enterprise must make full disclosure to the current employer before doing so; the obligation is stronger than the post-departure specialized knowledge constraint because the employment relationship is still active and the duty of loyalty and good faith is at its highest; the principle applies even when the engineer has received a termination notice, because the employment relationship subsists until actual departure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that while engineers generally have freedom to depart from an employer and compete for the employer's clients, this freedom is constrained when the departing engineer gained particular and specialized knowledge in the course of employment on specific projects — in which case the engineer must obtain the consent of the former employer or the affected clients before performing substantially similar work for a competing firm; the constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general prohibition on competition
Current Client of Ethics-Complained Engineer
the Board believes Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information
A client stakeholder role borne by a party currently receiving engineering services from an engineer who is simultaneously subject to a pending ethics complaint filed by a different former client, and who has a potential interest in being informed of the complaint, but against whom the engineer bears no automatic disclosure obligation — only a prudential obligation to weigh disclosure of background information.
Current Employer Adversarial Strategy Confidentiality Constraint
In his current employment, he has been isolated from the State's case in the matter
Confidentiality constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer employed by a party to an active adversarial proceeding to protect the employer's litigation strategy, internal technical assessments, legal positions, and case preparation materials from disclosure to any external party — including former employers, former clients, or opposing parties — arising from the faithful agent duty under NSPE Code Section II.4 and the principle that an engineer's employment relationship creates a confidentiality obligation with respect to employer-privileged information that is independent of and coexists with any prior confidentiality obligations to former clients.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has left public employment from exploiting confidential information, insider knowledge, privileged contacts, or non-public procurement intelligence acquired during their public tenure to benefit a private employer in subsequent dealings with the former public agency, arising from NSPE Code Section III.4 and the principle that confidentiality obligations survive employment termination.
Current Employer Litigation Strategy Confidentiality Capability
In his current employment, he has been isolated from the State's case in the matter, and his current position does not include opposing this or other cases.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency that is a party to litigation or a regulatory proceeding to recognize and protect the confidentiality of the employer's litigation strategy, internal technical assessments, and legal positions — including understanding that this obligation persists even when the engineer has prior professional connections to the opposing party, and that the isolation arrangement imposed by the employer is the operative mechanism for honoring both the confidentiality duty and the conflict-of-interest recusal.
Current Employer Litigation Strategy Confidentiality Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency that is a party to litigation or a regulatory proceeding to refrain from disclosing the agency's litigation strategy, internal technical assessments, legal positions, or confidential deliberations to any external party — including former private clients or employers who are adverse parties in the same proceeding — recognizing that the faithful agent duty to the current employer encompasses protection of legally sensitive information even when the engineer has personal or professional connections to the adverse party.
Current Employment Voluntary Disability Disclosure Prudential Weighing Obligation
After considerable thought, Engineer A considered the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts.'
Obligation of a licensed professional engineer who has not previously disclosed an ADA-protected personal condition to a current employer, and who is now considering voluntary disclosure, to carefully and deliberately weigh the professional, relational, and personal consequences of disclosure — including the risk of employer bias, career limitation, and client interaction concerns — against the personal benefits of authentic self-advocacy and professional identity, recognizing that while disclosure is not ethically required, the decision to disclose voluntarily must be made with full awareness of its potential consequences and with the understanding that the engineer's 25-year record of competent performance is the strongest available evidence against any bias-based adverse inference.
Cyclical Professional Liability Environment State
We recognize that the professional liability environment is cyclical, fluid and subject to change
State in which the professional liability insurance market is recognized as inherently cyclical and subject to change, requiring ethics boards and practitioners to interpret professional obligations in light of current market conditions rather than fixed historical rules, and reserving the right to modify ethical interpretations as market conditions evolve.
Cyclical Professional Liability Market Re-Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to periodically re-assess the professional liability insurance market to determine whether coverage has become reasonably available and affordable, and to adjust contractual indemnification arrangements accordingly — recognizing that the professional liability insurance market is cyclical and fluid, and that the ethical permissibility of client indemnification clauses is contingent on current market conditions rather than conditions that existed at the time the clause was originally adopted.
[proethica-intermediate] Obligations that admit justified exceptions under specified conditions (Ganascia 2007)
DOT Bridge Inspection Program Director PE
A licensed professional engineer serving as a director or senior supervisor within a state Department of Transportation bridge inspection program, bearing obligations to receive complete and accurate inspection findings from supervised engineer interns, ensure systemic defects and inspection failures are identified and addressed, and exercise responsible charge over the integrity of the inspection program and public safety of bridge infrastructure.
DOT Highway Project Engineer Intern Under Improper Direction
Engineer Intern D, who is about to sit for the PE exam
An unlicensed engineer intern working within a state Department of Transportation highway project under the supervision of a senior licensed professional engineer, who has independently produced a policy-compliant design and is subsequently subjected to indirect supervisory pressure to revise that design in a manner that would violate agency cost-allocation policy, bearing obligations to resist improper direction, protect public resources, and refuse to participate in design manipulation even when a supervising PE offers to sign off on the revised work.
Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project
A senior licensed professional engineering role within a state Department of Transportation responsible for overseeing highway reconstruction projects, delegating design work to engineer interns, and bearing ultimate supervisory and ethical accountability for design decisions, including obligations to ensure that project designs comply with agency policy, avoid improper manipulation of utility conflict determinations for the financial benefit of third parties, and refrain from directing subordinates to produce designs that circumvent established cost-allocation policies.
State DOT policy unambiguously requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for as part of highway projects, and that other utility work is to be considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local municipality
State Department of Transportation administrative policies governing the allocation of costs between highway project budgets and local municipalities for utility work, distinguishing between unavoidable utility conflicts (DOT-funded) and betterments (municipality-funded), establishing the procedural and financial framework within which DOT engineers must design highway projects affecting existing utilities.
DOT and Law Enforcement Notification Through Appropriate Responsible Party Obligation
It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented prior to the design and assembly of the inspection and construction scaffolding
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a foreseeable safety hazard from illegal vehicle operation on a restricted roadway adjacent to a construction worksite to recognize that notification of state DOT officials and law enforcement may be required — but that such notification is appropriately channeled through the engineer's supervisor or another responsible party within the employing contractor organization — rather than directly by the engineer, unless the supervisor fails to act within a reasonable time, so that the institutional chain of responsibility is respected while ensuring that corrective action is taken before scaffolding design is finalized and construction commences.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material public health, safety, or welfare risk that a client refuses to address through recommended analysis or disclosure to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps — first engaging the client in substantive discussion about the need for evaluation and disclosure, then proposing to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration, and only withdrawing from the project if the client refuses both courses of action — recognizing that withdrawal is the last resort after good-faith escalation efforts have been exhausted, not the first response to client disagreement.
Dam Failure Forensic Investigation Engineer
Engineer A is retained by the U.S. government to study the causes of a dam failure
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a government or institutional client to conduct a forensic investigation into the causes of a dam failure, bearing obligations of objectivity, technical competence, and confidentiality regarding findings developed during that engagement — and bearing a duty to decline subsequent retention by any adverse party in related proceedings arising from the same failure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is initially retained by one party in adversarial litigation to provide forensic analysis and expert opinion, is terminated or withdraws without producing a favorable report, and is subsequently approached by the opposing party to provide a separate and independent analysis, bearing obligations to decline the second engagement due to irresolvable conflicts of interest arising from confidential information, documents, and knowledge gained during the first engagement — regardless of whether the prior relationship has formally ended.
Deadline-Conditioned Building Authority Escalation Capability
If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken to adequately address the situation within a specific period of time, Engineer A would be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has notified a local public official of a structural safety concern and received inadequate response to communicate a conditional escalation threat in writing — clearly stating that if adequate corrective steps are not taken within a specific period of time, the engineer will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials — thereby creating a documented ultimatum that both motivates action and establishes the basis for subsequent escalation to higher building authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has notified a public official of a safety concern and received inadequate response to communicate a conditional escalation threat — clearly stating in writing that if adequate corrective steps are not taken within a specific period of time, the engineer will be required to bring the matter to the attention of higher authorities (county or state building officials) — thereby creating a documented ultimatum that both motivates action and establishes the basis for subsequent escalation.
Deadline-Conditioned County-State Building Official Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has notified a local public official of a structural safety concern and set a reasonable deadline for corrective action to escalate the matter to county or state building officials if the local authority fails to take adequate steps within that specified period, converting the conditional escalation threat into an actual escalation obligation upon deadline expiration.
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Communication Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has notified a public official of a safety concern and received inadequate response to communicate a conditional escalation threat — clearly stating in writing that if adequate corrective steps are not taken within a specific period of time, the engineer will be required to bring the matter to the attention of higher authorities (county or state building officials) — thereby creating a documented ultimatum that both motivates action and establishes the basis for subsequent escalation.
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Threat Obligation
If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period of time, Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate.
Relational principle establishing that when an engineer has notified a responsible authority of a safety concern in writing and the authority has failed to take adequate steps within a reasonable period, the engineer must issue a further written communication specifying a concrete deadline by which adequate action must be taken, and stating explicitly that failure to act by that deadline will compel the engineer to escalate to higher or alternative authorities — converting the open-ended monitoring obligation into a time-bounded ultimatum that preserves the engineer's credibility and creates a clear record of the escalation sequence.
Deadline-Conditioned Escalation to Higher Building Authority Obligation
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond or take action — including a building official who does not return calls — to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to the supervisor of that official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction, rather than treating the initial unanswered contact as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
Deadline-Pressured Premature Deliverable Submission State
he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
State in which a professional engineer, facing a contractually or externally imposed delivery deadline, submits drawings, specifications, or other professional work product before the work is complete or adequate — without seeking an extension, flagging the incompleteness, or otherwise alerting the client or approving authority — thereby allowing time pressure to override the professional obligation to deliver complete and competent work product.
Deceptive Commercial Solicitation Resistance Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from accepting, acting upon, or allowing their professional judgment to be displaced by commercially motivated solicitations that falsely represent that domain-specific experience is unnecessary for engineering practice — including CD-ROM libraries, software kits, or analogous products marketed as enabling engineering design without prior competence — establishing that the persuasive framing of a commercial product does not constitute a professional basis for expanding services into unfamiliar domains, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and the principle that engineers must independently verify their own competence rather than rely on vendor representations.
A commercial entity that markets software or tools to licensed engineers by explicitly encouraging them to offer services in technical domains outside their established competence, misrepresenting the sufficiency of automated tools as a substitute for genuine engineering knowledge, thereby inducing ethical violations and public safety risks.
Deceptive Solicitation Competence Claim Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a commercial solicitation — whether by mail, digital communication, or other medium — makes materially false or misleading claims that software tools, design libraries, or other products can substitute for domain-specific education, training, and experience, enabling the engineer to correctly classify such solicitations as deceptive and to refrain from acting on their claims as a basis for expanding professional service offerings.
Deceptive Solicitation Resistance and Competence Self-Verification Obligation
Engineer A, a chemical engineer with no facilities design and construction experience, receives a solicitation in the mail
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who receives a commercial solicitation — whether by mail, digital communication, or other means — that explicitly encourages accepting work outside the engineer's domain of competence by claiming that a software tool, library, or product eliminates the need for domain-specific experience, to critically evaluate and reject such claims, independently verify whether the tool genuinely substitutes for the requisite education and experience, and refrain from offering services in the solicited domain unless the engineer can independently establish that they possess the competence required by professional standards. The obligation recognizes that the persuasive framing of commercial solicitations (e.g., profit-maximization language, ease-of-use claims) does not diminish the engineer's personal ethical responsibility to assess their own competence before accepting work.
Defense-Side Retention Exploitation Recognition Capability
Attorney X, representing the defendant in the case, learns of the circumstances relating to Engineer A's unwillingness to provide a report in support of Attorney Z's case and seeks to retain Engineer A to provide an independent and separate engineering and safety analysis report.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been terminated by a plaintiff-side retaining attorney to recognize, when subsequently approached by defense counsel in the same matter, that the defense attorney's motivation for seeking retention is specifically tied to the engineer's prior access to plaintiff-side confidential information, case strategy, and documents — and that accepting such retention would constitute exploitation of that prior access regardless of whether the engineer believes they can render an independent opinion, consistent with the principle that the appearance and reality of exploitation are both ethically impermissible.
Defense Attorney Client Retaining Forensic Expert
A defense attorney client role in which an attorney representing a defendant in personal injury litigation retains a licensed professional engineer as a forensic expert witness to conduct investigation and provide testimony, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest, dual roles, and accurate representation of qualifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A legal professional client role in which an attorney retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert or consultant to evaluate a case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in legal proceedings, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations regarding licensure compliance and accurate representation of qualifications.
Defense Contractor Specification Compliance Integrity Obligation
Engineer A is employed by a large industrial company which engages in substantial work on defense projects.
Domain-specific principle establishing that engineers employed on defense projects bear a heightened professional obligation to ensure that subcontractor submissions comply with applicable specifications, because defense project non-compliance implicates both public expenditure of taxpayer funds and national security interests, such that management override of specification compliance concerns on cost or schedule grounds does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation to document and escalate those concerns through available channels.
Defense Expenditure Public Welfare Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation
Engineer A has continued to insist that his employer had an obligation to insure that subcontractors deliver equipment according to the specifications, as he interprets same, and thereby save substantial defense expenditures.
Duty of professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies to situations involving unjustified expenditure of public defense funds and unsatisfactory subcontractor plans — not only to situations involving direct danger to public health or safety — such that an engineer who identifies excessive cost and specification non-compliance on a defense project has a cognizable ethical basis for concern under the Code, even when no immediate physical danger to the public is alleged, because responsible stewardship of public defense resources falls within the broader public welfare obligations of the engineering profession.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies not only to situations involving direct danger to public health or safety but also to situations involving unsatisfactory engineering plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds — and to refrain from dismissing ethics code claims on the narrow ground that no immediate physical danger to the public is alleged, recognizing that the affirmative responsibilities of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and to avoid deceptive acts are independently cognizable ethical duties regardless of whether a safety danger is also present.
Defense Expenditure Public Welfare Non-Safety Mandatory Escalation Non-Compulsion Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when an engineer's documented concern relates to unjustified or wasteful expenditure of public defense funds — including subcontractor specification non-compliance framed in terms of excessive cost and time delays — but does not involve a danger to public health or safety, the engineer does not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy campaigns or escalate to external authorities after the employer has rejected the engineer's reports; the engineer retains a personal conscience right to persist and to seek an ethics review, but must accept the professional consequences of that choice, and the absence of a public health or safety endangerment threshold means the Code's mandatory withdrawal-and-report trigger is not activated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that when an engineer's documented concern relates exclusively to financial impropriety, wasteful expenditure, or unsatisfactory plans — and does not involve a danger to public health or safety — the engineer does not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy campaigns, escalate to external authorities, or make the matter one for public discussion after the employer has rejected the engineer's reports, though the engineer retains a personal conscience right to do so and must accept the professional consequences of that choice, as established by BER Case 82-5 and the principle that the mandatory duty to escalate is triggered by public health and safety risk rather than financial or administrative impropriety alone.
an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors
A professional engineering role in which an engineer employed by a defense industry firm documents and reports to their employer evidence of excessive costs, time delays, or improper contractor conduct, bearing an ethical right (but not an absolute duty) to escalate concerns to external authorities when the employer rejects internal reports, with the decision to escalate treated as a matter of personal conscience rather than a codified professional obligation.
Defense Procurement Specification Compliance Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing engineers employed by defense contractors or subcontractors to ensure that materials, equipment, and designs submitted by subcontractors conform to contractual specifications, including the engineer's duty to flag non-conformances, document deficiencies, and advocate for corrective action to protect public funds and national defense interests.
Defense Procurement Specification Non-Compliance Concern State
Engineer A advised his superiors by memoranda of problems he found with certain submissions of one of the subcontractors
State in which an engineer working on defense-related projects identifies that subcontractor submissions fail to meet contractual specifications, raising concerns about both public fund expenditure and the integrity of defense procurement, where the engineer's employer has declined to enforce the specification requirements the engineer believes are obligatory.
Defense Project Engineer Probation-Threat Pressure Resistance Obligation
management placed a critical memorandum in his personnel file, and subsequently placed him on three months' probation, with the further notation that if his job performance did not improve, he would be terminated.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed on a defense project who faces disciplinary action — including placement of a critical memorandum in a personnel file, probation, or termination threat — for maintaining a professional position on subcontractor specification compliance or public expenditure concerns, to resist yielding that professional position solely due to employment pressure, recognizing that the engineer's professional judgment on specification compliance is not subordinated by organizational disciplinary mechanisms, while also recognizing that if the concern does not rise to a mandatory public safety duty, the engineer may choose to accept management's decision without ethical censure.
Defense Public Expenditure Unjustified Waste Ethics Code Scope Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing bodies to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies to situations involving unjustified expenditure of public defense funds — not only to direct public health or safety hazards — and to correctly apply professional ethical duties including obligations to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards when public funds are at stake in defense procurement contexts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies not only to situations involving direct danger to public health or safety, but also to claims of unsatisfactory plans and unjustified expenditure of public funds — and to correctly resist the temptation to dismiss such cases on the narrow ground that no immediate safety hazard is alleged, instead applying the full scope of professional ethical duties including obligations to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and to avoid deceptive acts.
Defense Public Expenditure Welfare Scope Non-Dismissal Obligation
We could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health or safety, but we think that is too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers engaged in activities having a substantial impact on defense expenditures or other substantial public expenditures that relate to 'welfare' as set forth in Section III.2.b.
Duty of professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies to refrain from dismissing an ethics case on the narrow ground that no public health or safety danger is alleged, when the case involves unjustified expenditure of substantial public defense funds or other substantial public expenditures that relate to 'welfare' under the Code — recognizing that too narrow a reading of ethical duties would exclude cognizable claims involving public welfare impacts beyond direct physical danger.
Defense Subcontractor Specification Compliance Reporting Obligation
Engineer A advised his superiors by memoranda of problems he found with certain submissions of one of the subcontractors, and urged management to reject such work and require the subcontractors to correct the deficiencies he outlined.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer assigned to review subcontractor submissions on a defense project to document and formally report to management superiors all identified deficiencies in subcontractor plans, materials, and equipment — including excessive cost and time delay concerns — through memoranda or other written channels, so that management can make an informed decision about whether to accept, reject, or require redesign of the subcontractor's work, and so that the engineer's professional judgment is formally recorded regardless of management's ultimate disposition.
Defense Subcontractor Specification Compliance Technical Assessment Capability
Engineer A's assigned duties relate to the work of subcontractors, including review of the adequacy and acceptability of the plans for material provided by subcontractors.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer assigned to review subcontractor submissions on a defense project to technically evaluate whether submitted plans, materials, and equipment meet the contractual specifications and applicable engineering standards, identify specific deficiencies, and articulate the technical basis for rejection or redesign — including cost and schedule implications of non-compliant submissions.
Defense Subcontractor Submission Subject
review of the adequacy and acceptability of the plans for material provided by subcontractors
A subcontractor stakeholder role in a defense industry supply chain whose submitted plans, materials, and equipment are subject to review by the prime contractor's engineers for adequacy and specification compliance, and whose work is the subject of internal disputes between reviewing engineers and management regarding acceptance or rejection.
Defense Whistleblowing Employment Price Acceptance Acknowledgment Obligation
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment.
Duty of professional ethics bodies and individual engineers to acknowledge that when an engineer chooses to blow the whistle on defense or public expenditure improprieties — even when doing so is a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory professional duty — the engineer may be required to pay the price of loss of employment, and that this sobering reality does not extinguish the ethical right to blow the whistle but must be weighed carefully before undertaking such action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who faces a choice between fulfilling a mandatory public safety reporting obligation and retaining employment, to accept the potential loss of employment as the cost of fulfilling the ethical obligation — recognizing that the NSPE Code's requirement to report to proper authorities and withdraw from projects involving public safety endangerment cannot be conditioned on employment security, and that the engineering profession's collective obligation to the Code requires individual engineers to bear this cost when necessary.
Defense Whistleblowing Employment Price Personal Conscience Acceptance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who chooses to blow the whistle on employer conduct related to unjustified public defense expenditures or procurement impropriety — as a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty — must accept the potential price of loss of employment as a foreseeable and non-excusing consequence of that personal conscience choice; prohibiting the engineer from treating the prospect of employment loss as a reason to avoid the personal conscience decision, while simultaneously recognizing that the Code does not mandate such whistleblowing when no public health or safety endangerment is present, and that the engineer's choice to proceed despite employment risk is ethically permissible but not required.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who determines that public safety, health, and welfare are endangered must accept the potential loss of employment as a mandatory cost of fulfilling the obligation to report to proper authorities and withdraw from the project — prohibiting the engineer from treating the prospect of employment loss as a sufficient justification for failing to fulfill mandatory safety reporting obligations, and establishing that the Code's requirements in matters of public safety supersede employment self-preservation.
Deferred Problem Resolution Safety Deferral Non-Acceptance Constraint
City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes.'
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from accepting a non-engineer superior's 'we will face the problem when it comes' or equivalent deferral posture as a legitimate resolution of an identified imminent public safety hazard — establishing that temporal deferral of a known safety risk by a non-engineer authority does not discharge the engineer's obligation to escalate, and that the engineer must treat such deferral as a trigger for further escalation rather than as authorization to cease safety advocacy.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from treating a non-engineer manager's unilateral decision to delay, defer, or continue investigating a safety-critical engineering concern as a final or authoritative resolution of that concern — establishing that non-engineer managerial authority does not supersede the engineer's professional safety obligation, and that the engineer must continue escalating until a qualified engineering determination is made or corrective action is taken.
Deferred Safety Implementation Adequacy Assessment Constraint
Engineer B read in the local newspaper that the professional engineer in charge of the water supply division of the State Department of the Environment had approved the change of water source, with a five-year implementation plan to provide updated water treatment.
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a regulatory authority approves a project with a deferred timeline for implementing required safety measures — rather than requiring concurrent implementation — requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identified the original safety risk assess whether the deferred implementation timeline adequately protects public health and welfare during the interim period, prohibiting the engineer from treating regulatory approval with deferred implementation as equivalent to regulatory approval with adequate safety measures, and establishing that the engineer's continuing professional obligation includes evaluating whether the approved deferral period creates an unacceptable residual risk that warrants further escalation.
Deficient Design Harm Materialized State
During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately.
State in which a completed engineering design, produced by a professional who lacked competence in the relevant domain, has been bid, entered construction, and is producing concrete adverse consequences — including field revisions, miscalculated quantities, and excessive remediation burden on the client — thereby confirming that the competence deficiency caused actual harm to the client and public project.
Engineers of Company 'A' prepared plans and specifications for machinery
A professional engineering role in which engineers employed by a manufacturing or design firm prepare plans and specifications for machinery intended for a manufacturing process, where those plans contain miscalculations and technical deficiencies that render the final product potentially unsuitable for its intended purpose and hazardous to persons in proximity, generating obligations of design competence, accuracy, and public safety.
Definite Steps Threshold for Engineer Supplanting Prohibition Activation
Relational principle establishing that the ethical prohibition against one engineer supplanting another does not activate unless and until the client has taken 'definite steps' toward retaining the other engineer — specifically, that the client has informed the other engineer of selection to negotiate for a specific project, or has specifically intended to retain that engineer for the work. Absent such definite steps, a third engineer's acceptance of a direct engagement from the client does not constitute unethical supplanting, even if competing firms had previously proposed that engineer as a sub-consultant. The principle draws a precise threshold between permissible competitive engagement and impermissible displacement of a formally committed professional relationship.
Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Obligation in Retained Engineer Selection
Domain-specific principle establishing that when a contractor or client retains an engineer for a specialized structural or technical task within a design/build project, the retaining party bears an ethical obligation — and co-engineers on the project bear a professional interest — to verify that the retained engineer's academic degree and professional background align with the technical domain of the assigned task, recognizing that a PE license alone does not certify cross-disciplinary competence.
Deliberate Untruth Threshold for Qualification Exaggeration Violation
We hold that the word 'exaggerated' in the code applies only to deliberate untruths of the facts of former employment rather than the emphasis placed on the degree of experience or other qualifications which may be involved.
Professional virtue principle establishing that the ethics code prohibition on 'exaggerating' qualifications in employment listings or professional representations is violated only by deliberate untruths — affirmative false statements of fact about prior employment, credentials, or experience — and does not extend to the degree of emphasis placed on genuine, truthful aspects of an engineer's qualifications; the ethical line is drawn at fabrication or affirmative misstatement, not at favorable but truthful self-presentation, provided the engineer possesses some genuine competence in the area emphasized
Demonstrated Competence Non-Disclosure Materiality Rebuttal Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a professional engineer has maintained a sustained record of competent, successful professional practice across multiple employers and jurisdictions over an extended period without disclosing a personal characteristic (including a disability, medical condition, or other personal attribute), that performance record constitutes affirmative evidence that the undisclosed characteristic is not material to the engineer's professional fitness — constraining the characterization of the non-disclosure as deceptive or material by requiring that materiality assessments account for the demonstrated ability to perform competently without the employer's knowledge of the characteristic, and prohibiting the retroactive imposition of a disclosure obligation based solely on the fact that the characteristic was not disclosed at the time of hiring.
Departed Engineer Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
Engineer B distributed firm brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee both during the notice period and after Engineer A's actual termination
Professional virtue principle requiring an engineer who has departed or given notice of departure from a firm to take affirmative steps — including direct communication with the former employer — to ensure that the firm ceases representing the engineer as a current employee or key personnel in brochures, proposals, and other marketing materials distributed to prospective clients, because continued misrepresentation of the engineer's affiliation misleads prospective clients and implicates the engineer's professional reputation and the integrity of the credential-reliance system.
Departed Engineer Firm Brochure Credential Misuse Correction Obligation
Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
Duty of a professional engineer who has departed or given notice of departure from an engineering firm to take affirmative steps to ensure that the former firm's marketing materials — including brochures, websites, and qualification statements — no longer list the departed engineer as a current key employee or active staff member, recognizing that continued listing after departure constitutes a misrepresentation of the firm's personnel qualifications to prospective clients and the public, and that the departed engineer shares responsibility with the firm principal for correcting such misrepresentation by notifying the firm of the need to update materials and, if necessary, demanding correction.
Departing Employee Specialized Knowledge Competitive Restriction Self-Assessment Capability
Unlike BER Case No. 77-11, it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is departing from an employer firm to self-assess whether they have acquired particular or specialized knowledge during their employment — such as project-specific technical knowledge, proprietary methods, or client-specific information — that would ethically restrict their ability to compete against the former employer or perform work for the former employer's clients without consent, distinguishing cases where such specialized knowledge exists (triggering restriction) from cases where it does not (permitting free competition).
Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honest Representation Capability
Engineer A has contacted Firm X's clients and is making representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, Firm X will be 'hard pressed' to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X's clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer firm and subsequently solicits the former employer's clients to conduct that solicitation with full honesty — accurately representing the former employer's capabilities, refraining from misrepresentation of the former employer's capacity to perform, and ensuring that competitive solicitation materials and communications do not contain false or misleading statements about either the departing engineer's new firm or the former employer firm.
Departing Engineer Former Employer Client Solicitation Honesty Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who solicits a former employer's clients — whether during a notice period or after actual departure — must conduct that solicitation honestly, accurately, and without misrepresentation of the former employer's capabilities, qualifications, or capacity to perform, prohibiting the departing engineer from using the solicitation as an opportunity to disparage the former employer or to make false or misleading statements about the former employer's ability to serve those clients, as established by NSPE Code provisions on non-deception and the prohibition on injuring the professional reputation of other engineers.
Departing Engineer Former Employer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer firm and subsequently solicits the former employer's clients for the engineer's new competing practice to conduct such solicitation honestly, accurately, and without misrepresentation of the former employer's capabilities, capacity, or prospects — including refraining from using knowledge of internal staffing changes (whether caused by the departing engineer or otherwise) as a basis for making misleading or disparaging representations about the former employer's ability to serve those clients.
Departing Engineer Forming Competing Firm and Soliciting Former Clients
Four of the key engineering employees of a firm headed by Engineer A left the firm at the same time following disagreement on certain firm policies and promptly organized a new engineering firm, B
A licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer firm (typically following internal disagreement), co-founds a competing engineering firm, and promptly contacts the former employer's clients — including those with projects under active discussion — to solicit new business, bearing obligations to avoid supplanting the incumbent, to refrain from disparaging the former employer's competence, and to compete fairly without misuse of confidential client relationships developed during prior employment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineer who leaves an employer firm, makes representations about future non-competition, and then establishes or joins a competing firm, bearing obligations of honesty in representations about competitive intent, avoidance of deceptive or disparaging competitive practices, and fair dealing with the former employer's clients and staff.
Departing Engineer Starting Competing Firm
Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X
A licensed professional engineer who leaves an employer firm, makes representations about future non-competition, and then establishes or joins a competing firm, bearing obligations of honesty in representations about competitive intent, avoidance of deceptive or disparaging competitive practices, and fair dealing with the former employer's clients and staff.
Departure Independent Motivation Non-Disclosure Ethical Sufficiency Constraint
in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's failure to disclose to an employer that a client has expressed interest in the engineer's independent services — prior to the engineer's resignation — does not constitute an ethical violation when the engineer's decision to depart and establish an independent firm is demonstrably motivated by factors independent from any relationship the engineer may be developing with that client, distinguishing this situation from cases where the departure is primarily motivated by the client's overture, and establishing that the ethical significance of the non-disclosure is substantially reduced when the departure motivation is independently grounded, as established by NSPE BER analysis comparing Case 86-5 (disclosure made) with the present case (no disclosure, but independent motivation demonstrated).
Departure Representation Scope Accuracy Constraint
Engineer A had represented that he was going to start his own one-person consulting firm, Firm Y, and that he would not be in the position of competing with Firm X.
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who makes representations to a former employer about the intended scope and nature of post-departure professional activity — including representations about firm size, competitive posture, and client base — must ensure those representations accurately reflect genuine intentions at the time of making them and must not make such representations strategically to reduce the former employer's defensive response while planning conduct inconsistent with the representation, establishing that departure representations are subject to the same non-deception standard as any other professional statement and that strategic misrepresentation of departure scope to gain competitive advantage constitutes a violation of the duty of truthfulness, as established by NSPE Code provisions on non-deception and honest professional conduct.
Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ's insurance company to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who designed a project subject to a construction accident claim provides deposition testimony in legal proceedings, bearing obligations of complete factual transparency and non-distortion of facts, while navigating legal counsel guidance about the scope of voluntary characterizations of professional conduct.
Deposition Factual Completeness Capability
Engineer A was obligated to testify completely and accurately about the geotechnical firm's report and the basis for the pile design — including the fact that the geotechnical firm's report expected piles to gain strength within 30 days
Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing deposition testimony to testify completely and accurately about all material facts within their knowledge — including facts that may be unfavorable to the retaining party — without voluntary self-characterization that misrepresents the basis for professional decisions, and to recognize that selective or incomplete deposition testimony about material engineering findings constitutes a violation of professional obligations of objectivity and truthfulness.
Deposition Factual Completeness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Constraint
Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including T's views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.
Legal and ethical constraint governing a licensed professional engineer's conduct during legal deposition proceedings arising from a construction accident, requiring the engineer to: (a) respond clearly and honestly to all questions about the design and design process, (b) disclose hindsight awareness of alternative design approaches when directly questioned, and (c) refrain from volunteering characterizations of the design as an 'error' when no professional determination of error has been made — establishing that the obligation of deposition honesty is satisfied by factual completeness and does not require the engineer to adopt legal or professional characterizations that misrepresent the professional standard-of-care determination.
Deposition Factual Completeness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization Obligation
Both of XYZ Consulting Engineers' attorneys agreed that a clear obligation existed not to distort or alter any facts, and that Engineer T should respond to questions with complete transparency during the deposition.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a deponent in legal proceedings arising from a construction accident or professional liability claim to respond to all deposition questions with complete factual transparency and accuracy — including disclosing the full project history, design decisions, and internal deliberations — while refraining from voluntarily characterizing their own design work as an 'error' or assuming the legal or professional determination of fault that is properly reserved for the legal process, unless directly asked to provide such a characterization.
Deposition Transparency Obligation State
State in which a licensed professional engineer is preparing for or participating in a legal deposition arising from a professional liability claim, where legal counsel has confirmed an obligation to respond with complete factual transparency, while also directing the engineer not to volunteer characterizations of their work as erroneous absent a formal determination, creating a bounded transparency obligation that distinguishes factual reporting from premature legal or professional concessions.
Deposition Truthfulness Without Voluntary Self-Characterization
Professional principle requiring engineers serving as deponents in legal proceedings to respond to all questions with complete factual accuracy and transparency, while refraining from volunteering characterizations — such as admissions of error — that go beyond the facts elicited by questioning, on the grounds that the legal process itself is the appropriate mechanism for determining professional fault
Deposition Voluntary Self-Characterization Restraint Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing deposition testimony to respond to all questions with complete factual transparency and accuracy while refraining from voluntarily characterizing design decisions as errors when the error determination has not been established — including understanding that the legal process exists to determine error attribution, that volunteering self-characterizations beyond the facts asked can prejudice legal proceedings, and that factual completeness and voluntary self-characterization are distinct obligations that must be simultaneously honored.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing deposition testimony to testify completely and accurately about all material facts within their knowledge — including facts that may be unfavorable to the retaining party — without voluntary self-characterization that misrepresents the basis for professional decisions, and to recognize that selective or incomplete deposition testimony about material engineering findings constitutes a violation of professional obligations of objectivity and truthfulness.
Deregulated Advertising Context Ethics Non-Elimination Constraint
With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a 'brave new world' where it often seems, 'anything goes.'
Ethical constraint establishing that the virtual elimination of legal and ethical proscriptions on engineering advertising — arising from antitrust and commercial free speech developments — does not eliminate the underlying ethical obligations of truthfulness and non-deception that constrain the content and accuracy of engineering promotional materials; prohibiting engineers and firms from treating the deregulated advertising environment as license for misrepresentation, and establishing that the primary ethical constraints on advertising conduct — truthfulness, non-deception, and accurate representation of qualifications — remain fully operative regardless of the permissive legal environment for promotional activity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Legal and ethical constraint establishing that ethical opinions and professional code provisions governing engineering advertising must be tempered by strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations arising from legal challenges to professional society codes during the 1960s and 1970s, prohibiting professional ethics bodies from issuing guidance on advertising that would impermissibly restrict commercial free speech or constitute anticompetitive conduct, and requiring that contemporary advertising ethics questions be addressed relative to the primary considerations of truthfulness and non-deception and conformance with state registration laws rather than through broader competitive restrictions.
Design-Build Contract Method Safety Rationale Articulation Capability
A decision was made to use a design build contract to avoid a lengthy scour analysis for the pile design.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to identify, evaluate, and articulate the technical and safety rationale for selecting a design-build contract delivery method for infrastructure replacement — including explaining how design-build avoids lengthy analytical processes such as scour analysis for pile design — and to communicate this rationale to governing authorities and stakeholders as part of the bridge replacement authorization process.
Design-Build Contract Scour Analysis Avoidance Transparency Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who recommends or participates in selecting a design-build contract delivery method specifically to avoid a lengthy technical analysis — such as a scour analysis for pile design — to transparently disclose to the governing authority and relevant stakeholders the technical rationale for that procurement choice, including any residual risks created by bypassing the avoided analysis, so that the decision-maker can make an informed choice about the tradeoffs involved.
Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm that previously conducted an independent external review of a public agency project subsequently participates in a design-build joint venture responding to a request for proposals for that same project, bearing obligations to obtain agency approval, comply with applicable conflict-of-interest laws, and ensure prior review knowledge does not confer unfair competitive advantage.
Design-Build Joint Venture Inviting Contractor
XYZ Construction invites ABC Engineering to participate in a design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project
A construction contractor stakeholder role in which a firm invites an engineering firm that previously conducted an independent external peer review of a public agency project to join a design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for that same project, bearing interests in leveraging the engineering firm's prior project familiarity while generating ethical obligations for the invited engineering firm regarding conflict-of-interest disclosure and agency approval.
Design-Build Peer Review Conflict State Law Variability Awareness Capability
The Board notes that state laws may vary regarding whether this situation constitutes a conflict of interest.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to recognize that state laws may vary regarding whether participation in a design-build procurement following a prior peer review of the same project constitutes a conflict of interest — including understanding that the BER's conclusion that no conflict exists may not reflect the law of all jurisdictions, that state-specific conflict-of-interest statutes may impose additional restrictions, and that jurisdiction-specific legal research is required before proceeding with design-build participation following a peer review engagement.
Design-Build Project Retaining Contractor Client
the construction contractor separately retains the services of Engineer B
A construction contractor stakeholder role in which the contractor, operating within a design/build project delivery arrangement, independently retains a separate professional engineer to perform a discrete design scope (e.g., structural footings) as a sub-engagement, bearing interests in project completion and cost efficiency while generating ethical obligations for the retained engineer regarding competence and public safety.
Design-Build Scour Analysis Avoidance Technical Rationale Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who recommends or participates in selecting a design-build contract delivery method specifically to avoid a technically required analysis — such as scour analysis for pile design — must transparently disclose to the governing body and relevant stakeholders the technical rationale for that choice, including the nature of the avoided analysis, the engineering trade-offs involved, and any residual risks created by the avoidance, prohibiting the use of contract delivery method selection as a covert mechanism to bypass required engineering analyses without public accountability.
Design-Build Scour Analysis Avoidance Transparency Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who recommends or participates in selecting a design-build contract delivery method for infrastructure replacement to transparently disclose to the governing authority and relevant stakeholders the specific technical rationale for that selection — including that design-build was chosen to avoid a lengthy scour analysis for pile design — so that decision-makers can evaluate whether the method selection is technically justified and whether any analytical shortcuts create residual safety risks.
Design-Build Separately Retained Engineer Competence Verification Duty Recognition Capability
Capability of a professional engineer working on a design-build project to recognize that when a construction contractor separately retains an additional engineer for a specific technical scope, the co-project engineer has a professional duty to assess and, where warranted, report concerns about the separately retained engineer's competence — including understanding that the design-build project delivery method does not diminish this duty and that the contractor's independent retention decision does not insulate the arrangement from professional scrutiny.
Design-Phase Bilateral Contractor Consultation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is designing a public infrastructure project — and who anticipates that a contractor may bid on the resulting construction contract — from engaging in bilateral, informal constructability consultations with that contractor during the design phase, when such consultations would provide the contractor with technical project knowledge, design insights, or access to project information not equally available to all other prospective bidders, establishing that the engineer's legitimate interest in improving design quality through constructability input does not justify selective pre-bid information sharing that creates an unfair competitive advantage, and requiring instead that constructability input be obtained through formally advertised, publicly accessible mechanisms that provide equal access to all interested contractors.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a public agency engineer from sharing project-relevant technical documents — including as-built drawings — with individual contractors on an informal, request-driven basis when those documents are material to competitive bid preparation, when the sharing is not formalized through the agency's procurement process, and when the informal sharing pattern creates or perpetuates an information asymmetry among prospective bidders — establishing that the engineer's custodial role over agency documents does not authorize informal selective disclosure outside of formally equitable procurement channels.
Design-Phase Constructability Consultation Equal Access Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is designing a public infrastructure project and wishes to consult with a prospective bidder on constructability issues to refrain from conducting such consultation informally and bilaterally with a single contractor — recognizing that informal consultation with one prospective bidder provides that contractor with an unfair informational advantage in the subsequent public bidding process — and instead to share constructability information through formal, institutionally sanctioned channels that provide equal access to all prospective bidders, such as convening a public constructability meeting or issuing formal addenda to bid documents.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a public agency engineer who possesses technical information material to bid preparation — such as as-built drawings of existing systems — to refrain from sharing that information selectively with some contractors but not others before bids are opened, recognizing that selective pre-bid disclosure gives favored contractors an unfair informational advantage, compromises the integrity of the competitive procurement process, and constitutes unethical conduct regardless of the engineer's benign intent.
Engineer T selected a straightforward approach that required making structural connections immediately beneath floor level on an upper floor, in a tightly constrained space. Engineer T proceeded with the project per these parameters and did not explore alternative design approaches.
Professional norms governing the obligation of engineers to explore and evaluate alternative design approaches, particularly when initial design choices may impose foreseeable risks or constraints on construction workers or other affected parties, establishing the scope of due diligence expected in the design process.
Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Capability
Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design.
Capability to identify, analyze, and accurately attribute the root causes of engineering design deficiencies — including determining whether deficiencies arose from lack of domain competence, inadequate quality assurance, insufficient field investigation, or other causes — and to communicate this causal attribution honestly to clients and affected parties, including acknowledging when deficiencies resulted from the engineer's own competence limitations.
Design Deficiency Early Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware — during or after design completion but before or during construction — that their design contains significant deficiencies attributable to the engineer's own lack of competence in the relevant domain, to promptly disclose those deficiencies to the client and to take affirmative steps to remediate the deficiencies, rather than allowing construction to proceed on a deficient design and waiting until problems materialize before acknowledging the limitations.
Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1.a and acknowledge the runoff problem
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who prepared original design documents is confronted with evidence—through actual adverse outcomes and independent third-party analysis—that the design contains errors or fails to meet regulatory requirements, bearing affirmative obligations to verify the findings, acknowledge the errors to the client and affected parties, accept professional responsibility, and collaborate on remediation.
Design Error Discovered in Completed Work State
Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
State in which significant design errors have been identified in completed plans and design documents produced by a licensed professional engineer, triggering obligations of investigation, remediation, and heightened scrutiny of related work by the same engineer, and providing the factual predicate for a client's decision to commission independent peer review.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer has received credible independent evidence — through third-party analysis, modeling, or observed real-world outcomes — that their completed design contains errors or produced non-compliant results, triggering an affirmative professional obligation to verify the independent findings against their own work, acknowledge the error to the client and relevant parties, and engage the firm's risk management process to identify and implement corrective measures.
Design Failure Ethical Violation Threshold Assessment Capability
Is performing engineering design work that may result in a failure unethical?
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing authority to correctly assess whether a design failure — including structural failure, system failure, or other adverse project outcome — crosses the threshold from a legal/negligence matter into an ethical violation, by evaluating whether the engineer's conduct met the basic standards of the profession, whether moral culpability is demonstrable, and whether the failure was causally linked to conduct that was intentional, reckless, or malicious rather than merely suboptimal. Includes the ability to apply the analogy to other professions (medicine, law) where adverse outcomes do not automatically constitute ethical violations.
Design Failure Moral Culpability Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer's design results in a facility failure, requiring ethical evaluation of whether the failure reflects mere negligence or rises to the level of moral culpability (intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct) sufficient to constitute unethical behavior under professional codes, with the recognition that design failure alone does not establish ethical impropriety absent demonstrated moral culpability.
Design Failure Without Moral Culpability State
State in which a completed engineering design has resulted in failure or harm, but the engineer's conduct does not meet the threshold of intentional, reckless, or malicious action required to constitute an ethical violation — distinguishing professional negligence (a legal standard) from ethical impropriety (requiring moral culpability), such that the engineer may be civilly liable without being ethically blameworthy.
Design Firm Miscalculation Correction Upon External Notification Obligation
Duty of engineers and officials of a designing firm who receive notification from a production firm's engineers that the designing firm's plans and specifications contain miscalculations and technical deficiencies that could endanger the lives of persons in proximity to the equipment, to conduct a genuine, objective review of those concerns rather than dismissing them on the basis of the designing firm's own prior assessment, and to correct identified deficiencies before authorizing production to proceed — recognizing that the paramount public welfare obligation requires good-faith engagement with externally identified safety concerns rather than self-serving dismissal.
Design Miscalculation Objective Review Upon External Notification Capability
Capability of engineers and officials of a designing firm who receive notification from a production firm's engineers that their plans and specifications contain miscalculations and technical deficiencies to conduct a genuine, objective, and independent review of the identified deficiencies — rather than reflexively defending the original design — and, upon confirming the deficiencies, to correct the miscalculations and revise the plans and specifications accordingly before production proceeds.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to conduct an independent, rigorous review and verification of third-party analysis alleging errors in one's own prior engineering work — including checking the third-party's methodology, inputs, and conclusions against one's own original calculations — before formally acknowledging the error, so that acknowledgment is based on confirmed findings rather than unverified external assertions, consistent with professional accountability obligations under NSPE Code III.1.a and III.8.
Design Quality Through Constructability Input Obligation
Engineer A believes that the design documents and the overall project would benefit from discussions with Contractor B
Professional principle recognizing that engineers designing public infrastructure have an affirmative obligation to seek and incorporate constructability expertise — including from experienced contractors — to improve design quality, reduce construction risk, and serve the client's and public's interest in a successfully constructed project, provided such consultation is conducted through channels that preserve procurement fairness and equal competitive access
Design Re-examination Commitment Capability
if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading
Capability of a licensed professional engineer presenting a design at a public regulatory hearing to recognize when public testimony raises substantive, technically grounded concerns about identified risks — such as underground tank proximity to waterways — and to respond by either explaining how the concern was already evaluated and addressed in the design, or by committing to re-examine the plans in light of the raised concern, rather than deflecting or ignoring the concern, consistent with professional obligations to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare.
Designing Firm Self-Serving Safety Assurance Non-Binding on Executing Engineer Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a designing firm's unilateral assurance that its own plans and specifications are adequate and safe — issued in response to safety concerns raised by the engineers of an executing firm — does not constitute a sufficient basis for the executing firm's engineers to proceed with production, prohibiting the executing engineers and their employer from treating the designing firm's self-interested dismissal of safety concerns as a resolution of the safety dispute, and establishing that a self-serving assurance from the party whose work is under scrutiny cannot discharge the executing engineers' independent professional obligation to ensure that the equipment they produce will not endanger lives.
Designing Firm Self-Serving Safety Dismissal Non-Acceptance Obligation
Duty of engineers and officials of a production or manufacturing firm who receive a designing firm's unilateral assurance that its own plans and specifications are adequate and safe — in response to identified miscalculations and technical deficiencies — to refuse to accept that self-serving dismissal as a sufficient resolution of the safety concern, and to require independent technical review or impartial arbitration before proceeding, recognizing that a designing firm's self-assessment of its own work cannot constitute an objective resolution of a safety dispute raised by qualified engineers of another firm.
Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard for Supervisory Sealing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents prepared by other registered or non-registered engineers working under the sealing engineer's responsible charge to conduct a detailed, substantive review and check of those documents as a prerequisite to sealing — recognizing that such detailed review is both necessary and sufficient to satisfy the responsible charge requirement, and that general direction and supervision alone (without detailed review) is insufficient — while also recognizing that personal preparation of every document is not required, provided that the engineer possesses sufficient competence, assumes full responsibility for the work product, and carefully directs, controls, and reviews the material prepared under the engineer's responsible charge.
Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard for Supervisory Sealing Principle
Professional principle establishing that an engineer may ethically sign and seal engineering documents prepared by others under the engineer's direction and control — including documents produced using CADD systems — provided the engineer checks and reviews those documents in some detail. This principle modifies and clarifies the strict 'personal preparation' interpretation of responsible charge, holding that detailed review and checking by the sealing engineer satisfies the ethical requirement of direction and control, without requiring the engineer to have personally performed every drafting or computational task. The standard is 'some detail' of checking and review, not cursory or nominal oversight.
Developer-Compensated Public Inspection Dual-Interest Non-Acceptance Constraint
The developer must pay the city's expenses for having Firm A review the drawings.
Ethical constraint establishing that a private engineering firm retained by a public authority to perform plan review and construction inspection services — where the regulated party (developer) pays for those services — is prohibited from simultaneously providing private design or inspection services to those same developers, because the compensation structure creates an irresolvable financial incentive to favor the paying developer over the public authority's interests, rendering the firm incapable of serving as an impartial agent of the public authority.
Developer-Fee-Compensated Public Review Reduced-Scope Marketing Incentive Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a private engineering firm is compensated by private developers for review and inspection services rendered on behalf of a public authority, the firm is prohibited from structuring, marketing, or performing those services in a manner that offers developers less than the full range of services required to adequately protect the public client — including by advertising cost savings that implicitly signal a reduced inspection scope sufficient only to cause work to be approved rather than to fully protect the city's interests — establishing that the financial incentive created by developer compensation must not be allowed to reduce the rigor, completeness, or independence of public review and inspection services, as established by the Board's finding that Firm A's marketing technique 'suggests that Firm A may be offering developers less than the full range of services required to perform the services adequately but sufficient enough to cause the work to be approved by the city.'
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and was requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium
A private development client role that commissions engineering and environmental analysis for real estate development projects, bearing authority over project scope decisions and subject to environmental regulatory compliance obligations.
[proethica-intermediate] A participant role borne by stakeholders such as Clients, Employers, and the Public. Typically not the bearer of professional obligations, but may be linked to principles in explicit statements.
Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report
A private development client role that commissions engineering analysis for a proposed development project and, upon being advised of potential public health, safety, or welfare impacts requiring detailed evaluation, refuses to authorize or agree to such evaluation or disclosure, thereby triggering the engineer's escalating obligations up to and including withdrawal from the project.
Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers
A private development client role that commissions original engineering design services for a multi-phase construction project and subsequently retains independent peer review services following discovery of design errors, bearing authority over project scope and review arrangements, while subject to obligations to conduct peer review processes in a professionally and ethically appropriate manner.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A client role that reviews engineering deliverables (reports, design documents, plans) produced by a retained engineer, bearing authority to identify errors, raise quality concerns, and question inconsistencies in work products, thereby triggering engineer obligations of transparency and disclosure.
Diligent Verification of AI-Generated Technical Outputs
Professional principle requiring engineers to apply comprehensive, technically substantive verification to AI-generated engineering outputs — including design documents, calculations, and specifications — at least equivalent to the scrutiny applied to human-generated work, rather than relying on high-level or cursory review, given that AI tools may produce plausible but technically erroneous outputs that can compromise public safety
Diploma Mill Self-Certification Analogy Recognition Capability
In a sense, the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed method of establishing professional competence — such as ordering a commercial CD-ROM, completing an online course without examination, or using a design template library — is ethically and functionally analogous to diploma mill self-certification, in that it substitutes a perfunctory, non-comprehensive process for the substantive education, examination, and practice experience required for genuine professional competence, and to correctly classify such methods as insufficient bases for competence claims.
Diploma Mill Self-Certification Competence Non-Equivalence Constraint
A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency to perform facilities design and construction services.
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from treating any perfunctory, commercially marketed self-certification process — including CD-ROM libraries, mail-order kits, or analogous products that purport to confer domain competence through minimal review without comprehensive study, examination, or supervised practice — as an equivalent substitute for the substantive engineering education, experience, and demonstrated qualifications required to establish genuine professional competence in a new technical domain, establishing that the act of acquiring and using such a product constitutes a form of self-certification that is fundamentally contrary to the basic ethical principles of the NSPE Code of Ethics and the public trust underlying the engineering licensure system, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a, II.2.b, and the Board's analysis in BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 94-8.
Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation in Cross-Cultural Practice
Professional virtue principle establishing that when engineers practicing in international or cross-cultural contexts encounter local customs or expectations that conflict with their professional ethics obligations, they are required to navigate the conflict carefully, delicately, and diplomatically — seeking to sidestep the ethical conflict without passing judgment on the host culture — rather than either capitulating to local custom or engaging in culturally insensitive confrontation
Direction-and-Control Definitional Precision Capability
The term 'direction' is generally defined by Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981 ed.) as 'guidance or supervision of action or conduct; management; a channel or direct course of thought or action.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to apply a carefully crafted, profession-specific definition of 'direction and control' as used in NSPE Code Section II.2.b — distinguishing between the ordinary dictionary meaning (which might suggest the engineer must personally perform all tasks) and the engineering profession's operative standard (direct control and personal supervision as defined in the NCEE Model Law) — and to correctly calibrate what level of supervisory engagement satisfies this standard in the context of large-firm practice, including involvement at project outset in design concept and requirements, review of design elements as the project develops, and availability for technical consultation.
Direction-and-Control Plain-Language Completeness Standard Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the combined plain-language meaning of 'direction' (guidance or supervision of action or conduct; management) and 'control' (authority to guide or manage; direction, regulation, and coordination) as applied to engineering sealing practice implies that an engineer exercising genuine direction and control must be involved in all tasks related to the preparation of drawings, plans, and specifications — setting a high baseline standard for what 'direction and control' requires before a seal may be ethically affixed, while acknowledging that the NCEE Model Law's 'direct control and personal supervision' formulation provides the operative professional standard.
Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction Capability
It should be noted that the facts in BER Case 76-6 involved a direct 'kickback' between engineer and public official, while BER Case 96-5 involved the 'encouragement' by a foreign official to 'associate' with a local engineer.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to recognize and correctly analyze the ethical significance of factual distinctions between direct corrupt payment arrangements (e.g., direct kickbacks between engineer and public official) and indirect corrupt arrangements (e.g., 'encouragement to associate' with a local intermediary who handles 'business arrangements') — and to correctly conclude that both configurations violate professional ethics standards despite their structural differences. This capability includes the ability to resist the argument that indirect or intermediated corrupt arrangements are ethically permissible because they lack the directness of a classic kickback.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer with a disclosed or undisclosed disability (e.g., autism/Asperger's Syndrome) must navigate the ethical tension between the NSPE obligation to avoid deceptive acts and the personal risk of career harm from voluntary disclosure of a neurodevelopmental condition to current or prospective employers. This role generates obligations around honesty, self-advocacy, and the limits of disclosure duties under professional codes.
Disability Bias Adverse Employment Action Prohibition Constraint
disclosure could limit his career options if his employer and potential future employers have biases or concerns about client interactions
Legal and ethical constraint establishing that an engineering employer is prohibited from taking adverse employment action against a licensed professional engineer solely on the basis of a disclosed or discovered disability or medical condition protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act — prohibiting termination, demotion, reassignment, or limitation of career advancement based on unfounded bias or speculative concerns about client interactions or professional performance when the engineer has demonstrated a sustained record of competent practice — and requiring that any employment decision affecting a disabled engineer be grounded in objective, documented performance evidence rather than stereotyped assumptions about disability.
Disability Disclosure Employment Standard
Engineer A has kept this fact not only from his current employer (which he has worked for 5 years) but also previous employers.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing whether and how engineers are required or permitted to disclose personal health conditions, disabilities, or neurodivergent characteristics to current or prospective employers, including analysis of the 'avoid deceptive acts' principle as applied to non-disclosure of information not directly solicited or material to professional competence.
Disability Non-Disclosure Employment State
State in which a professional engineer has a diagnosed disability or medical condition that has never been disclosed to current or prior employers, where the professional obtained and maintained employment without disclosure, and is now weighing whether continued non-disclosure constitutes a deceptive act under professional codes of ethics, against the personal risk that disclosure could trigger employer bias, limit career options, or jeopardize existing employment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional's recognized right to personal privacy and non-disclosure of potentially damaging information — such as medical conditions, pending complaints, or prior failures — is in active tension with the professional's ethical duty to be objective and truthful and to avoid omitting material facts from professional representations, requiring a case-by-case weighing of whether the undisclosed information rises to the level of a material fact whose omission constitutes deception.
Disassociation from Professionally Compromising Regulatory Situation Permissibility Obligation
Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
Duty of professional ethics bodies and the engineering profession to recognize that a licensed professional engineer who has discharged mandatory obligations — by refusing to issue a non-compliant permit, formally submitting findings to superiors, and consulting the state licensing board — is ethically permitted to disassociate from further work on the project when continued involvement would place the engineer in a professionally compromising situation, and that such disassociation is consistent with the engineer's obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, provided the engineer has already stood by the professional position and the disassociation does not constitute abandonment of the public safety duty.
Discharge-Threatening Engineering Supervisor
Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
A supervisory engineering role in which a senior engineer or manager, acting on behalf of an employer's commercial or reputational interests, warns a subordinate engineer that continued outside professional advocacy activities will result in termination, even when those activities do not directly identify or disparage the employer, generating an obligation conflict between the supervisor's duty to the employer and the subordinate's right to exercise professional public responsibility.
Discharged Engineer Continued Public Safety Reporting Obligation
Engineer B subsequently sent the original report with a letter to the water supply division of the State Department of the Environment.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been discharged from a project following disclosure of public health and safety risks to continue to fulfill reporting obligations to appropriate regulatory authorities — including state environmental or public health agencies — notwithstanding the termination of the client relationship, when the engineer has credible technical evidence that a public authority's decision poses imminent or ongoing risk to public health and safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty to escalate identified risks to public health and safety beyond the client relationship — to regulatory authorities, public bodies, or other appropriate parties — when the client refuses to act on disclosed risks that threaten the public welfare.
Discharged Engineer Peer Review Notification Non-Requirement Constraint
Section III.8.a. admonishes engineers against reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client except with the expressed knowledge of the engineer or unless the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that when a client has formally and completely discharged a predecessor engineer from the project, a successor engineer retained to review and redesign that predecessor's sealed plans is not ethically required under NSPE Code Section III.8.a to notify the discharged engineer before proceeding with the review — because the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated, satisfying the exception clause of Section III.8.a — while simultaneously recognizing that collegial consultation with the discharged engineer before undertaking modifications remains the wiser and more professional course of action even if not strictly mandated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from reviewing or evaluating the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, unless the incumbent engineer's connection with the work has been formally terminated — establishing that covert peer review conducted while the incumbent remains under active contract constitutes a violation of professional courtesy and the NSPE Code peer review provision, and prohibiting the reviewing engineer from proceeding with substantive evaluation of incumbent work without first ensuring the incumbent engineer is aware of the review.
Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
The client severed Doe's contract and asked DOE not to write a report.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been discharged from a project — including being instructed not to write a report — to recognize that the discharge and client instruction do not extinguish the professional obligation to report identified public health and safety risks to appropriate regulatory authorities, and to act on that recognition by reporting to the applicable regulatory authority despite the termination of the client relationship and any client instructions to the contrary.
Discharged Engineer Residual Connection via Passed Work Product State
Engineer A still maintained a connection with the work which he had performed by virtue of the fact that the client passed along Engineer A's work product to Engineer B
State in which an engineer has been formally discharged by a client, yet retains a professional connection to the project by virtue of the client having passed the discharged engineer's sealed work product to a successor engineer for use as the basis of further design — creating a residual professional interest, ongoing liability exposure, and a basis for professional courtesy obligations even in the absence of an active contractual relationship.
Discharged Engineer Residual Work-Product Connection Prudential Consultation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that even when a predecessor engineer has been formally discharged by a client, the successor engineer who receives and modifies the predecessor's sealed work product retains a prudential — though not strictly mandatory — obligation to consult with the predecessor engineer before undertaking substantive modifications to those sealed plans, because the predecessor engineer maintains a residual professional connection to the project by virtue of the client having passed along the predecessor's work product to the successor; prohibiting the successor engineer from treating formal discharge as a complete severance of all professional courtesy obligations when the predecessor's sealed documents form the direct basis for the successor's redesign work.
Discharged Engineer Review Without Notification Permissibility Recognition Capability
While this Board concedes that Engineer B did not act unethically in agreeing to review the work of Engineer A without notifying Engineer A
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a successor to recognize that when a client has formally and unambiguously discharged the original engineer from the project, the successor engineer is not ethically required under NSPE Code Section III.8.a. to notify the discharged engineer before reviewing their work — because the original professional relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated — while also recognizing that this permissibility does not extend to subsequent undocumented modifications of the discharged engineer's sealed plans.
Discharged Engineer Review Without Notification Permissibility Recognition Obligation
this Board concedes that Engineer B did not act unethically in agreeing to review the work of Engineer A without notifying Engineer A
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicators to recognize that when a client has formally and unambiguously discharged an original engineer from a project — terminating the professional relationship — a successor engineer retained to review and redesign that work is not ethically required to notify the discharged engineer before commencing review, because the Code provision requiring notification (NSPE III.8.a.) applies only when the original engineer's relationship with the client has not been terminated; the permissibility of proceeding without notification in the discharged-engineer context does not, however, relieve the successor engineer of subsequent collegial and documentation obligations arising from the redesign itself.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to review or evaluate the work of another engineer to refrain from conducting such review without the knowledge of the engineer whose work is under review, when that engineer remains under an active, non-terminated contract with the same client — recognizing that the Code of Ethics prohibits review of another engineer's work for the same client except with the knowledge of that engineer or unless the engineer's connection with the work has been terminated.
Discharged Engineer Sealed Plan Post-Alteration Licensing Authority Reporting Capability
Engineer B made major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities in the public improvement plans. He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed plan set has been materially altered by a successor engineer without proper documentation, consent, or re-sealing to recognize the obligation to report this violation to the state engineering licensing authority — understanding that the integrity of the professional seal system, the protection of the public, and the original engineer's own professional reputation require formal reporting, and that the discharge from the project does not extinguish this reporting obligation.
Discharged Engineer Sealed Plan Post-Alteration Licensing Authority Reporting Obligation
Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed plan set has been materially altered by a successor engineer — who left the original seal intact, made no per-sheet notations, and provided only a vague title-sheet disclaimer — to report the unauthorized alteration to the appropriate state engineering licensing authority, recognizing that the integrity of the professional seal system and the public safety implications of undocumented design changes in subdivision infrastructure require formal regulatory intervention beyond collegial engagement alone.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed professional reports have been altered without authorization — particularly by a non-engineer supervisor or firm principal — to take affirmative corrective action, including notifying the affected third parties (such as property owners whose insurance claims were denied based on the altered reports), the client (insurance company), and appropriate professional and regulatory authorities, so that the record is corrected and the harm caused by the unauthorized alteration is remediated.
Discharged Original Design Engineer with Retained Seal
Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in each set were signed and sealed by Engineer A
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer prepares, signs, and seals a complete set of subdivision or infrastructure plans for a client, is subsequently discharged by that client after full fee payment, surrenders original drawings while retaining reproducibles, and whose seal and signature remain on the plans after a successor engineer makes undocumented modifications — generating obligations to protect the integrity of the engineer's seal and to seek removal or correction of the seal if the plans are materially altered without consent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer prepares, signs, and seals engineering documents (reports, plans, analyses, specifications) for a defined scope of work, bearing exclusive authority and responsibility over those documents, and generating obligations on all other parties to refrain from modifying those documents without the engineer's knowledge and approval, and to protect the integrity of the signing and sealing process.
Discipline-Misrepresented EIT Staff Engineer
Engineer A has a degree in mechanical engineering and has performed services almost exclusively in the field of mechanical engineering
An Engineer-in-Training (EIT) employed by a consulting firm whose promotional or marketing materials falsely list the engineer under a discipline (e.g., electrical engineering) that does not match their actual educational background and practice area (e.g., mechanical engineering), generating obligations to identify and report the misrepresentation to responsible parties within the firm and, if uncorrected, to escalate to appropriate professional or regulatory bodies.
Discipline-Specific Misrepresentation Internal Escalation Obligation
Engineer A alerts the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature
Duty of an EIT or licensed engineer who has reported a discipline-specific misrepresentation in firm promotional materials to a responsible party (e.g., marketing director) and received a promise of correction, but who observes no corrective action after a reasonable period (e.g., six months), to escalate the matter to the next level of firm authority — such as the firm principal — before considering external reporting, so that the firm has a full internal opportunity to remedy the misrepresentation and the engineer fulfills their self-policing obligation without prematurely bypassing internal channels.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed engineer intern or licensed professional engineer who has reported a qualification misrepresentation — including being listed as a PE when holding only EI status, or firm advertising misrepresenting staff credentials — to escalate the matter beyond the initial report if the misrepresentation is not corrected within a reasonable time, so that continued inaction does not become complicit acquiescence in ongoing unethical conduct.
Disclosed Retainer Mitigating Professional Affiliation Conflict State
it has been made clear to the chapter membership that Engineers A and B had been retained by a group with a particular point of view on the controversy.
State in which an engineer who is a member of a professional society chapter has fully disclosed to that chapter the existence and nature of a private retainer relationship under which the engineer is being paid to advocate for a particular technical position — where such disclosure is the critical mitigating factor that renders the engineer's participation in chapter proceedings and endorsement-seeking ethically permissible, transforming what would otherwise be a covert conflict into a transparent one that the chapter can weigh appropriately.
Disclosure-Insufficient Absolute Public Service Conflict State
The broader language of Section 8 and Section 8(a), which requires that the Engineer will inform his client or employer of any possible conflict of interest, does not condone the violation in this case.
State in which a conflict of interest involving a public service engineer is of a category where the standard disclosure-based mitigation pathway (informing employer or client of all pertinent circumstances) is explicitly insufficient to cure the ethical violation. The conflict is governed by a categorical prohibition that admits no exception for public service engineers, distinguishing it from ordinary conflict scenarios where disclosure may be adequate. This state is activated when the applicable ethics code designates the conflict type as absolutely prohibited rather than merely requiring disclosure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer serving in a dual advisory and design capacity for the same municipal client would be placed in the position of reviewing or passing judgment on their own engineering work — creating a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved through disclosure of circumstances, distinguishing this situation from cases (such as BER Case 01-11) where the advisory engineer does not review their own work and where disclosure of further circumstances may be sufficient to manage the conflict.
Disclosure-Insufficient Self-Review Conflict Irresolvability Constraint
the performance of such services by Engineer A potentially places him in the situation of reviewing his own work
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer serving in a part-time public advisory role has advised on and concurred in the selection of a contractor, conducted a performance review of that contractor, and then seeks to capture the successor design contract — thereby placing the engineer in the position of reviewing their own work — the resulting conflict of interest is irresolvable by disclosure alone, prohibiting the engineer from treating disclosure of further circumstances as a sufficient cure for the structural conflict, and establishing that the self-review potential created by the advisory-to-design transition cannot be mitigated through transparency measures short of complete withdrawal from one of the conflicting roles.
Disclosure Insufficiency Recognition for Self-Review Conflict Capability
The Board does not believe that the disclosure of any further circumstances (e.g., private work in town for a developer, reviewing its own work) would be sufficient to avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to recognize that, in certain conflict of interest situations — particularly where an engineer would be in the position of reviewing their own work — disclosure of the conflict is insufficient to cure the ethical violation, and that the only permissible resolution is declining the conflicted engagement entirely, distinguishing this category of irremediable conflict from conflicts that can be managed through disclosure alone.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to recognize when simultaneously occupying two professional roles — such as serving as a public agency's plan reviewer and construction inspector while also providing design and inspection services for private developers subject to that same review authority — creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest that cannot be managed through disclosure alone, and to correctly determine that the dual role must be terminated rather than merely disclosed.
Disclosure Insufficiency for Structural Conflict of Interest
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when a conflict of interest is structural and irreconcilable — arising from the engineer's prior role, authority, or position rather than from a mere financial or personal interest — disclosure of that conflict to the affected party is insufficient to cure the conflict, and categorical prohibition on the conflicted engagement is required, because some conflicts are so fundamental to the integrity of the professional role that no amount of transparency can restore the objectivity and independence that the role demands
Disclosure Non-Mandatory But Prudentially Advisable Distinction Capability
the Board does not consider this to be particularly significant because (1) the engineers in Case No. 86-5 provided disclosure and did not seek consent or concurrence
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly distinguish between disclosures that are ethically mandatory (required by the Code) and disclosures that, while not strictly required, are prudentially advisable — including the ability to recognize that the absence of a mandatory disclosure obligation does not mean disclosure is inadvisable, to weigh the prudential benefits of voluntary disclosure (strengthened ethical position, trust preservation, reduced appearance of impropriety) against the risks (immediate termination, loss of opportunity), and to reach a reasoned judgment about whether voluntary disclosure serves the engineer's long-term professional interests even when not ethically compelled.
Dishonesty-Based Criminal Conviction Professional Incompatibility Principle
Professional virtue principle establishing that criminal convictions for offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — such as theft or filing fraudulent tax returns — are categorically incompatible with the character requirements of professional engineering practice, because the engineering profession's foundational obligations of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness cannot be fulfilled by practitioners who have demonstrated a willingness to engage in deliberate deception for personal gain
Disinterested Non-Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Duty Recognition Capability
Engineer A is not a competitor of Engineer B and does not know Engineer B personally.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the professional obligation to report a peer's serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct arises from professional duty alone — independent of any competitive relationship, personal acquaintance, or personal stake — and that the absence of competitive or personal motivation neither diminishes nor excuses the reporting obligation, but rather confirms its disinterested, duty-based character.
Disinterested Non-Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes what appears to be a serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct by another engineer — with whom the observing engineer has no competitive relationship and no personal acquaintance — to report that violation to the appropriate licensing authority, recognizing that the absence of competitive or personal interest both removes any taint of improper motive and reinforces the purely professional character of the reporting duty, making the obligation particularly clear and compelling.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has knowledge of another engineer's unethical or unlawful practice to report that practice to the appropriate professional body and public authorities, recognizing that personal friendship, compassion, or loyalty to the offending engineer does not constitute an ethical justification for failing to report — and that the obligation to report is not diminished by the closeness of the personal relationship, even when the reporting engineer may exercise discretion in how the report is made consistent with collegial respect.
Disinterested Professional Duty to Report Peer Misconduct
Professional virtue principle establishing that a licensed engineer's obligation to report observed violations of professional conduct rules to the appropriate licensing authority is grounded in professional duty to the integrity of the profession itself — not in competitive self-interest, personal grievance, or any other self-serving motive — such that the absence of any competitive or personal relationship between the reporting engineer and the alleged violator confirms the ethical legitimacy of the report and may strengthen the reporting obligation by removing any appearance of improper motive.
Disparaging Misrepresentation of Competitor Capability Prohibition
Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from making false or misleading representations about a competitor firm's capability, capacity, or likelihood of success to that firm's existing clients, particularly when such representations are made to induce client defection and the engineer stands to benefit directly from the competitor's diminished standing; this principle extends the general prohibition on reputation injury to the specific context of affirmative false capability claims made during active client solicitation
Disproportionate Impact Analysis Framework
The BER next turns to how Engineer K should address disproportionate impact
A professional methodology for identifying, evaluating, and creatively mitigating the disproportionate adverse effects of engineering infrastructure decisions on underserved or vulnerable communities, encouraging engineers to think beyond binary options
Disproportionate Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions—particularly if the design capacity of the Traditional Approach is breached.
Technical and ethical capability to identify, analyze, and quantify whether a proposed engineering design or infrastructure alternative will disproportionately burden a specific community — particularly underserved, low-income, or historically marginalized populations — including under low-probability but high-consequence scenarios such as capacity exceedance events, and to communicate those findings clearly to decision-makers.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when infrastructure project decisions — including routing choices, public engagement design, and community impact assessments — disproportionately burden historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened communities, and to apply environmental justice principles in evaluating the ethical dimensions of such decisions, including awareness of the heightened professional obligations that arise when vulnerable communities bear disproportionate project impacts.
Disputed Design Safety Adequacy Between Originating and Executing Engineer State
engineers of Company B in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
State in which the engineers responsible for executing or manufacturing a design have identified technical deficiencies and safety risks in plans prepared by another engineering firm, but the originating firm has reviewed the concern and formally asserted that the design is adequate and safe, creating an unresolved technical disagreement between two engineering parties with divergent assessments of the same design.
Divided Loyalty Irreconcilability in Dual-Client Engineering Roles
the engineer was in a position of passing engineering judgment on behalf of the commission on work or contract arrangements which the engineer performed or in which he participated
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer is simultaneously retained by two clients whose interests are separate and potentially opposing — particularly where the engineer must pass professional judgment on behalf of one client on work performed by or for the other client — the resulting division of loyalties is irreconcilable and constitutes a conflict of interest regardless of the engineer's good intentions, because the structural position itself makes impartial service to both clients impossible
Divided Loyalty vs Terminated Relationship Ethical Equivalence Recognition Capability
It may be argued, as was stated in the earlier BER Case 74-2, that Engineer A's loyalties under these facts were not divided because he had terminated his relationship with plaintiff's attorney.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing bodies to recognize that the ethical analysis applicable to a terminated forensic engagement followed by adverse retention in the same matter is not equivalent to — and is not resolved by — the principle from BER Case 74-2 that loyalties are not divided when an engineer has terminated a prior relationship, because the termination-of-relationship principle applies to concurrent dual roles where no confidential information was transmitted, not to sequential forensic engagements where the engineer has already received and processed confidential case materials from the original client — and to correctly apply this distinction when evaluating the permissibility of post-termination adverse engagement.
Do No Harm Autonomous System Design Obligation State
State in which a professional engineer engaged in designing or evaluating an autonomous system — particularly one that pre-commits to harm allocation decisions — is obligated to apply the principle of 'do no harm' as an overriding design constraint, requiring active participation in risk management, unambiguous expression of all safety concerns, exploration of technical options that could mitigate identified risks, and recommendation of further study before deployment if residual risks cannot be adequately mitigated through available design alternatives.
Do No Harm Obligation in Professional Engineering Services
Implicit in Case 96-4 is the notion that in seeking to fulfill one's ethical obligations, engineers should strive to do no harm in the performance of their professional services.
Professional principle requiring engineers, in seeking to fulfill their ethical obligations, to strive to avoid causing harm through the performance of their professional services — establishing that the pursuit of public welfare is not merely about achieving positive outcomes but also about actively minimizing negative consequences of engineering decisions, recommendations, and actions
Do No Harm Principle Application in Novel Technology Risk Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer participating in risk assessment for novel technologies — including autonomous vehicles and safety-critical software — to recognize and apply the foundational engineering principle of 'do no harm' as an overriding ethical constraint on professional recommendations, including the ability to identify when unresolved safety uncertainties require recommending further study before deployment, and to maintain this position even when business, competitive, and financial pressures favor proceeding without additional scrutiny.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified unresolved public safety concerns about a proposed energy system — specifically, that the system lacks storage capacity, cannot guarantee continuous supply during grid stress events, and may increase rolling blackout probability — to recommend that further study be conducted before the system is deployed, by analogy to the BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle precedent, and to communicate this recommendation clearly and unambiguously to decision-makers as a professional obligation rather than a discretionary suggestion.
Do No Harm Professional Services Constraint
Ethical constraint arising from the principle that engineers should strive to do no harm in the performance of their professional services — establishing that when a licensed professional engineer identifies a potential harm pathway in a proposed system or technology, the engineer is constrained from recommending deployment or continuation without first exploring all available technical options to mitigate identified risks, and if necessary recommending further study before the system is utilized, prohibiting passive acquiescence in deployment when unresolved harm pathways remain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified unresolved public safety concerns about a proposed system — including concerns about reliability gaps, systemic grid stress, or harm to vulnerable populations — must recommend further study before the system is deployed or approved for deployment, prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about the need for additional analysis when identified safety concerns have not been adequately resolved, as established by BER Case 16-5 (autonomous vehicle operating system) and BER Case 20-4 (municipal water system), and the principle that engineers must hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a municipality to design marine or waterfront infrastructure including pile-supported foundations, bearing obligations of technical competence in geotechnical and structural design, accurate documentation of design assumptions, and defense of design decisions in subsequent legal or mediation proceedings.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides consulting services by preparing, signing, and sealing design contract documents submitted to a public agency for review and approval, bearing obligations of technical competence, public safety, and professional accountability for submitted work products.
Domain-Relevance Amplification of Disclosure Obligation
the fact that Engineer F's services related to fire protection of a facility would seem to be of particular interest to the employer
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer's prior misconduct or disciplinary history is directly relevant to the domain or subject matter of the prospective employment — particularly where public safety is implicated — the ethical obligation to disclose that history is heightened beyond the baseline disclosure obligation, because the employer's legitimate interest in assessing professional fitness is materially greater when the undisclosed conduct bears directly on the work to be performed
Domain-Relevance Amplified Adjudicated Misconduct Disclosure Obligation
Moreover, while any act of the type committed by Engineer F as a contractor under the facts would be entirely unacceptable and deserving of condemnation and punishment, the fact that Engineer F's services related to fire protection of a facility would seem to be of particular interest to the employer.
Duty of a professional engineer to recognize that when prior adjudicated misconduct — including misconduct arising from non-engineering professional activities — is directly relevant to the technical domain of the engineering position being sought or the services being performed, the disclosure obligation is amplified beyond the baseline duty to disclose adjudicated misconduct, because the domain-specific relevance makes the withheld information particularly material to the employer's or client's assessment of risk, fitness, and public safety implications of engaging the engineer.
Domain-Relevance Amplified Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
Capability of a professional engineer to recognize that when prior adjudicated misconduct — including misconduct arising from non-engineering professional practice — is directly domain-relevant to the engineering services the engineer will perform for a prospective employer or client, that domain-relevance amplifies and strengthens the disclosure obligation beyond what would apply to unrelated misconduct, and to apply this amplification correctly when deciding whether and how urgently to disclose such misconduct on employment applications or to clients.
Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.' However, does education or experience alone provide one with competence?
Capability to recognize and articulate the boundary between one's established domain of professional competence and adjacent or unrelated technical fields — including distinguishing between general engineering education and specific field experience — and to correctly classify whether a solicited assignment falls within or outside that competence boundary, drawing on precedent from analogous cases (BER 98-8, BER 94-8) to calibrate the assessment.
Domain-Specific Competence Verification Before Assignment Acceptance Obligation
II.2.a. states that 'Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to verify, before accepting an assignment, that their competence — established by both education AND relevant experience in the specific technical field — is sufficient to perform the work to professional standards, recognizing that general engineering qualification or competence in a related domain does not substitute for demonstrated competence in the specific technical domain of the assignment, and that accepting assignments outside domain-specific competence is unethical regardless of general engineering credentials.
Domain-Specific Incompetence Seal Prohibition Constraint
The Code of Ethics specifically states Engineers shall not affix their signature to any plans dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence.
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from affixing their professional signature or seal to plans, documents, or certifications dealing with subject matter in a specific technical domain in which the engineer lacks competence — even when the engineer holds valid licensure and is competent in other engineering domains — as established by NSPE Code II.2.b and BER Cases 98-8 and 94-8, and reinforced by the principle that general licensure does not confer competence in all engineering sub-disciplines.
Domain-Specific Incompetence with General Licensure State
Engineer B, as a water and wastewater engineer without identified significant roadway design skills, did not possess the competence to perform the rural highway design services
State in which a licensed professional engineer holds valid licensure and possesses competence in one or more engineering domains but lacks the education, training, or experience required to perform competently in a specific technical subdomain or practice area for which they have accepted an assignment, creating a gap between general professional standing and domain-specific capability.
Domain Competence Confirmed Finding Written Report Inclusion Mandate Constraint
Under the facts, as an environmental engineer with consultation by an apparently qualified biologist, it appears that Engineer A has technical competence concerning the matter in question.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer possesses domain competence in the relevant technical area and has reached a technically confirmed finding — supported by qualified specialist consultation and not based on mere surmise or speculation — the engineer is mandated to include that finding in any written report submitted to a public authority, prohibiting the engineer from omitting the confirmed finding on the basis of client preference, scope limitation, or confidentiality when no affirmative confidentiality invocation exists; distinguishing this mandatory inclusion obligation from the more permissive standard applicable when findings are speculative and outside the engineer's domain competence, as established by the contrast between BER Case No. 97-13 (speculative, outside competence, omission permissible) and the present case (confirmed, within competence, inclusion mandatory).
Domain Expertise Presence Escalation Calibration Constraint
In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the degree to which a licensed professional engineer may defer, qualify, or limit their reporting obligations upon discovering a potential violation or safety concern is calibrated in part by whether the engineer possesses domain expertise in the relevant technical area — establishing that engineers who lack expertise in the specific technical domain of the observed concern may appropriately adopt a more measured, deferential approach, while engineers who possess domain expertise in the relevant area are constrained from using the absence of formal assignment as a basis for limiting their response, and prohibiting the invocation of scope limitation as a substitute for domain-competence-based professional judgment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Competence constraint arising from a structural design engineer's lack of formal education or specific practical experience in construction safety assessment, which limits the degree to which that engineer can be held professionally responsible for identifying and mitigating construction worker safety risks arising from design geometry — establishing that the engineer's professional obligation to consider construction safety is bounded by the competence they could reasonably be expected to possess given their educational background and experience, and prohibiting the imposition of professional error findings based on failure to assess risks outside that competence boundary.
Domain Expertise Violation Reporting Threshold Differentiation Capability
In BER Case No. 89-7, for example, the facts revealed that the client had confided in the engineer and may have relied upon the engineer to maintain the information in confidence. In addition, the engineer in BER Case No. 89-7 did not have any particular expertise in the technical areas (mechanical, electrical) involved in the matter at issue.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the threshold for reporting an observed violation — and the degree of caution warranted before acting — differs materially depending on whether the engineer possesses domain expertise in the subject matter of the violation: when the engineer has specialized expertise in the violated domain (e.g., an environmental engineer observing a wetland fill violation), the obligation to act is more immediate and direct; when the engineer lacks such expertise (e.g., a civil engineer observing a suspected electrical or structural deficiency outside their specialty), a more measured and cautious approach is warranted before taking action.
Domestic Corrupt Procurement Analogy Non-Excuse Constraint
The defense to this activity has generally been that the companies making such gifts had 'no choice,' meaning that without such action they would not have been able to secure the contracts because competitors in other countries would have complied with the practice.
Ethical constraint establishing that the 'no choice' or 'others were doing it' defense — whether invoked in a foreign or domestic context — does not constitute a valid ethical justification for a licensed professional engineer's participation in corrupt payment schemes to secure engineering contracts, prohibiting the engineer from invoking the prevalence of corrupt practices among competitors, the competitive necessity of participation, or the risk of contract loss as excuses for ethics violations, and establishing that the choice to decline participation in corrupt procurement — even at the cost of losing the contract — is always available and is the ethically required choice, as established by the BER's recognition that 'there is a choice — the choice of declining to be drawn into a seamy procedure for self-gain.'
Domestic Corrupt Procurement Analogy Non-Excuse Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the 'no choice' or 'others were doing it' defense — whether invoked in the context of foreign gift-giving or domestic payments to public officials to influence contract awards — does not constitute an ethical justification for participation in corrupt procurement practices, and that the choice to decline participation in corrupt schemes is always available even at the cost of losing the contract, drawing on the domestic AE firm payment scandal as a parallel precedent establishing that competitive normalization of corrupt conduct does not excuse individual ethical responsibility.
Domestic Gift-Conditioned Contract Recipient Engineer
those who have so recently been revealed as offering financial payments to public officials to influence the award of contracts for architect-engineer services
A professional engineering role borne by an engineer or engineering firm that has received or is alleged to have received improper financial payments or gifts from engineering service providers (e.g., consulting firms) in exchange for favorable contract awards for architect-engineer services, in a domestic US context. This role is referenced as an analogous domestic precedent to the foreign gift-giving scenario, illustrating that the 'no choice' rationalization has been used and rejected in domestic contexts as well.
Domestic Law Permitting Foreign Official Payment State
Under the laws of Engineer A's home country, it is not illegal for individuals and companies to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business
State in which the engineer's home country law explicitly permits — and may even provide tax incentives for — cash payments or in-kind transfers to foreign public officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business, creating a direct conflict between domestic legal permissibility and international professional ethics standards that prohibit corrupt payments regardless of local legality.
sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead in excess of drinking water standards
Federal, state, or local regulatory standards governing safe levels of contaminants in public drinking water supplies, including lead and other heavy metals, establishing maximum contaminant levels and treatment requirements to protect public health
Dual-Advocate Legislative Peer Criticism Permissibility Principle
Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and findings of the other.
Professional principle establishing that when two engineers representing opposing parties (one public agency, one private company) each testify before a legislative body on the same technical question and each criticizes the other's analysis and findings, such mutual criticism is ethically permissible provided it is grounded in engineering data and conclusions rather than personal attacks, and provided neither engineer maliciously or falsely attempts to injure the other's professional reputation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle establishing that it is ethically permissible — and professionally legitimate — for qualified engineers to reach different conclusions from the same set of technical facts, because many engineering problems do not admit of a single correct answer and honest differences of professional opinion based on the same physical facts are a normal feature of engineering practice, not an ethical violation.
Dual-Capacity Non-Divided Loyalty Advisory Impartiality Constraint
the engineer must be scrupulously careful that his advice is not influenced by his secondary interest as the engineer likely to be retained for the design of the project
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained on a part-time basis as a city engineer who also prepares plans and specifications for the same municipality operates in a dual capacity — simultaneously serving as advisor and designer — but that this dual capacity is ethically permissible only when the engineer's advisory function is exercised without division of loyalty, prohibiting the engineer from allowing the secondary commercial interest in being retained for design work to influence, color, or bias advisory recommendations made in the public capacity, and establishing that the dual capacity becomes an impermissible divided loyalty when advisory decisions are distorted by private design-retention interests, as established by BER Case 63-5.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer retained by a community on a part-time basis as a city, town, or county engineer — who also maintains a private practice — must be scrupulously careful that advisory advice provided in the public role is not influenced by any secondary private commercial interest in being retained for design work arising from that advisory role, prohibiting the engineer from allowing the prospect of future design work to color, distort, or bias professional advisory recommendations made in the public capacity, and establishing that the dual role is ethically permissible only when the advisory function is exercised with complete impartiality free from private commercial motivation.
Dual-Mode Professional-Commercial Engineering Firm Principal
it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work
A licensed professional engineer who operates or leads a firm that simultaneously engages in both professional engineering services (governed by codes of ethics and professional conduct) and sub-professional or commercial/business activities, bearing obligations to clearly segregate these two categories of work, communicate the distinction transparently to clients and the public (through separate organizational structures, distinct firm names, or explicit contractual/correspondence references), and avoid allowing the commercial activities to misrepresent or undermine the professional standing of the engineering practice.
Professional principle recognizing two equally legitimate but structurally distinct bases for an engineer to sign and seal engineering documents: (1) self-authorship, where the engineer personally prepares the documents using any production tool including CADD; and (2) supervisory direction-and-control, where the engineer exercises genuine responsible charge over others — registered or non-registered — who produce the documents using any production tool including CADD. Both modes satisfy the ethical and legal requirements for sealing; neither is categorically superior, but each imposes distinct competence and oversight obligations on the sealing engineer.
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Peer Criticism Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when two licensed professional engineers are each retained by opposing parties and testify before a legislative or governmental body on a matter of public engineering policy, each engineer is ethically permitted to freely criticize the analysis and findings of the other — provided such criticism is grounded in engineering data and conclusions, avoids personalities and abuse, and does not constitute malicious or false attacks on the other's professional reputation — and that such mutual criticism does not constitute a violation of professional ethics provisions prohibiting injury to another engineer's reputation, because the legislative advocacy context, the public interest served, and the factual grounding of the criticism collectively satisfy the conditions for permissible inter-engineer public critique, as established by NSPE Canons 5, 7, 24, Rule 10, and BER case precedent on legislative testimony.
Dual-Retained Legislative Witness Mutual Peer Criticism Permissibility Obligation
Duty of licensed professional engineers who are each retained by opposing parties (one by a public agency, one by a private company) and who testify before a legislative committee on the same technical question to recognize that freely and openly criticizing the other's engineering analysis, findings, and conclusions before the legislative body is ethically permissible — and indeed expected — provided each engineer's criticism is grounded in engineering data, avoids personal attacks, and is conducted with professional deportment; and conversely, the duty to refrain from treating such mutual adversarial technical criticism as a violation of collegial obligations, because the legislative hearing context is a legitimate forum for open engineering debate in the public interest.
Dual-Role Advisory-Design Self-Review Prohibition Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a part-time municipal advisory or town engineer role to recognize that NSPE Code Section II.4.e prohibits accepting design services contracts from the same municipality for projects on which the engineer has already served in an advisory, evaluative, or oversight capacity — including the ability to identify that this prohibition applies irrespective of whether procurement laws are followed, and that disclosure of further circumstances is insufficient to cure the conflict when the engineer would be in the position of reviewing their own work.
Dual-Role Advisory-to-Design Conflict Prohibition
it is this Board's view that there are serious ethical constraints that would preclude the selection of Engineer A by the town to perform the road design work
Relational principle prohibiting an engineer who serves in a municipal advisory or oversight capacity — with authority to evaluate and recommend on contractor performance and project adequacy — from subsequently accepting design or engineering service contracts for the same project or municipality when that advisory role created a conflict of interest, regardless of whether applicable procurement laws are followed, because the advisory role creates an irreconcilable conflict that taints any subsequent competitive benefit derived from the advisory position
Dual-Role Advisory Loyalty Non-Division Self-Monitoring Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving simultaneously in a part-time advisory municipal role (e.g., city engineer) and as a design service provider to the same municipality to continuously monitor and ensure that advisory recommendations to the client body are not influenced, distorted, or colored by the engineer's secondary interest as the engineer likely to be retained for design work — recognizing that divided loyalties are axiomatically prohibited and that the advisory role must be exercised with complete independence from any personal financial stake in the design outcome.
Dual-Role Advisory and Contractor Selection Non-Participation Capability
Engineer A is the part-time town engineer for Smithtown and also has a consulting engineering practice
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal engineer to recognize that simultaneously holding an advisory role over engineering service contracts and maintaining a private consulting practice creates an obligation to refrain from advising on and concurring in the selection of contractors for projects where the engineer's firm could subsequently seek to perform the work — including the ability to identify this conflict at the outset before advising on selection, and to recuse from the selection process entirely.
Dual-Role City Engineer Advisory Loyalty Non-Division Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving simultaneously as a part-time city engineer (advisory role) and as a design engineer for projects for the same municipality to ensure that advisory recommendations and decisions are not influenced by the engineer's secondary interest as the likely retained designer for those projects, maintaining undivided loyalty to the municipal client in the advisory capacity even while holding a concurrent design engagement, consistent with the axiomatic principle that a professional may not take action or make decisions that divide loyalties or interests from those of the employer or client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal advisory engineer — and of the municipal client — to recognize the ethical boundary between permissible dual-role service (advisory plus design on separate projects where the engineer does not review their own work) and impermissible dual-role service (advisory plus design on the same project where the engineer evaluated the prior contractor and would review their own advisory work), applying the precedent-informed distinction between BER Case No. 63-5 (permissible: advisory plus design where client waives independent review), BER Case No. 74-2 (permissible: municipal engineer firm also performs capital project design), and BER Case No. 01-11 (permissible with disclosure: city engineer firm also performs design where no self-review occurs) versus the instant case (impermissible: same project, self-review, structural conflict not curable by disclosure).
Dual-Role City Engineer Conflict of Interest Recognition Capability
In determining that it was unethical for Engineer A to serve as city engineer and provide review and inspection services for private developers within the city, the BER noted that it could not see how an engineer can wear multiple hats and ethically serve multiple interests while representing the best interest of his clients.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm serving simultaneously as a public agency's designated plan reviewer and as a private design consultant for developers subject to that same review authority to recognize that this dual role creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest — including understanding that the firm cannot adequately represent the separate and sometimes differing interests of both the public agency and private developer clients simultaneously — and to correctly identify that using the public agency role as a marketing tool to attract private clients compounds the ethical violation.
Firm A also provided design and inspection services for private developers within the city
A private consulting engineering firm that simultaneously serves as the city's designated plan review and construction inspection engineer for private development projects and also provides design and inspection services directly to those same private developers, bearing obligations to avoid conflicts of interest arising from serving multiple parties with potentially divergent interests in the same regulatory and construction context.
Dual-Role City Engineer Private Developer Service Conflict Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm engaged by a public agency to provide design review and construction inspection services for private developers on the agency's behalf to refrain from simultaneously providing design and inspection services for those same private developers in a private capacity — recognizing that the firm cannot adequately represent the separate and sometimes differing interests of the public agency client and the private developer client, and that using the public agency role as a marketing tool to attract private clients compounds the conflict.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency to refrain from accepting private consulting engagements in the same substantive domain as their governmental employment — or in domains sufficiently interrelated that decisions in one sphere could compromise objectivity in the other — recognizing that such dual engagement breaches the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for the governmental employer and creates conflicts of interest that cannot be adequately managed through disclosure alone.
Dual-Role City Engineer Self-Review Non-Performance Structural Boundary Obligation
the Board is of the view that it would be ethical for Engineer A and his firm WXY to serve as city engineer for City H, perform general consulting services where these services do not include reviewing the work of Engineer A's firm
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm serving simultaneously as city engineer (advisory role) and as design contractor for the same municipality to refrain from performing, in the city engineer advisory capacity, any review, evaluation, or approval of work that the firm itself performed in its design contractor capacity, recognizing that self-review in this context creates an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest that cannot be cured by disclosure alone, and that the ethical permissibility of the dual-role arrangement is conditioned on the firm not crossing this self-review boundary.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal advisory engineer — who has advised on and concurred in the selection of a contractor and subsequently evaluated that contractor's performance — to refrain from accepting the design contract for the same project after the contractor's termination, recognizing that: (1) NSPE Code Section II.4.e prohibits such acceptance as a matter of code language irrespective of procurement law compliance; (2) acceptance would place the engineer in the position of reviewing their own work in their advisory capacity; and (3) disclosure of further circumstances is insufficient to cure this structural conflict of interest.
Dual-Role City Engineer Self-Review Structural Boundary Maintenance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm serving simultaneously as city engineer (advisory role) and as a design service provider to the same municipality to recognize and maintain the structural boundary that prohibits performing review, approval, or oversight functions with respect to the firm's own design work — including the ability to identify specific project situations where the self-review boundary is triggered, to recuse from those review functions, and to ensure that the dual-role arrangement is structured so that the firm's advisory services do not include reviewing work performed by the firm under its design contracts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a part-time municipal advisory or town engineer role to recognize that NSPE Code Section II.4.e prohibits accepting design services contracts from the same municipality for projects on which the engineer has already served in an advisory, evaluative, or oversight capacity — including the ability to identify that this prohibition applies irrespective of whether procurement laws are followed, and that disclosure of further circumstances is insufficient to cure the conflict when the engineer would be in the position of reviewing their own work.
Dual-Role Conflict of Interest Prohibition in Public-Private Engineering
it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities
Relational principle prohibiting engineers from simultaneously occupying public governmental roles and private consulting roles when the two roles create actual or apparent conflicts of interest — including situations where the engineer's governmental responsibilities intersect with, overlap, or could influence the subject matter of the private consulting work — even when the specific domains appear distinct, because linkages between domains may compromise the engineer's independent judgment in either role
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring engineers in public or quasi-public roles to recuse themselves from reviewing, approving, or otherwise acting on work submitted by former employers or clients when the prior relationship is sufficiently recent or substantial to compromise the engineer's objectivity and impartiality, or to create a reasonable public perception of bias
Dual-Role Conflict of Interest in City Engineer Engagements
Domain-specific principle establishing that a private consulting engineering firm engaged by a public agency to provide plan review and inspection services on behalf of that agency creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest when the same firm simultaneously provides design and construction services to the private developers whose plans and construction it is reviewing and inspecting — because the firm cannot adequately represent the separate and sometimes differing interests of both the public agency and the private developer clients
Dual-Role Faithful Agent Breach Self-Recognition Capability
To do so would be to breach the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for his employer.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer simultaneously employed by a governmental agency and performing private consulting work to recognize that the private consulting activities — particularly when conducted in the same domain as the governmental employment — constitute a breach of the fundamental duty to serve as a faithful agent and trustee for the governmental employer, including the ability to identify that this breach occurs regardless of whether both employers are aware of the dual employment and regardless of whether explicit policies prohibit it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the duty to maintain confidentiality of client and employer information is rooted in the dual obligations to serve as a faithful agent and trustee and to avoid circumstances that could appear to influence professional judgment — including the ability to identify both the fiduciary and the appearance-of-impropriety dimensions of confidentiality obligations, and to apply this dual-source understanding when assessing the scope and persistence of confidentiality duties across different professional contexts.
Dual-Role Government-Private Consulting Engineer
Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer simultaneously holds a government employment position and performs private consulting work in a related or overlapping domain, bearing obligations to avoid conflicts of interest between the two roles, to act as a faithful agent to both employers, to avoid use of public resources for private work, and to refrain from leveraging governmental authority or relationships to benefit private clients or vice versa.
Dual-Role Irreconcilable Conflict Identification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to recognize when simultaneously occupying two professional roles — such as serving as a public agency's plan reviewer and construction inspector while also providing design and inspection services for private developers subject to that same review authority — creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest that cannot be managed through disclosure alone, and to correctly determine that the dual role must be terminated rather than merely disclosed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm serving simultaneously as a public agency's designated plan reviewer and as a private design consultant for developers subject to that same review authority to recognize that this dual role creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest — including understanding that the firm cannot adequately represent the separate and sometimes differing interests of both the public agency and private developer clients simultaneously — and to correctly identify that using the public agency role as a marketing tool to attract private clients compounds the ethical violation.
Dual-Role Municipal Engineer Contractor Selection Non-Participation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal engineer — who simultaneously maintains a private consulting practice capable of performing the same type of work — to refrain from advising on, concurring in, or otherwise participating in the selection of contractors for municipal projects when the engineer's private practice could foreseeably benefit from the selection outcome, including situations where the selected contractor's failure or termination would create an opportunity for the engineer's private firm to obtain the work.
a small community retained a professional engineer, Engineer B, on a part-time basis to serve as city engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which a private-practice engineer serves simultaneously as a part-time municipal engineer and as a private consultant eligible to perform design work for the same municipality, bearing heightened obligations to avoid divided loyalties, disclose conflicts of interest, and ensure advisory judgments are not influenced by the prospect of private design commissions.
Dual-Role Part-Time Municipal Engineer Transitioning to Design Contractor
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer simultaneously serves as a part-time municipal engineer and operates a private consulting practice, and who, after advising on and participating in the selection and subsequent termination of a design contractor, positions their own firm to assume the terminated contractor's design work for the same municipality — bearing heightened obligations to avoid conflicts of interest, divided loyalties, and self-dealing arising from the convergence of advisory, evaluative, and competitive interests in the same project.
Dual-Role Public-Private Engineer Interrelated Domain Conflict Avoidance Obligation
While the scope of his responsibilities (state highways versus airports) were clearly different, his role in one or another area could be compromised in certain situations and circumstances.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a governmental role to recognize that conflicts of interest may arise not only from direct overlap between governmental and private domains, but also from interrelated domains where decisions in one sphere could have an impact on decisions in another sphere — including infrastructure domains that are physically or functionally linked — and to refrain from accepting private consulting engagements in any domain sufficiently interrelated to the governmental role that objectivity in either role could be compromised, even when the formal scope of responsibilities appears distinct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to comply with the current, evolved standard of conflict-of-interest management — which requires prompt disclosure of all known or potential conflicts of interest to employers or clients, including any business association, interest, or other circumstance that could influence or appear to influence the engineer's judgment or the quality of services — rather than applying the outdated absolute-avoidance standard, recognizing that the profession has moved from mandatory conflict avoidance to mandatory conflict disclosure and management as the operative ethical requirement.
Dual-Role Testimony Capacity Affirmative Clarification Obligation
it is not entirely clear from the facts who Engineer A was testifying on behalf. On the one hand, Engineer A suggests that he is testifying on his own behalf, but the facts also indicate that Engineer A's attendance at the hearing was paid for by a private coal bed methane company.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds governmental employment and a private consulting relationship to affirmatively and unambiguously clarify — at the outset of any testimony, presentation, or public statement — the precise capacity in which the engineer is acting (governmental employee vs. private consultant), particularly when the subject matter of the testimony overlaps with both roles, so that the receiving body and public record are not misled about whether the testimony represents official governmental positions or private consulting opinions.
Dual Capacity Without Divided Loyalty Permissibility Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that an engineer may ethically occupy two simultaneous roles for the same client — such as part-time advisory city engineer and project design engineer — without violating loyalty obligations, provided the two roles do not actually divide the engineer's loyalties or interests from those of the client; the ethical test is not the mere existence of dual capacity but whether the engineer's advice in the advisory role is materially influenced by the secondary interest in the design role, and whether the client knowingly accepts the arrangement
Dual Employment Appearance of Impropriety Isolation Constraint
Ethical and organizational constraint requiring that when a licensed professional engineer's cross-side employment transition in an active adversarial proceeding creates an irresolvable appearance of impropriety — where the engineer's dual role as former technical author for one party and current employee of the opposing party could be called into question by parties, the public, or the media — the current employer must assign the engineer to other duties and maintain formal organizational isolation from the proceeding, and the engineer must comply with and respect that isolation arrangement, as established by NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions and the principle that the appearance of compromised impartiality must be managed through structural isolation rather than disclosure alone.
Dual Employment Employer Awareness and Non-Objection Condition
Finding no ethical violation, the Board noted that with regard to Engineer A's dual role as an governmental employee and a private employee, both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm were aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and did not object to these activities.
Relational principle establishing that concurrent dual employment (moonlighting) may be ethically permissible only when both the primary employer and the secondary employer are fully aware of the engineer's dual-employment status and have not objected to it — and that this condition of mutual awareness and non-objection, while necessary, is not sufficient to cure structural conflicts of interest that arise from the intersection of the engineer's roles with the same clients or subject matter
Dual Employment Professional Liability Adverse Effect Avoidance Constraint
Other questions arise relating to whether such practices may have an adverse effect on the professional liability of the employer and other professional practice areas.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer engaged in or considering concurrent dual employment assess and avoid arrangements that may have an adverse effect on the professional liability exposure of the primary employer — establishing that the engineer's private consulting activities must not create situations where the primary employer's professional liability insurance, indemnification obligations, or reputational standing could be compromised by the engineer's parallel private work, and that the engineer bears responsibility for proactively identifying and disclosing such liability risks to the primary employer before accepting outside employment, as established by BER Case 02-8.
Dual Employment Professional Liability Risk Awareness Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in or considering concurrent dual employment (moonlighting) to identify, assess, and remain mindful of the potential adverse effects that the dual employment arrangement may have on the professional liability exposure of the primary employer — including the ability to recognize how private consulting activities could implicate the primary employer's liability through shared professional reputation, resource use, or domain overlap, and to factor these liability risks into the decision whether to accept or continue the dual employment arrangement.
Dual Employment Professional Liability Risk Awareness Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in concurrent dual employment (moonlighting) to be mindful of and proactively assess the potential adverse effects of the dual employment arrangement on the professional liability exposure of the governmental employer — including risks arising from the engineer's use of governmental credentials, institutional affiliation, or access to governmental information in the performance of private work — and to structure the dual employment arrangement so as to minimize such liability risks.
Dual Loyalty Conflict Navigation Capability
Engineer A worked on the project through step No. 2 and resigned from the firm to work for the State, who is an objector in this specific analysis.
Capability to recognize and navigate situations in which a licensed professional engineer owes concurrent loyalty obligations to a former private employer/client and a current public employer that are adversarial parties in the same proceeding — including the ability to identify the appropriate boundary between honoring residual loyalty to the former client and fulfilling faithful agent duties to the current employer, and to implement structural mechanisms (such as isolation arrangements) that honor both obligations simultaneously.
Dual NSPE Code Provision Simultaneous Obligation Recognition Capability
This ethical dilemma appears to involve two separate provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics -- Section III.4. and Section II.1.e.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a single factual situation simultaneously triggers two or more distinct and potentially conflicting provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics — specifically, the duty to protect confidential client information (Section III.4) and the duty to cooperate with proper authorities regarding known ethics violations (Section II.1.e) — and to correctly identify both obligations as operative rather than treating one as wholly displacing the other, thereby framing the ethical dilemma accurately before proceeding to resolution.
Dual Public-Private Employment Conflict State
State in which a licensed professional engineer simultaneously holds employment or an official role with a governmental or public body and a private consulting or employment role in a substantively related domain, such that decisions, recommendations, or representations made in one role could compromise the integrity, objectivity, or faithful agency obligations of the other role — creating an ongoing structural conflict of interest that persists regardless of whether the engineer subjectively intends to act impartially.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer simultaneously holds an advisory or oversight role for a public client (e.g., part-time municipal engineer) and is also positioned to be retained by that same client for design or technical services, creating a structural tension between the advisory duty to act in the client's best interest and the self-interest in securing design work.
Dual Public-Private Employment Ethics Standard
This case raises a number of significant issues and identifies a number of troubling ethical issues that can arise when a professional engineer performs services as a government employee and also is involved in private practice activities outside of his role as a government employee.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of engineers who simultaneously hold government employment and engage in private consulting practice, particularly regarding conflicts of interest, use of public resources for private work, faithful agent obligations to both employers, and the appearance of impropriety when the two roles intersect in subject matter or client relationships.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conditions under which a professional engineer or engineering firm serving as a municipal or city engineer may also perform design and other engineering services for the same municipality, including the limits of such dual roles, conflict of interest constraints, disclosure obligations, and the prohibition on reviewing one's own work in a public advisory capacity.
Dual Public-Private Role Interrelated Domain Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
The Board noted that it could easily foresee the potential for a conflict of interest for Engineer A as a state highway employee in his relations with municipalities' work and as a representative for the consulting firm working on municipal airports in his relations with the same municipalities.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds a governmental employment role and a private consulting role from accepting private consulting engagements in subject matter domains that are sufficiently interrelated with the governmental role — even when the specific subject matters appear distinct — when the interrelationship creates a foreseeable potential for conflict of interest, compromised faithful agency to the governmental employer, or an appearance of impropriety in the engineer's relations with municipalities or other entities that intersect both domains, as established by BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8 and the principle that highways link to airports and decisions in one sphere can have an impact on decisions in another sphere.
Engineer B was engaged in full-time private practice and treated his part-time service to the community as a public service. In addition to general advisory services to the city, Engineer B was selected by the city council for the preparation of plans and specifications for a city project
State in which a professional engineer simultaneously holds an advisory or oversight role for a public client (e.g., part-time municipal engineer) and is also positioned to be retained by that same client for design or technical services, creating a structural tension between the advisory duty to act in the client's best interest and the self-interest in securing design work.
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance
Any involvement by Engineer A in the state's case could potentially compromise the interests of all parties—the former employer, the private client, and the state—as Engineer A's dual role and his professional opinion/judgment—as an employee of the private firm and now as a state employee—could be called into question—by one of the parties, the public, the media, etc.
Relational principle requiring engineers to recognize that occupying dual roles — as both a former technical contributor to one party's position and a current employee of an adversarial party — creates an appearance of impropriety that compromises the interests of all parties, including the engineer's professional credibility, regardless of the engineer's actual intent or the technical soundness of prior work
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance in Committee Chair Expert Witness Obligation
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously serves as chair of a technical standards-setting committee and as a forensic expert witness in litigation involving boiler safety standards — where the opposing expert is a member of a subcommittee within that same committee — to recognize that this dual role creates an appearance of impropriety that could compromise the interests of all parties, and to take affirmative steps to manage or disclose the dual role conflict, including considering whether the conflict is sufficiently serious to require declining the engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership or membership role on a technical standards-setting committee and who has been retained as an expert witness in litigation involving a peer who also serves on that same committee or its subcommittees, to fully disclose to the retaining attorney: (1) the engineer's own role as chair or member of the relevant standards committee, and (2) the peer expert's role as a member of a subcommittee within that same committee structure, so that the retaining attorney can assess any potential conflicts, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make informed decisions about the engagement.
Dual Role Appearance of Impropriety Recognition Capability
Engineer A, who chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, has been requested by Attorney X, a defense attorney, to conduct an investigation and potentially serve as an expert witness on behalf of a boiler manufacturer
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when simultaneously occupying two professional roles — such as chair of a technical standards-setting committee and defense expert witness in litigation governed by those standards — creates an appearance of impropriety that could undermine public confidence in both the standards process and the litigation, and to take affirmative steps to manage or disclose that appearance, including assessing whether the dual role is ethically permissible and what disclosures or recusals are required.
Dual Role City Engineer and Private Developer Consultant State
State in which a private consulting engineering firm simultaneously holds the role of city engineer — performing design review and construction inspection on behalf of the municipality at developer expense — and also provides design and inspection services directly to private developers within that same city, creating a structural conflict of interest in which the firm reviews and inspects its own clients' work on behalf of the regulatory authority, while marketing the dual role as a cost-saving advantage to prospective private clients.
Dual Role Planning Board Engineer Self-Recusal Capability
John Doe, a professional engineer, was a county engineer and a member of the county planning board. He also engaged in part-time consulting practice. Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds a governmental planning or approval role and engages in private consulting practice to recognize when plans or projects prepared in a private consulting capacity will come before a governmental body on which the engineer serves — and to recuse from all governmental review, recommendation, and voting functions with respect to those plans, recognizing that the conflict exists even if the engineer does not vote, by virtue of the governmental employment responsibility to submit plans with recommendation.
Dual Role Self-Review Conflict Prohibition Constraint
Firm A Dual City Engineer and Private Developer Consultant Conflict - BER 94-5: Dual Role City Engineer and Private Developer Consultant State -- Firm A's simultaneous role as city engineer performing regulatory review/inspection and private consultant to developers subject to that same review
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineering firm from simultaneously serving in a role that requires independent, objective review or regulatory oversight of work and in a role as designer, consultant, or service provider for the same work or the same client subject to that oversight — establishing that the structural conflict of interest created by self-review renders both roles ethically impermissible to hold concurrently, and requiring the firm to choose between the independent review role and the commercial service role, as established by BER Case 94-5.
Dual Role Self-Review Marketing Exploitation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineering firm that simultaneously serves as a public agency's reviewing engineer and as a design or inspection service provider for private parties subject to that same review from exploiting its dual role as a marketing tool — including by advertising cost savings to prospective private clients based on the firm's insider position as the agency's reviewer — establishing that such marketing exploitation compounds the underlying conflict of interest and independently violates the prohibition on improper competitive conduct and faithful agent obligations to both the public agency and private clients.
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint'
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer publicly criticizes the engineering work, conclusions, or methodology of a peer engineer before public bodies, in the engineering press, or at engineering society gatherings, bearing obligations to apply due restraint, avoid personalities and abuse, ground criticism in engineering conclusions or alternative analyses, and refrain from personal disparagement while fulfilling duties to client, employer, or the public.
Dynamic Pile Test Equipment Failure Disclosure Capability
Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer supervising dynamic pile testing to recognize that equipment failure during a test program constitutes material information that must be disclosed in the concluding report, and to include such disclosure regardless of whether the equipment failure ultimately affected the reported conclusions, recognizing that omission of equipment failure information prevents readers from independently evaluating the reliability and validity of the test results.
EIT Discipline Misrepresentation Escalation Persistence Capability
Engineer A alerts the marketing director, also an engineer, to the error in the promotional literature, and the marketing director, indicates that the error will be corrected.
Capability of an Engineer-in-Training (EIT) who has reported a discipline-specific misrepresentation in firm promotional materials and received a promise of correction to recognize when a reasonable waiting period has elapsed without correction, and to escalate the matter to a higher organizational authority — such as a firm principal — rather than acquiescing in continued inaction, while calibrating the escalation appropriately to the EIT's junior role, the collegial nature of the prior engagement, and the ongoing ethical obligation not to permit one's own qualifications to be misrepresented.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when internal reporting of a confirmed legal or ethical violation has been dismissed or ignored, and to systematically navigate escalation pathways — from immediate supervisors to higher organizational authority (City Manager, City Attorney), and ultimately to external regulatory bodies (state licensure board) — in a careful, sensitive, and legally compliant manner that respects institutional channels while fulfilling professional obligations to address non-compliance.
EIT Discipline Misrepresentation Non-Passive-Acceptance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer intern (EIT) who discovers that their employing firm has misrepresented their engineering discipline in marketing materials is not ethically permitted to passively accept the misrepresentation — even given their subordinate organizational position — and must take affirmative steps to seek correction, including initial collegial notification and, upon inaction, escalation to higher firm authority, establishing that the EIT's unlicensed status does not diminish their ethical obligation to resist ongoing misrepresentation of their own professional identity and discipline.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer intern who knowingly cooperates with an impaired or non-supervising licensed engineer to continue delivering engineering services — despite full awareness of the licensee's incapacity — bears independent ethical culpability under the professional code of ethics, even though the intern's unlicensed status may shield them from legal censure under the State Engineering Practice Act, prohibiting the intern from treating the absence of licensure as an absence of ethical obligation.
EPA Regulatory Guideline Landfill Environmental Design Consultation Capability
Certainly Engineers A and B should consider the technical data in the guidelines, whether they be those cited here or others published by various public authorities or technical experts in the relevant field of knowledge.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer designing a project with significant environmental impact — such as a sanitary landfill expansion — to identify, retrieve, and consult applicable technical data and guidelines published by relevant public authorities and technical experts, including EPA-published guidelines such as 'Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste' (Federal Register, March 26, 1979), state environmental agencies, and domain-specific technical experts, as a prerequisite to forming a professional judgment about the environmental acceptability of the design — while recognizing that such guidelines establish minimum criteria and that each project requires a case-by-case analysis and judgment beyond mere guideline compliance.
the federal Environmental Protection Agency has recently published proposed guidelines entitled, 'Landfill Disposal of Solid Waste.' (Federal Register, March 26, 1979.)
Federal regulatory guidelines published by the Environmental Protection Agency defining health and environmental protection criteria that land disposal facilities must achieve, including case-by-case compliance determinations for solid waste landfills.
Economic Hardship Non-Excuse Resume Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
Along with thousands of other engineers in the aerospace industry, he was laid off when contracts with his company were terminated and new work was not forthcoming.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer experiencing genuine economic hardship — including prolonged unemployment following industry-wide layoffs, repeated rejection from prospective employers, and financial distress — to refrain from misrepresenting qualifications on a resume or professional document, recognizing that economic necessity does not constitute a justification for violating the professional obligation of honesty in qualification representations. The engineer's difficult circumstances may be acknowledged as mitigating context but do not override or suspend the core ethical prohibition on misrepresentation.
Economic Hardship Non-Excuse Resume Misrepresentation Self-Recognition Capability
After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success he was advised by an employment counselor that his only opportunity lay in finding a position involving management and administration of engineering work.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer experiencing genuine economic hardship — including prolonged unemployment following industry-wide layoffs — to recognize that such hardship does not constitute ethical justification for misrepresenting qualifications on a resume, and to independently apply this standard to one's own situation, understanding that the severity of personal financial distress does not diminish the professional obligation to represent experience accurately to prospective employers.
Economic Hardship Non-Excuse for Professional Misrepresentation
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's genuine economic distress — including prolonged unemployment, industry-wide layoffs, and exhaustion of opportunities in a specialty — does not constitute an ethical justification or mitigating excuse for materially misrepresenting qualifications on a resume or in professional communications; the ethical prohibition on misrepresentation applies with equal force regardless of the financial or career pressures motivating the deception, because the prospective employer's right to accurate qualification information and the profession's integrity interest in truthful self-representation are not diminished by the engineer's personal circumstances
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's altruistic, benevolent, or praiseworthy motivation for taking an action that violates applicable professional standards, employer policy, or ethical obligations does not render that action ethically permissible — the ethical evaluation of conduct is determined by the nature of the act and its conformity with professional duties, not by the subjective goodness of the actor's intentions
Economic Pressure Non-Subordination of Competence Obligation
One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from accepting engineering contracts in domains outside their competence solely or primarily due to economic pressures — including revenue shortfalls, risk of staff layoffs, or business downturn — recognizing that economic self-interest does not constitute a justification for undertaking work for which the engineer lacks the requisite technical qualifications, and that the harm to clients and the public from incompetent work outweighs the firm's economic interests.
Economic Pressure Resistance in Contract Acceptance Capability
Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff.
Capability to recognize when economic self-interest — including revenue pressures, staff retention concerns, or business survival considerations — is creating pressure to accept a professional engineering contract in a domain outside the firm's competence, and to resist that pressure by declining the contract or taking appropriate remedial steps, rather than subordinating professional competence standards to financial considerations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize and resist rationalization of procurement law violations — including arguments based on convenience, longstanding relationships, administrative inertia, or the absence of explicit contractual prohibitions — and to maintain ethical and legal standards in the face of institutional pressure, consistent with the principle that engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code.
Education-Experience Competence Threshold Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that professional competence requires both foundational education and domain-specific practical experience, prohibiting engineers from accepting assignments based solely on general licensure or education in an adjacent field when they lack the experiential component necessary for competence in the specific technical domain involved, as established by NSPE Code II.2.a and BER case precedent.
a representative of the local electric utility
A non-engineer or engineering stakeholder role within a local electric utility responsible for analyzing and planning the generation resource mix to meet regional demand, bearing authority to assess grid reliability risks including potential rolling outages during extreme weather events, and whose technical assessments create obligations for engineers designing distributed generation systems to consider and disclose grid-level impacts of proposed projects.
Elevated Storage Tank Out-of-Scope Work Attribution Accuracy in Independent Solicitation Capability
Those aspects of the report that dealt with the elevated storage tank were not part of the scope of work originally negotiated between ABC and Clover City.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a firm, performed out-of-scope work on a client project that was not part of the contracted scope, to accurately attribute that work to the employer firm when subsequently soliciting the same client independently — including recognizing that the out-of-scope work was performed as an employee of the firm (not independently), that the firm's resources and professional context enabled the work, and that claiming the work as a personal independent achievement without employer attribution constitutes a misrepresentation of the work's origin and the engineer's independent qualifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who changes firms to correctly calibrate the permissible scope of credit claimed for projects completed under a prior employer — including distinguishing between credit that may be claimed for personal professional experience versus credit that implies firm-level accomplishment, understanding the conditions under which unconditional credit is impermissible, and ensuring that claimed credit accurately reflects the engineer's specific role and involvement rather than the prior firm's organizational achievement.
Elevated Storage Tank Out-of-Scope Work Attribution Non-Misrepresentation Constraint
As an employee of ABC, Engineer A developed the report by which the city will get funding for the water treatment plant expansion.
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a firm, performed out-of-scope speculative work on a project component — including design elements or funding analyses not covered by the employer's contract — must accurately attribute that work to the employing firm when subsequently soliciting the same client independently for a contract covering that component, prohibiting the engineer from presenting the out-of-scope work as solely personal initiative disconnected from the employer's engagement, and establishing that the engineer's independent solicitation materials must not create a misleading impression that the engineer's prior work on the component was performed independently rather than as an employee of the firm that held the primary client contract.
Elevated Storage Tank Out-of-Scope Work Employer Attribution and Credit Obligation
Those aspects of the report that dealt with the elevated storage tank were not part of the scope of work originally negotiated between ABC and Clover City and no contract exists between the city and ABC for the design of the elevated storage tank.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a firm, performed out-of-scope work on a client project that was not separately contracted, to ensure that any subsequent claims of credit for that work — whether in qualification proposals, client solicitations, or professional representations — accurately attribute the work to the employer's project context and the engineer's specific role, rather than presenting the work as independent or sole-authored, and to refrain from leveraging the out-of-scope contribution as a basis for claiming exclusive entitlement to follow-on design contracts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who changes firms to limit claims of credit for projects completed under prior employment to the engineer's specific personal contributions, roles, and areas of expertise on those projects — refraining from claiming unconditional or undifferentiated credit for the full project as if it were the engineer's independent work — and to ensure that any such claims are accompanied by clear disclosure of the prior employer's role and the engineer's specific involvement, consistent with the principle of intellectual integrity in authorship.
Emerging Parameter Pre-Standardization Deployment State
engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed
State in which an engineer has deployed innovative design techniques or parameters that exist in the professional literature and may represent best practice, but have not yet been fully tested, peer-reviewed, or formally incorporated into generally accepted standards — such that the engineer's failure to apply them does not constitute an ethical violation, though once they become established standards, non-application would trigger ethical obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which recently proposed design parameters or technical standards exist in the professional literature but have not yet been formally adopted as binding standards, creating ambiguity about whether a licensed engineer's failure to apply them constitutes incompetence or an ethical violation.
Emerging Standard Awareness Technical Report Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A was aware of new draft standards that were about to be released by a standard setting organization—standards that the newly designed software might not meet.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is aware of a new draft standard — recently reported in professional literature and about to be released by a standard-setting organization — that the engineer's designed system may not meet must disclose that awareness in a technical report to the employer, prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about the emerging standard on the grounds that it has not yet been formally adopted, and establishing that awareness of forthcoming standards that could affect the safety or viability of a deployed system triggers an affirmative disclosure obligation regardless of the financial consequences of that disclosure.
Emerging Standard Pre-Adoption Safety Gap State
State in which a professional engineer is aware that a new draft safety standard — not yet formally adopted — has been released or is imminent, and that the engineer's completed or in-progress work may not satisfy that forthcoming standard, even though it complies with currently applicable standards, creating a gap between present regulatory compliance and anticipated future requirements that the engineer must disclose to enable informed decision-making by the employer or client regarding additional testing, redesign, or risk acceptance.
Eminent Domain Advisory Obligation and Limits
Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers retained to evaluate public infrastructure routing to inform clients of the legal availability of eminent domain as a tool for acquiring necessary right-of-way, while refraining from recommending its use as a first resort when alternative routes exist that would avoid or minimize displacement of unwilling property owners — recognizing that the engineer's advisory role encompasses both the technical and human dimensions of route selection, and that the engineer must present eminent domain as one option among alternatives rather than as the default solution to property acquisition challenges
Eminent Domain Availability Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to evaluate and specify a route for public infrastructure to inform the client that eminent domain is legally available as a mechanism to acquire privately held property lying in the path of the preferred route, while also presenting the full consequences — including displacement of historic property, owner unwillingness to sell, and public welfare tradeoffs — so that the client can make a fully informed decision about whether to exercise that legal authority.
Eminent Domain Client Authority Non-Usurpation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained by a governmental client to specify a public infrastructure route must present the eminent domain option to the client as a legally available tool — including its full consequences for affected property owners — without usurping the client's sovereign authority to decide whether to exercise that power, prohibiting the engineer from either concealing the eminent domain option from the client or unilaterally recommending its exercise without full disclosure of the historic, social, and human consequences of condemnation, and establishing that the decision to condemn private property is a governmental policy decision that belongs exclusively to the client authority rather than to the engineer.
Eminent Domain Consequence Disclosure to Public Agency Client Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to fully disclose to the client all material consequences of exercising eminent domain over a private property — including legal process requirements, compensation obligations, community relations impacts, project timeline implications, and the human consequences of displacing an unwilling property owner from a historically significant property — so that the public agency can make a fully informed decision about whether to exercise the condemnation power.
Eminent Domain Consequence Full Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified that a preferred public infrastructure route would require the state to exercise eminent domain over a privately held historic property to fully disclose to the client all material consequences of that exercise — including the owner's expressed unwillingness to sell, the historic significance of the property, the legal process and cost of condemnation, the public welfare implications of displacing a multi-generational historic resource, and the availability of alternative routes that would avoid condemnation — so that the client's decision to pursue or forgo eminent domain is fully informed.
the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route
Legal framework governing the authority of governmental entities to compel the acquisition of private property for public use, including the conditions, procedures, compensation requirements, and ethical considerations applicable when the state exercises condemnation powers over privately held land or structures for infrastructure projects.
Eminent Domain Legal Framework Knowledge Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to understand, retrieve, and correctly apply the legal framework governing eminent domain — including knowledge of when the power is available, what property interests may be condemned, what procedural prerequisites apply, and what consequences flow from its exercise — sufficient to inform a public agency client of the availability and implications of eminent domain as a route acquisition tool when a private property owner is unwilling to sell.
Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse
State in which a governmental or quasi-governmental client possesses the legal authority to exercise eminent domain to condemn privately owned property — including historically or culturally significant structures — in order to proceed with a public infrastructure project, where the property owner has explicitly refused voluntary sale, creating direct tension between the engineer's obligation to present technically optimal design solutions, the client's legal authority to compel acquisition, and the engineer's obligations to consider impacts on third parties, historic resources, and community values.
Employed Engineer Current-Client Solicitation Employer Non-Disclosure Questionable Competition Constraint
by failing to act as a faithful employee and by failing to disclose the actions to Engineer B, Engineer A engaged in questionable methods of competition.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed, covertly solicits the employer's current clients for competing professional services without disclosing such solicitation to the employer engages in 'questionable methods' of competition prohibited by NSPE Code Section III.7 — establishing that the failure to act as a faithful employee and the failure to disclose competitive solicitation activity to the employer are themselves sufficient to constitute questionable competition methods, and that the engineer's subjective uncertainty about whether the conduct is unethical does not excuse the violation where the engineer knew or should have known that the conduct was problematic and dubious and raised the possibility of an ethical violation, as established by BER Case 82-5.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from attempting to obtain employment, advancement, or professional engagements through improper or questionable methods — including exploiting informal client relationships to critique a competitor's work in a manner that creates competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit — establishing that conduct which appears improper or questionable in a competitive context violates professional ethics regardless of whether the engineer's subjective intent was malicious, as established by NSPE Code Section III.6 and BER Case 01-1 precedent.
Employed Engineer Specialized Knowledge Current-Client Solicitation Full-Disclosure Prerequisite Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed, has gained particular and specialized knowledge about a client's projects may not engage in promotional efforts or solicitation for work on those specific projects without full disclosure to the employer — extending the post-departure specialized knowledge consent requirement (BER Case 77-11) to the pre-departure context and establishing that the duty of disclosure to the employer is heightened when the competitive solicitation leverages specialized knowledge gained during employment, because such use of employer-entrusted knowledge without disclosure constitutes a breach of the duties of loyalty, good faith, and disclosure owed to the employer, as established by NSPE Code Section III.4.a and BER Case 82-5.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who, while employed, gains particular and specialized knowledge in connection with a specific project for a client may not, after departure, engage in promotional efforts or negotiations for work on that specific project without the consent of all interested parties — prohibiting post-departure competition for specific engagements where the departing engineer's competitive advantage derives from specialized knowledge acquired during employment on that very project, as established by NSPE Code §7(a) and interpreted in BER Case 77-8.
Employed Engineer Specialized Project Knowledge Consent-Required Competition Constraint
It is not nearly so clear, however, with regard to the latter portion of §7(a), as related to practice in connection with a specific project for which the employed engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who, while employed, gains particular and specialized knowledge in connection with a specific project for a client may not, after departure, engage in promotional efforts or negotiations for work on that specific project without the consent of all interested parties — prohibiting post-departure competition for specific engagements where the departing engineer's competitive advantage derives from specialized knowledge acquired during employment on that very project, as established by NSPE Code §7(a) and interpreted in BER Case 77-8.
Employer-Aware Dual Employment Insufficient Mitigation State
both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm were aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and did not object to these activities
State in which both a government employer and a private consulting firm are aware of and do not formally object to an engineer's dual employment, yet the structural conflict of interest arising from the dual roles is so foreseeable and substantial — particularly where the same stakeholders (e.g., municipalities) are served in both capacities across operationally adjacent domains — that employer awareness and non-objection alone are insufficient to satisfy the engineer's faithful agent and trustee obligations under the NSPE Code, resulting in an ethical violation despite the absence of explicit employer prohibition.
Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Disclosure Timing Constraint
Engineer F's failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties.
Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer disclose material adjudicated misconduct or professional disciplinary history to a prospective employer at the outset of the employment relationship — before or at the time of hiring — rather than deferring disclosure or relying on the employer's failure to discover the information; establishing that the failure to disclose material integrity-relevant information at the inception of the employment relationship retroactively undermines the trust foundation of that relationship, and that the engineer's obligation to establish an honest basis for the employer-employee relationship is not discharged by subsequent satisfactory performance.
Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Proactive Disclosure Capability
Engineer F is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information before making the decision to hire Engineer F
Capability of a professional engineer to recognize that the employer-employee relationship is founded on trust and candor, and that failure to proactively disclose material adjudicated misconduct or professional disciplinary history at the outset of the employment relationship — before or at the time of hiring — undermines the foundational trust upon which the relationship depends, and to act accordingly by making such disclosures proactively rather than waiting to be asked or relying on narrow question wording to avoid disclosure.
Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a professional engineer to disclose material adjudicated misconduct or professional disciplinary history to an employer at the outset of the employment relationship — before or at the time of hiring — rather than allowing the employer to discover the information through third parties after the employment relationship has been established, recognizing that failure to disclose at the outset undermines the foundational trust between employer and employee and amplifies the harm of non-disclosure by converting an omission into a relational betrayal that damages the ongoing professional relationship.
Employer-Initiated Termination Notice-Period Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation
Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has received an employer-initiated termination notice and continues to work during the notice period to maintain faithful agent conduct toward the employer for the duration of that period — including refraining from: (1) actively diverting ongoing employer projects to the engineer's new firm; (2) using employer resources, time, or confidential information to advance the new firm's competitive position; and (3) making disparaging representations about the employer to clients during solicitation — while simultaneously recognizing that the employer-initiated termination notice releases the engineer from the stronger loyalty constraint that would apply to a voluntarily departing engineer, and that solicitation of future work from clients with whom no active contract exists is permissible. The faithful agent duty persists during the notice period but is calibrated to the employer-initiated termination context rather than the voluntary-departure context.
Employer-Initiated Termination Notice Client Solicitation Timing Permissibility Assessment Capability
On November 15, 1982 Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has received an employer-initiated termination notice — as distinguished from a voluntary resignation — to correctly assess the ethical permissibility of soliciting the employer's clients for a new competing firm during the notice period, recognizing that the employer-initiated nature of the termination alters the faithful agent calculus by removing the engineer's voluntary choice to depart, and applying the relevant BER precedent framework (including BER Case 77-11 and related cases) to determine whether and when client solicitation may commence without violating the faithful agent duty or the prohibition on promotional efforts while in the employ of another.
Employer-Initiated Termination Notice Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Ethical Boundary Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has received an employer-initiated termination notice — as opposed to voluntarily resigning — occupies a distinct ethical position with respect to pre-departure client solicitation: while the engineer retains the right to plan for a competing firm, the engineer is constrained from actively soliciting the employer's current clients during the notice period while still employed, receiving compensation, and bound by faithful agent duties, because such solicitation constitutes competition by questionable methods and a breach of the duty of loyalty owed to the employer during the active employment relationship, regardless of the employer's prior decision to terminate.
Employer-Initiated Termination Notice Pre-Departure Client Solicitation Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has received an employer-initiated termination notice — as opposed to voluntarily resigning — to recognize that the at-will employment symmetry principle renders pre-departure solicitation of the employer's clients for a new competing firm ethically permissible, provided: (1) no active contracts are supplanted (i.e., no definite steps have been taken by the client toward retaining Engineer B for a specific project); (2) no confidential or specialized project-specific knowledge is exploited; and (3) solicitation is conducted honestly and without disparagement of the former employer. The employer-initiated nature of the termination is ethically significant because it removes the voluntary-departure loyalty constraint that would otherwise counsel restraint during a notice period, and the engineer must not be deterred from this permissible competitive activity by unfounded ethical objections from the terminating employer.
Employer-Instruction Non-Override of Safety-Based Production Refusal
While such refusal to comply with the instruction of their employer may cause a most difficult situation, or even lead to the loss of employment, we must conclude that these considerations are subordinate to the requirements of the Code.
Professional virtue principle establishing that when engineers in a production or manufacturing role hold a sincere professional opinion that the plans and specifications they have been instructed to implement are unsafe to the public, the employer's instruction to proceed does not override the engineers' ethical obligation to refuse — and that the potential consequences of such refusal, including the loss of employment, are subordinate to the requirements of the ethics code and do not constitute ethical justification for compliance with the unsafe instruction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle acknowledging the sobering reality that engineers who fulfill their ethical obligation to report public safety concerns externally — particularly when doing so against employer or supervisor wishes — will frequently face employment termination or other professional retaliation, and establishing that this foreseeable cost does not diminish or excuse the ethical obligation. The principle requires engineers to accept the personal cost of whistleblowing when public safety is genuinely at stake, recognizing that permitting professional obligations to be compromised by fear of employment loss causes grave damage to the engineering profession as a whole.
Employer-Ordered Execution of Disputed Safety-Deficient Design State
officials of Company B instructed its engineers to proceed with the work
State in which an engineer's employer has instructed the engineer to proceed with manufacturing or constructing a design that the engineer has identified as containing safety deficiencies, after the employer has relayed the concern to the originating party and received a rejection. The engineer is now under direct organizational pressure to execute work they believe may endanger lives, creating a direct conflict between employment obligation and public safety duty.
Employer-Prohibited City Council Safety Escalation Permissibility Obligation
City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him and warns her that her job is in danger if she disobeys.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed as a city engineer who has been ordered by a non-engineer administrator not to discuss a public safety matter with elected city officials — under threat of termination — to recognize that such an order is ethically impermissible and that escalating the safety concern to elected city council members is not only permissible but obligatory, because the engineer's paramount duty to public safety supersedes an employer's directive to suppress safety-relevant information from the governing body responsible for public welfare.
Employer-Prohibited Governing Body Safety Escalation Permissibility Capability
Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council without the permission of City Administrator C
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize that an employer's explicit prohibition against communicating safety concerns to the governing body (e.g., city council) does not constitute a legitimate ethical constraint when the safety concern involves imminent public health risk, and to correctly determine that escalating to elected governing officials — even without supervisor permission and despite threatened employment consequences — is ethically permissible and professionally obligated when internal channels have been exhausted and the risk is serious.
Employer Active Investigation Deference Pending Exhaustion Constraint
MedTech was in the process of investigating the matter and determining whether a basis exists for those concerned
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has raised a safety concern internally and learned that the employer has initiated an active internal investigation conducted by domain-competent personnel must defer to that investigation process — prohibiting the engineer from bypassing or short-circuiting the investigation by threatening or pursuing external regulatory reporting while the investigation remains active and before the engineer has made additional inquiries to determine whether meaningful action is being taken, and establishing that the existence of a competent internal investigation is a material mitigating factor that constrains the engineer's escalation authority.
Employer Authorization Prerequisite Recognition Capability
Capability of a public agency engineer who manages or has custody of employer-owned technical documents — including as-built drawings, design files, and project records — to recognize that those documents are employer property and that sharing them with any external party requires formal employer authorization, and to act on that recognition by obtaining such authorization before any disclosure rather than proceeding on personal initiative, regardless of the engineer's belief that sharing would benefit the project.
Employer Awareness Non-Sufficiency Structural Conflict Recognition Capability
While as we noted in Case 97-1, with regard to Engineer A's dual role as an governmental employee and a private employee, assuming both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm are aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and do not object to these activities, the Board believes based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in or considering dual employment to recognize that mutual awareness of and non-objection to the dual employment arrangement by both employers does not, by itself, cure or eliminate a structural conflict of interest — including the ability to distinguish between cases where dual employer awareness is sufficient to resolve the ethical concern (e.g., where no substantive conflict exists) and cases where the structural nature of the conflict — arising from shared clients, interrelated domains, or faithful agent obligations — renders the dual employment ethically impermissible regardless of employer awareness or consent, and to correctly determine that the engineer must decline the dual engagement even when both employers are aware and do not object.
Employer Awareness Non-Sufficiency to Cure Structural Dual-Employment Conflict Obligation
assuming both the state governmental agency and the engineering firm are aware of Engineer A's activities as a dual employee and do not object to these activities, the Board believes based upon the engineer's obligation to serve as faithful agent and trustee that there is a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics under the facts and circumstances presented here
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that mutual employer awareness of and non-objection to a dual employment arrangement is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical permissibility — specifically, that where the dual employment creates a structural conflict of interest arising from the engineer's governmental review authority over the same class of entities for whom private consulting services are proposed, employer awareness alone does not cure the ethical violation, and the engineer must decline the private engagement regardless of employer consent.
Employer Client Pressure Competence Non-Override Public Safety Constraint
licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or by client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety
Absolute ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from being unduly influenced by employer or client pressures — whether financial, institutional, hierarchical, or contractual — to perform professional services outside their area of competence when such performance poses a clear and present danger to public health and safety, establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety supersedes deference to employer or client demands for service delivery in domains where the engineer lacks competence, and that the presence of such pressures does not diminish the engineer's ethical obligation to decline out-of-competence work, as established by NSPE Code II.2.a and the BER's analysis across BER Cases 85-3, 94-8, and the present case.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from bowing to employment pressures, institutional hierarchy, or employment-related consequences when the engineer believes great dangers to public safety are present — establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety supersedes deference to supervisors, employers, or institutional authority when safety-critical conditions are at stake, and that acquiescing to employment pressure in such circumstances constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
Employer Concurrence Requirement for Post-Obligation Advocacy
In considering such actions, Engineer B would need to consider the interests of his employer, ABC Engineers.
Relational principle requiring engineers who, having discharged their formal professional reporting obligations, wish to take additional personal advocacy steps — such as communicating with higher political bodies, other regulatory levels, or the public — to obtain the full knowledge and concurrence of their employer before doing so, in recognition of the employer's legitimate interests in evaluating business impacts and legal liabilities of such additional steps, while preserving the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health and safety
Employer Cost-Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose recommendation for additional safety testing has been rejected by an employer on cost or schedule grounds — when the engineer continues to believe the product raises unique safety concerns not captured by completed standard testing — to refrain from acquiescing in the employer's rejection as a final resolution of the safety concern, and to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified risk requires escalation beyond the employer relationship to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, recognizing that the employer's economic objection does not extinguish the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public welfare.
Employer Cost-Schedule Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer whose recommendation for additional safety testing has been rejected by an employer solely on cost and schedule grounds — when the engineer believes the product raises unique safety concerns — to recognize that the rejection does not discharge the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to assess and pursue appropriate escalation pathways including internal escalation, documentation of the rejection, and post-employment reporting to regulatory authorities.
Employer Disability Bias Non-Facilitation Obligation
Engineer A would like to be open about his autism, but because Engineer A obtained his employment without disclosing his autism, Engineer A is concerned that doing so might place his career in jeopardy.
Obligation of an engineering employer or engineering firm that employs a licensed professional engineer with an ADA-protected condition to refrain from taking adverse employment action — including termination, demotion, reassignment, or limitation of career advancement — based on bias or unfounded concerns about the engineer's ability to interact with clients or perform professional services, when the engineer's actual performance record demonstrates sustained competence. This obligation arises from the intersection of ADA legal protections and the NSPE Code's requirement that engineers not discriminate in professional activities.
Employer Disclosure Duty in Competitive Pre-Departure Solicitation
An essential aspect of those is the duty to disclose.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who, while still employed, engages in any competitive solicitation or promotional activity directed at the employer's current clients bears an affirmative duty to disclose that activity to the employer; the duty flows from the faithful agent and trustee relationship and from the general obligations of loyalty and good faith, which cannot be satisfied when the engineer is covertly working against the employer's client relationships; disclosure is the minimum condition for the activity to be ethically permissible, and its absence independently constitutes a violation of the duty of loyalty.
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Advocacy Suppression Recognition Capability
Capability of a supervisory engineer or engineering employer to recognize that commercial embarrassment, reputational concern, or business inconvenience caused by an employed engineer's good-faith civic advocacy on matters of public welfare — where the engineer has not named the employer or any specific company — does not constitute a legitimate ethical or professional justification for threatening the engineer with discharge or otherwise suppressing that advocacy, and to refrain from such suppression conduct.
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Civic Advocacy Suppression Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that an employer's commercial embarrassment, reputational concern, or business interest in avoiding public scrutiny does not constitute a legitimate ethical justification for suppressing, threatening, or disciplining a licensed professional engineer who engages in good-faith civic advocacy for public welfare standards — including legislative testimony, media statements, or public organization leadership — where the engineer has not identified the employer or any specific company by name, prohibiting supervisors and employers from treating employer embarrassment as a sufficient basis for discharge threats directed at an engineer's extra-employment civic activities.
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Civic Advocacy Suppression Obligation
Duty of engineering employers and supervisors to recognize that an employer's commercial embarrassment, reputational sensitivity, or competitive discomfort caused by an engineer's good-faith civic advocacy — including public statements, media letters, and legislative testimony on matters of public welfare — does not constitute a legitimate ethical or professional basis for threatening the engineer with discharge or otherwise suppressing that advocacy, provided the engineer has not disclosed confidential employer information, has not named specific companies, and has not violated any professional duty in the course of the advocacy.
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
Professional principle establishing that an employer's commercial embarrassment, reputational sensitivity, or competitive discomfort does not constitute an ethically legitimate basis for directing an engineer to cease lawful, factually accurate, and publicly beneficial advocacy activities — particularly where the engineer has not identified the employer or its products by name — and that threats of discharge premised solely on such embarrassment constitute an improper attempt to subordinate the engineer's professional and civic obligations to the employer's commercial self-interest.
Employer Faithful Agent Citizen Action Boundary Constraint
Engineer B continued to be concerned that public health and safety would be at risk and considered whether there were continuing ethical obligations, and if so, what alternative courses of action as an engineer and/or as a citizen of City M might merit consideration.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has fulfilled all formal professional reporting obligations and is considering additional advocacy as a private citizen must first obtain the concurrence of their employer before taking public actions — such as media engagement, political advocacy, or public statements — that could adversely affect the employer's significant client relationships, prohibiting unilateral citizen-role advocacy that exploits the engineer's professional credibility while simultaneously implicating the employer's business interests, as established by NSPE Code faithful agent provisions and BER case precedent on the boundary between professional and citizen roles.
Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation
Relational principle requiring engineering firms, when advertising positions with explicit licensure requirements and timelines, to conduct reasonable due diligence inquiries into candidates' qualification trajectories — including prior examination attempts and any regulatory restrictions on future examination eligibility — before extending offers of employment, recognizing that the firm's failure to ask material questions diminishes but does not eliminate the candidate's independent disclosure obligation
Employer Information Consent Requirement Before Sharing Obligation
Duty of a public agency engineer who manages or has custody of employer-owned technical documents — including as-built drawings, system records, and project files — to obtain formal employer authorization or consent before sharing those documents with external parties such as contractors, even when the engineer's intent is to improve project outcomes, recognizing that sharing employer information without consent may breach the confidential employer-employee relationship and the faithful agent duty.
Employer Instruction Non-Override of Production Safety Refusal Obligation
Duty of engineers in a production or manufacturing role to recognize that an employer's instruction to proceed with production of equipment they believe to be unsafe does not override or extinguish their professional obligation to refuse, and that compliance with such an employer instruction — even under threat of employment loss — constitutes an independent ethical violation, because the employer's authority over business decisions does not extend to authority over engineers' professional safety judgments regarding public welfare.
Employer Intermediary Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a consulting firm who observes a safety hazard outside the contracted scope of work — particularly one affecting a third party with no contractual relationship to the engineer, the firm, or the client — to escalate the observed safety concern first through the employer/prime consultant as the appropriate organizational intermediary, rather than acting unilaterally, so that the firm can coordinate the appropriate response, determine whether direct notification to the affected third party is warranted, and fulfill the collective public welfare obligation through proper channels.
[Case 139] Relational principle establishing that when an engineer employed by a consulting firm observes a safety hazard outside the contracted scope of work — particularly one affecting a third party with no relationship to the engagement — the engineer's primary initial obligation is to notify and engage the employer firm as an intermediary, enabling the firm to coordinate an appropriate response, rather than requiring the engineer to act unilaterally toward the third party or regulatory authorities without first engaging the employer's judgment and resources.
Employer Licensure Condition Due Diligence Inquiry Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm that advertises a position with an explicit licensure requirement to be obtained within a defined post-hire period to conduct reasonable due diligence during the hiring process — including inquiring about prior examination attempts and any board-imposed restrictions — so that the firm's hiring decision is based on a realistic assessment of the candidate's ability to satisfy the licensure condition within the required timeframe, rather than on an unverified assumption of licensure trajectory.
Employer Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Constraint
The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that an engineering firm that advertises a position with an explicit licensure condition — such as PE licensure required or to be obtained within a specified period — conduct reasonable due diligence during the hiring process by inquiring about the candidate's prior examination attempt history, current examination eligibility status, and any known impediments to satisfying the licensure condition within the specified timeframe, prohibiting the firm from relying solely on the candidate's unverified representation of intent to sit for the examination as a sufficient basis for extending a licensure-conditioned offer.
Employer Licensure Expectation Defeated State
XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license
State in which an employer has extended an offer of employment conditioned on the candidate obtaining professional licensure within a specified period, and that expectation has been materially undermined — either by undisclosed prior failures at the time of hire or by a post-hire failure that triggers regulatory barriers — such that the foundational assumption underlying the employment offer can no longer be fulfilled on the originally anticipated timeline, creating obligations of renegotiation, disclosure, and reassessment of the employment arrangement.
Engineer A faces a tension between loyalty to City D as employer — which might counsel deference to the City Engineer's decision not to pursue corrective action
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to serve the employer's legitimate interests faithfully, while recognizing that loyalty to an employer does not extend to acquiescing in, concealing, or failing to report the employer's violations of applicable law or professional ethics codes, and that the obligation of loyalty is bounded by the paramount duty to uphold public welfare and legal compliance.
Employer Non-Objection Dual Employment Ethical Insufficiency Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that mutual awareness and non-objection by both a governmental employer and a private consulting firm to an engineer's dual employment arrangement does not, by itself, satisfy the engineer's independent ethical obligations under the NSPE Code — specifically where the dual employment creates a structural conflict of interest arising from the engineer's simultaneous service to the same municipal clients in interrelated infrastructure domains — establishing that employer consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical permissibility of dual employment, and that the engineer's faithful agent and trustee obligations impose an independent ethical bar that cannot be waived by employer acquiescence alone, as established by BER Cases 97-1 and 02-8.
Employer Policy Compliance Obligation in Concurrent Private Practice
whether such practices are consistent with the policies and procedures of the employer
Relational principle requiring engineers engaged in concurrent private employment (moonlighting) to comply with all applicable policies, procedures, and directives of their primary employer regarding outside employment — including obtaining required approvals, making required disclosures, and adhering to restrictions on the scope or nature of permissible private work — recognizing that employer policies on outside employment represent legitimate exercises of the employer's authority to protect its interests, manage liability, and maintain workforce integrity
Employer Punitive Action for Internal Technical Dissent State
State in which an engineer who has raised documented technical concerns through proper internal channels faces formal punitive employment consequences — such as a critical personnel file notation, probation, or termination threat — specifically as a result of that professional dissent, creating a chilling effect on the engineer's ability to fulfill professional obligations and a direct tension between employment self-interest and professional duty.
Employer Qualification Deception Protection Teleological Constraint
The purpose of Section 3(e), we prefer to believe, is to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them.
Ethical constraint establishing that the purpose of code provisions prohibiting exaggerated or misrepresented qualification statements in employment-seeking contexts is specifically to protect prospective employers from being deceived about an engineer-applicant's competence, so that employers are not tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to persons not qualified to make them; requiring that any interpretation of the scope and application of such provisions be guided by this employer-protection purpose, and prohibiting interpretations that either (a) extend the prohibition beyond conduct that actually risks deceiving employers about competence, or (b) narrow the prohibition in ways that leave employers unprotected from genuine competence deception.
Employer Question Evident Purpose Broad Interpretation Constraint
The fact that the request by the employer related solely to having a license suspended or being disciplined in connection with the practice of professional engineering should have been of no consequence to Engineer F.
Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer completing an employment application interpret disciplinary history or character questions according to the employer's evident purpose — eliciting complete and material information about the engineer's professional character, integrity, and fitness — rather than according to the narrowest possible literal reading that would permit omission of material adjudicated findings; prohibiting the engineer from exploiting technical ambiguity or narrow question wording to conceal information that a reasonable employer would clearly want to know, and establishing that the engineer must ask not merely 'does this question technically require disclosure?' but 'would a reasonable employer want this information in making the hiring decision?'
Employer Question Intent Broad Interpretation Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a professional engineer completing an employment application to interpret disciplinary history questions according to the employer's evident purpose — eliciting information about the engineer's character, integrity, and credibility — rather than according to the question's literal or narrowest textual scope, recognizing that an employer asking about professional discipline is seeking a holistic character assessment and that a legalistic, literal reading that omits material adjudicated misconduct violates the spirit and ethical purpose of the inquiry even when it satisfies the letter of the question.
Employer Question Intent Purposive Interpretation Capability
Capability of a professional engineer completing an employment application or responding to employer inquiries to interpret the employer's questions according to their evident purpose and intent — eliciting information about character, integrity, and professional fitness — rather than exploiting narrow or ambiguous wording to avoid disclosing material information, recognizing that a legalistic literal reading of employer questions that omits clearly relevant information constitutes an ethical failure even when technically accurate.
Employer Reasonableness Recognition in Absent-Standards Context Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics reviewing bodies — to recognize that when no governmental or industry standards exist to guide a manufacturer's product safety decisions, an employer's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing protocols may be reasonable and not constitute a clear ethical violation — including the ability to distinguish between employer decisions that are unreasonable refusals of clearly indicated safety testing and employer decisions that represent reasonable business judgment in the absence of applicable standards, and to correctly calibrate professional obligations and ethical assessments accordingly.
Employer Reasonableness Recognition in Absent-Standards Context Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics reviewing bodies — to recognize that when no governmental or industry standards exist to guide a product manufacturer's safety testing decisions, it is not unreasonable for the employer to decline to pursue additional internal testing beyond completed standard safety testing in response to an engineer's general concerns about inconsistent performance, and that such employer reasonableness is a relevant factor in calibrating the engineer's post-rejection escalation obligations — distinguishing this context from cases where clear, demonstrable defects exist and applicable standards require corrective action.
Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context
Professional principle establishing that when no governmental or industry standards exist to guide a product development decision, an employer's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing — in response to general, non-specific safety concerns raised by an engineer — is not unreasonable and does not independently constitute an ethical violation by the employer, provided the employer has completed applicable standard safety testing and the engineer's concerns are general rather than specific and demonstrative
Employer Safety Investigation Active State
State in which an employer or client organization has initiated an internal investigation into a reported safety concern, and that investigation is ongoing and being conducted by personnel with relevant domain competence, creating a context in which the reporting engineer's obligation to escalate externally is temporarily attenuated — because the organizational process has not yet been given a reasonable opportunity to produce a result — while the engineer retains a continuing obligation to monitor the investigation's progress and outcomes.
Employer Termination Threat for External Civic Advocacy State
State in which an engineer employed by a private company faces a credible threat of discharge from their employer specifically because of external civic or professional advocacy activities — such as public statements, legislative testimony, or participation in citizen advocacy groups — where the advocacy does not name the employer or any specific company, does not disclose confidential information, and is conducted entirely outside the scope of employment duties, creating a tension between the engineer's right and duty to serve the public interest through professional advocacy and the employer's authority to set conditions of employment.
Employer Trust Undermined by Initial Non-Disclosure State
State in which a professional engineer, at the outset of an employer-employee relationship, failed to disclose material adverse information about professional integrity (such as a license revocation for conduct reflecting on character), and the employer subsequently discovers the omission — creating a condition in which the foundational trust of the employment relationship is retroactively compromised, because the employer's hiring decision was made without information the employer would have considered material, and the professional's failure to 'go the extra mile' beyond the literal minimum of the application question is now exposed as an ethical failing rather than a permissible omission.
Employer and Client Pressure Non-Exemption from Competence Boundary
licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by employer or client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety.
Professional principle establishing that employer directives, client requests, or institutional pressures — including resource constraints such as unavailability of training funds — do not create an exemption from the engineer's obligation to practice solely within their area of competence. An engineer who accepts work outside their competence at the direction of an employer or client, or who certifies matters outside their expertise due to institutional pressure, violates professional ethics regardless of the source or legitimacy of the pressure.
Employment-Seeking Resume Omission Materiality Self-Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing a resume or qualification statement for employment purposes to assess whether omissions of team context, co-authorship, or collaborative design credit rise to the level of material misrepresentation — recognizing that an omission is material when a reasonable prospective employer would consider the omitted information (such as the existence of five co-equal co-designers) significant in evaluating the engineer's qualifications, and that material omissions in employment-seeking documents violate the professional obligation of honesty even when no explicit false statement is made.
Employment-by-Criticism Improper-Method Allegation Non-Cognizability Recognition Capability
Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of 'misconduct' in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics adjudicator, or registration board to recognize that an allegation that a reviewing engineer 'obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing' the original engineer does not constitute cognizable professional misconduct — because legitimate post-occupancy inspection services are properly obtained through client retention based on professional need, and the fact that the inspection results in adverse findings about prior work does not transform the method of obtaining the engagement into an improper solicitation or competitive misconduct.
Employment Application Contractor License Revocation Proactive Disclosure Obligation
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
Duty of a professional engineer completing an employment application that asks about prior disciplinary history — even when the question is facially limited to engineering license discipline — to proactively disclose the revocation of a contractor's license resulting from adjudicated misconduct (such as license-number lending), because such revocation is material to the employer's assessment of the engineer's professional character, integrity, and fitness for practice, and because a negative answer that omits this information creates a false impression of an unblemished professional record.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional engineer completing an employment application that asks about prior disciplinary history in professional practice to disclose the revocation or suspension of any professional license — including contractor licenses, business licenses, or other non-engineering professional licenses — held in connection with activities related to engineering practice, when the revocation resulted from an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing, recognizing that the scope of the disclosure obligation is not limited to the engineering license itself but extends to any professional credential whose revocation reflects on the engineer's professional character and fitness for practice.
Employment Application Disciplinary Inquiry Scope Drafting Capability
Capability of an engineering firm's hiring authority to draft employment application disciplinary history questions with sufficient breadth to capture all professional license discipline — including non-engineering licenses such as contractor's licenses — when such discipline reflects adjudicated professional misconduct relevant to the candidate's fitness for professional employment, recognizing that narrowly worded questions limited to 'engineering license' discipline create disclosure gaps that undermine the firm's legitimate interest in assessing candidate character and professional fitness.
Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity Obligation
Relational principle requiring that engineering firms, when administering employment applications containing disciplinary history questions, craft those questions with sufficient scope to capture all professionally relevant disciplinary history — including contractor licenses, professional licenses in other domains, and related business licenses — and that the scope of the question as written determines the outer boundary of the applicant's literal disclosure obligation, while not relieving the applicant of the broader honesty obligation to avoid creating a materially misleading overall impression
Employment Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Resume Deception Self-Application Capability
Today there is great pressure on the job applicant to stress those qualities and qualifications which will have the greatest impact and make the best impression upon those in a position of responsibility in the hiring process
Capability of a licensed professional engineer seeking employment to recognize that the highly competitive employment environment — including pressure to make the best impression, repeated rejections, and the high stakes of resume screening — does not constitute ethical justification for intentionally obscuring the truth about the nature or scope of one's professional contributions on a resume, and to maintain honest qualification representation despite such competitive pressures, applying this standard to one's own resume preparation conduct.
Employment Context Competence Constraint State
there are important distinctions in applying the NSPE Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship
State in which a licensed engineer has accepted an employment position whose duties require competence in a domain outside their education and experience, and the employment context — unlike a consulting context — provides no practical mechanism to subcontract, hire supplemental expertise, or restructure the workforce to supply the missing competence, making it effectively impossible to perform the role ethically.
he was advised by an employment counselor that his only opportunity lay in finding a position involving management and administration of engineering work
A non-engineering career advisory role borne by an individual who provides job-search guidance to engineers or other professionals, recommending strategies for repositioning their credentials and experience to improve employability, without bearing direct professional engineering obligations but potentially influencing ethically significant decisions such as resume framing.
Employment Hardship Non-Override of Code Safety Mandate Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that considerations of employment difficulty — including the prospect of a most difficult employment situation or even the loss of employment — are subordinate to the requirements of the professional code of ethics in matters of public safety, prohibiting engineers from treating employment hardship or job loss risk as a sufficient justification for proceeding with production of equipment they believe to be unsafe, and establishing that the Code's safety mandates supersede employment self-preservation considerations even when compliance creates severe personal economic consequences.
Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing
As we noted in Cases 65-12 and 82-5, the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment.
Professional virtue principle acknowledging the sobering reality that engineers who fulfill their ethical obligation to report public safety concerns externally — particularly when doing so against employer or supervisor wishes — will frequently face employment termination or other professional retaliation, and establishing that this foreseeable cost does not diminish or excuse the ethical obligation. The principle requires engineers to accept the personal cost of whistleblowing when public safety is genuinely at stake, recognizing that permitting professional obligations to be compromised by fear of employment loss causes grave damage to the engineering profession as a whole.
Employment Loss Acceptance as Mandatory Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who faces a choice between fulfilling a mandatory public safety reporting obligation and retaining employment, to accept the potential loss of employment as the cost of fulfilling the ethical obligation — recognizing that the NSPE Code's requirement to report to proper authorities and withdraw from projects involving public safety endangerment cannot be conditioned on employment security, and that the engineering profession's collective obligation to the Code requires individual engineers to bear this cost when necessary.
Employment Loss Acceptance for Public Welfare Advocacy Capability
Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and accept that continuing good-faith civic advocacy for public welfare — including legislative advocacy for product quality standards — in the face of an employer's discharge threat may result in actual loss of employment, and to make that choice knowingly and with full awareness of the personal professional and financial consequences, understanding that the ethics code permits and may require such advocacy even at personal cost when public welfare is at stake.
Employment Loss Mandatory Cost of Safety Refusal Acceptance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer in a production or manufacturing employment role to recognize that the potential loss of employment resulting from refusing to participate in production under plans and specifications the engineer believes to be unsafe is a cost that is subordinate to the requirements of the professional ethics code — and to accept that cost knowingly, understanding that considerations of employment security and economic hardship, while genuinely difficult, cannot override the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety, and that the ethics code's mandate to refuse participation in unsafe operations applies even when compliance may lead to termination.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and accept that choosing to blow the whistle on an employer's improper course of conduct related to public concerns — particularly where the concern does not rise to the level of a mandatory public safety duty — may require the engineer to pay the personal price of loss of employment, and to make that choice knowingly and with full awareness of the personal consequences, understanding that the ethics code permits but does not compel such action in non-safety public interest contexts.
Employment Loss Risk from Safety Obligation Compliance State
State in which a professional engineer's compliance with a mandatory code obligation — specifically the obligation to refuse participation in or withdraw from engineering operations believed to endanger public health and safety — creates a direct and recognized risk of employment termination or severe employment consequences. The state is characterized by the ethics body's explicit acknowledgment that employment consequences are subordinate to code requirements, and that the engineer must comply with the code even at personal professional cost.
Employment Pressure Abrogation of Safety Obligation State
State in which a professional engineer faces pressure from employment circumstances (e.g., risk of job loss, employer directives, organizational hierarchy) to suppress or defer action on identified public safety dangers, creating a condition where the engineer's economic and employment interests directly compete with the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety — and where yielding to that pressure constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Public Safety Determination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency or private firm to refuse to subordinate a professional safety determination — including a bridge closure order or structural safety finding — to employment pressure, supervisory override, or the threat of adverse employment consequences, recognizing that yielding a professional safety judgment to employment considerations when the engineer believes great dangers are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Safety Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that employment pressures — including the risk of job loss, demotion, or adverse employment consequences — do not constitute an ethical justification for subordinating a professional safety determination, and to maintain the integrity of that determination despite such pressures, understanding that bowing to employment situations when the engineer believes great dangers are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
Employment Qualification Code Provision Scope Extension Purposive Interpretation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to interpret a professional ethics code provision whose literal text references a specific employment context — such as being 'listed' for employment through an employment service — as applying more broadly to all employment-seeking contexts, including direct applications to employers, by reasoning from the protective purpose of the provision rather than its literal textual scope; including the ability to recognize that a purposive reading of employment-related code provisions extends their application to the full range of employment qualification representations made by engineers seeking work, regardless of the specific channel or mechanism through which the representation is made.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics board, or professional body to interpret specific enumerated terms in an ethics code provision — such as 'plans and specifications' — purposively and expansively in light of the overall thrust and paramount duty expressed in the broader code, so that the provision applies to all engineering instruments of service and professional outputs that serve the same protective function, rather than being limited to the literal enumerated terms.
Employment Role Competence Honest Representation Obligation
he devised a new resume which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility
Duty of a licensed professional engineer seeking employment to accurately represent the balance and level of their experience across different functional roles — including the relative weight of technical design versus managerial and administrative responsibilities — so that a prospective employer can make an informed hiring decision based on the engineer's genuine qualifications for the specific role sought. This obligation is violated when an engineer deliberately restructures a resume to elevate minor experience in a sought-after role while systematically downplaying dominant experience in a different role, even if each individual statement is technically accurate, because the overall impression conveyed is materially false as to the engineer's actual qualification profile.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is crafting a resume or professional qualification statement to remain within the permissible boundary of selective emphasis — understood as highlighting genuine qualifications and downplaying less relevant experience for a targeted position — without crossing into misrepresentation, exaggeration, or intentional obscuring of material facts that a prospective employer would need to make an informed hiring decision. The permissible zone of emphasis is defined by whether the employer is protected from being deceived as to the engineer's actual competence for the role sought; emphasis that does not deceive the employer about competence is permissible, while emphasis that creates a false impression of qualifications the engineer does not possess crosses into prohibited misrepresentation.
Employment Seeking Economic Hardship Non-Excuse Misrepresentation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who faces genuine economic hardship — including prolonged unemployment following industry-wide layoffs and exhaustion of job-seeking efforts in their primary specialty — may not invoke that hardship as a justification or mitigating excuse for misrepresenting the balance, depth, or character of their professional experience on a resume or employment application; establishing that the duty of non-deception in professional self-representation is not suspended or relaxed by financial necessity, career transition pressure, or the advice of a third-party employment counselor, and that the engineer remains fully bound by the prohibition on exaggerated or misleading qualification statements regardless of the personal cost of compliance.
Employment Situation Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from bowing to employment pressures, institutional hierarchy, or employment-related consequences when the engineer believes great dangers to public safety are present — establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety supersedes deference to supervisors, employers, or institutional authority when safety-critical conditions are at stake, and that acquiescing to employment pressure in such circumstances constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency from acquiescing to a non-engineer official's override of a professionally grounded safety determination — including bridge closures, load restrictions, or structural safety assessments — requiring instead that the engineer resist the override by escalating to supervisors, regulatory authorities, and other officials with jurisdiction, and establishing that the non-engineer's institutional authority does not supersede the engineer's professional safety obligation, as established by BER Case 00-5 and the principle that engineers must not bow to employment situations when great dangers are present.
Employment Termination Threat Safety Escalation Non-Deterrence Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that an explicit employment termination threat issued by a non-engineer administrative superior in response to a licensed professional engineer's safety escalation activities does not constitute a legitimate constraint on the engineer's obligation to continue escalating imminent public safety hazards — prohibiting the engineer from treating the termination threat as a sufficient reason to cease safety advocacy, and establishing that the paramount duty to public safety supersedes employment self-preservation when imminent danger is present.
Employment vs Consulting Competence Flexibility Distinction Capability
obviously there are important distinctions in applying the NSPE Code language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewer to correctly distinguish between the competence obligations applicable in a consulting practice context — where firms have flexibility to structure their workforce, engage subconsultants, form joint ventures, and hire qualified personnel to fill competence gaps — versus an employment context — where such structural flexibility is typically unavailable and the individual must personally possess the competence required for the role. Enables correct application of NSPE Code provisions to each context and identification of when competence gaps cannot be remediated through organizational arrangements.
Encouraged vs Mandatory Code Provision Scope Constraint
Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising from the distinction between mandatory ('shall') and encouraged ('are encouraged to') provisions in a professional code of ethics, establishing that an engineer intern or licensed engineer may not treat an encouraged provision as a mandatory basis for refusing to perform a lawful, technically sound assigned task — prohibiting the conflation of aspirational ethical encouragements with binding professional obligations that would justify task refusal, contract non-performance, or unilateral project withdrawal.
Encouraged vs Mandatory Code Provision Tension State
the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is 'encouraged'
State in which a professional faces tension between a mandatory code provision (expressed as 'shall') and an encouraged but non-mandatory code provision (expressed as 'encouraged'), where full compliance with both simultaneously is not possible, requiring the professional to prioritize the mandatory obligation while seeking creative paths to honor the encouraged principle.
Energy Advisory Systemic Risk Scope Expansion Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing an energy advisory report to recognize when the scope of relevant risk extends beyond the isolated performance of the proposed system to include systemic effects on interconnected infrastructure — specifically, the ability to identify that an organization's energy transition decision has implications for the broader utility grid and for public welfare beyond the organization's own operations, and to expand the advisory scope accordingly to include these systemic risks.
After careful study of the facility electric load profile and the capability of the proposed solar energy system, Engineer A is satisfied that under normal conditions, the system of solar panels can supply electric energy equivalent to that provided by the existing generator.
Technical capability to analyze an organization's electric energy load profile — including temporal demand patterns, peak loads, base loads, and the contribution of on-site generation sources such as co-generation facilities — and to evaluate whether a proposed replacement generation system can satisfy those load requirements under normal and adverse operating conditions.
Energy System Reliability Faithful Agent Board Report Obligation
Therefore, Engineer A has an obligation to present this information in a report to the board.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been engaged to evaluate an energy system replacement proposal and has determined that the proposed system — while producing equivalent energy at similar cost — will not be as reliable as the existing system and will decrease the reliability of the entire local electric power system, to present that reliability differential prominently and completely in a written report to the organizational board, so that the board can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the proposed replacement, invest in storage capacity, or maintain the existing generation capability.
Engineer A is preparing a report that will be presented to the board to consider the new solar project
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer conducts technical analysis of an organization's energy systems—including load profiling, generation alternatives, and grid interaction effects—and prepares a report for organizational decision-makers (e.g., a board of directors), bearing obligations to present complete, objective, and non-misleading information including systemic risks to public infrastructure (such as grid stability impacts) that extend beyond the immediate project scope, even when such disclosures may complicate stakeholder preferences or organizational priorities.
Energy Transition Public Safety Risk Calibration Obligation
Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer evaluating an energy system replacement proposal to calibrate the public safety reporting and disclosure obligations associated with identified grid-level risks — including rolling blackout risks communicated by utility resource planners — by assessing the nature, imminence, probability, and severity of those risks, and to fulfill the appropriate level of disclosure and reporting obligation based on that calibrated assessment, including determining whether the risk rises to the level requiring notification beyond the organizational board to regulatory or public authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes a potential safety deficiency to calibrate the applicable reporting obligation to the nature, imminence, and severity of the identified risk — distinguishing between conditions that pose clear and immediate threats to public health, safety, and welfare (triggering a mandatory public welfare paramount reporting duty) and conditions that pose indirect, contingent, or property-damage-level risks (triggering a faithful agent and project success notification duty to the client) — and to fulfill the appropriate level of obligation based on that calibrated assessment, without either over-escalating conditions that do not rise to the public welfare threshold or under-reporting conditions that do.
Engineer-Contractor Constructability Deficiency Pre-Bid Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who also acts as a construction contractor and submits a bid on a project to recognize when the design documents contain material constructability deficiencies — including missing design details, unbuildable specifications, or inadequate information — that would materially affect the cost, feasibility, or safety of construction, and to disclose those deficiencies to the client before or at the time of bid submission rather than exploiting the information asymmetry for competitive advantage or proceeding with a bid that does not reflect the true cost of the work.
Engineer-Contractor Constructability Deficiency Pre-Bid Disclosure Obligation
At the pre-construction conference, it is pointed out by Engineer C, owner of Hi-Lo Construction, that much of the design detail is lacking in the drawings and specifications and that Hi-Lo Construction declares that certain parts of the project are 'unbuildable' without major changes.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who also acts as a construction contractor and submits a bid on a project to disclose, prior to or at the time of bid submission, any material constructability deficiencies, design inadequacies, or unbuildable elements that the engineer's professional knowledge reveals in the contract documents — recognizing that the engineer's dual expertise creates an asymmetric informational advantage over the client and other bidders, and that submitting a bid without disclosing known constructability deficiencies exploits that advantage to the detriment of the client and the integrity of the competitive procurement process.
Engineer-Contractor Dual-Role Document Evaluation Capability
As an engineer and a contractor presumably, Engineer C had the necessary background and experience to carefully evaluate the engineering drawings as well as other aspects of the work in order to make an informed decision as to whether to bid on the project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who also acts as a construction contractor to apply their combined engineering background and construction experience to carefully evaluate engineering drawings, plans, and specifications before bidding — including assessing constructability, identifying design gaps, evaluating technical adequacy, and making an informed judgment about whether the documents are sufficient to build the project — recognizing that the dual professional background creates both a heightened ability and a heightened responsibility to detect and respond to document inadequacies that a contractor without engineering credentials might not recognize.
Engineer-Contractor Dual Role Constructability Disclosure Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring a licensed engineer who also acts as a construction contractor and submits a bid on a project to disclose, prior to or at the time of bidding, any known or reasonably discoverable deficiencies in the design documents that render portions of the project unbuildable or that would require major design changes — recognizing that the engineer's professional knowledge creates an obligation to flag constructability problems that a contractor without engineering credentials might not be able to identify
Engineer-Contractor Pre-Bid Constructability Deficiency Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who also acts as a construction contractor and submits a bid on a publicly advertised project must disclose to the client any material constructability deficiencies, design gaps, or unbuildable elements identified in the bidding documents before or at the time of bid submission — prohibiting the engineer-contractor from submitting a low bid on a project known to contain material design deficiencies without disclosing those deficiencies, and establishing that the engineer's professional duty of disclosure is not suspended by the contractor's competitive interest in winning the bid.
Engineer-Initiated Third-Party Disclosure Prejudicing Client Bargaining State
State in which an engineer, without client authorization and absent any safety or legal justification, proactively discloses a professional report to a third party whose receipt of that report materially weakens the client's negotiating or bargaining position in a transaction, creating a condition where the engineer's unilateral disclosure decision conflicts with faithful agent duties and the client's reasonable expectation of information control.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which an engineer discloses a professional report or findings to a third party who was not party to the service agreement and whose receipt of the report prejudices the client's interests, without the client's prior consent, constituting an ethical violation of the client's confidentiality right.
Engineer-as-Accomplice-to-Unlawful-Action Self-Recognition Capability
The Board noted that this subterfuge is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics, because it makes the engineer an accomplice to what may amount to an unlawful action.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when their own professional conduct — including using vague or euphemistic language, passively documenting without recommending analysis, or complying with attorney-directed confidentiality over imminent safety findings — makes them an accomplice to potentially unlawful action, and to correctly identify that such complicity is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics, triggering an affirmative obligation to act differently.
Engineer-to-Client Relationship Prerequisite for Dual-Role Municipal Service Obligation
it must be evident that the relationship between the engineer and the municipality must be one of engineer to client (municipality) and not engineer to employer (municipality) for this principle to be valid in accordance with the mandate of Section 8(b)
Duty of a consulting engineer designated as statutory municipal engineer — and of ethics adjudicators evaluating such arrangements — to recognize that the ethical permissibility of the engineer-consultant simultaneously furnishing complete engineering design services to the same municipality depends critically on the relationship being structured as engineer-to-client (consultant) rather than engineer-to-employer (employee), consistent with NSPE Code Section 8(b), such that the engineer's recommendations are subject to approval or disapproval by appropriate municipal processes rather than to direct employer direction, and that the engineer is compensated on a fee or retainer basis rather than as a salaried municipal staff member subject to tax withholding, employee benefits, and similar employment regulations.
Engineer-to-Client Relationship Prerequisite for Section 8(b) Dual-Role Permissibility Constraint
the relationship between the engineer and the municipality must be one of engineer to client (municipality) and not engineer to employer (municipality) for this principle to be valid in accordance with the mandate of Section 8(b)
Ethical constraint establishing that the ethical permissibility of a consulting firm principal serving simultaneously as statutory municipal engineer and as the firm providing capital project engineering services to the same municipality is strictly conditioned on the relationship between the engineer and the municipality being characterized as engineer-to-client (consultant) rather than engineer-to-employer (employee) — and that this relationship characterization is the operative predicate for compliance with the mandate of NSPE Code Section 8(b), which prohibits an engineer in public service from participating in considerations or actions with respect to services provided by the engineer or the engineer's organization in private engineering practice, as established by BER Case 74-2.
Engineer-to-Client Versus Engineer-to-Employer Relationship Distinction as Conflict Determinant
However, it must be evident that the relationship between the engineer and the municipality must be one of engineer to client (municipality) and not engineer to employer (municipality) for this principle to be valid in accordance with the mandate of Section 8(b).
Domain-specific principle establishing that the critical ethical determinant in dual-role municipal engineering arrangements is the structural character of the relationship between the engineer and the municipality: when the relationship is one of engineer-to-client (consultant retained on fee or retainer basis, whose recommendations are approved or disapproved by appropriate municipal processes), the engineer retains the professional independence necessary to serve the public interest; when the relationship is one of engineer-to-employer (the engineer is subject to the direction of municipal authorities as an employee), different ethical constraints apply; this distinction governs whether an engineer designated as 'municipal engineer' may also furnish complete engineering services to the same municipality
Engineer-to-Client vs Engineer-to-Employer Relationship Structural Prerequisite Verification Capability
Capability of a consulting engineering firm principal designated as statutory municipal engineer — and of ethics adjudicators evaluating such arrangements — to verify that the structural relationship between the engineer and the municipality is one of engineer-to-client (consultant relationship) rather than engineer-to-employer (employment relationship), and to recognize that this structural prerequisite is the critical condition that makes dual-role advisory-plus-design service permissible under Section 8(b) of the NSPE Code — understanding that if the relationship is one of employment rather than consulting, the non-participation mandate of Section 8(b) would bar the engineer from providing private engineering services to the same governmental body.
Whether Engineer B wishes to consider additional alternative courses of action on a personal basis raises other ethical considerations
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, having fulfilled all formal professional obligations by reporting public health and safety risks to appropriate authorities, chooses to pursue additional advocacy actions—such as communicating with political bodies, higher regulatory management, or the general public—on a personal rather than professional basis, bearing obligations to act with employer knowledge and concurrence, to consider stakeholder impacts, and to recognize that such actions are discretionary citizen conduct rather than mandatory professional duty.
Engineer Advocate Role Before Public Body State
Rule 10 refers to the engineer being an 'advocate' of a position, again recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected
State in which a professional engineer appears before a public body — such as a legislative committee, regulatory commission, public hearing panel, or other governmental tribunal — in the capacity of an advocate for a particular technical position or policy outcome, where the engineer's advocacy role is institutionally recognized and ethically permissible, provided the engineer's affiliation and the basis of the advocacy are disclosed, the technical criticism of competing positions is grounded in engineering analysis rather than personal attack, and the engineer maintains professional deportment. This state is distinguished from covert or undisclosed partisan engagement by the transparency of the engineer's role and the public body's awareness of the advocacy context. It recognizes that engineers have a professional duty to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance, and that this duty may require public advocacy even when it involves criticizing another engineer's work.
Engineer Autonomy Non-Subordination to Institutionalized Advocacy Bar Analogy Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in forensic or expert witness roles to resist and reject any attempt — whether by opposing counsel, retaining attorneys, or institutional pressure — to analogize the engineer's professional role to the institutionalized plaintiff's bar or defense bar structure of the legal profession, recognizing that engineers are not advocates in rendering professional services, that no engineering equivalent of the plaintiff/defense bar dichotomy exists or should exist, and that the engineer's professional independence and autonomy must be preserved against structural expectations imported from the legal profession that would compromise the engineer's objectivity and independent judgment.
Engineer Bid Evaluation Obligation Standard
Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer-contractor's duty to carefully evaluate bidding documents, engineering drawings, plans, and specifications before submitting a bid, including the obligation to reflect known inadequacies in the bid price, seek clarification from the owner or design engineer when documents are incomplete, and accept responsibility for risks knowingly assumed through submission of a low bid on a deficient project.
Professional norms and ethical guidance governing the conditions under which an engineer, having fulfilled professional obligations, may take additional personal actions as a concerned citizen — including communicating with political bodies, management, or the public — and the ethical constraints applicable to such actions including employer loyalty, stakeholder consideration, and legal liability
Engineer Citizen Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, having fulfilled all formal professional reporting obligations, considers pursuing additional advocacy as a private citizen — including public statements, media engagement, or political advocacy — to recognize that such citizen advocacy may implicate the engineer's employer's business and legal interests, and to weigh those interests carefully before proceeding, while recognizing that the employer's business interests do not override the engineer's rights and duties as a citizen when public health and safety are at stake.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to serve the employer's legitimate interests faithfully, while recognizing that loyalty to an employer does not extend to acquiescing in, concealing, or failing to report the employer's violations of applicable law or professional ethics codes, and that the obligation of loyalty is bounded by the paramount duty to uphold public welfare and legal compliance.
Engineer Civic Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Self-Assessment Capability
Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in extra-employment civic advocacy to self-assess whether that advocacy implicates the employer's legitimate business interests — including the ability to distinguish between advocacy that genuinely harms the employer (e.g., naming the employer, disparaging specific products) and advocacy that merely causes commercial embarrassment without actual harm — and to weigh those interests before proceeding while recognizing that the employer's business interests do not override the engineer's rights and duties as a citizen when public welfare is at stake.
Engineer Civic Public Discussion Non-Preclusion Constraint
The Code does not preclude engineers, as citizens, from participating in such public discussion.
Ethical constraint establishing that the professional code of ethics does not preclude licensed professional engineers, acting as citizens, from participating in public discussion of engineering projects that have direct and substantial impact on the daily life of the citizenry — including highway route selection, infrastructure siting, and similar public infrastructure decisions — prohibiting the characterization of such civic participation as a violation of professional ethics obligations, and establishing that public discussion of engineering projects is not only permissible but desirable because the whole purpose of engineering is to serve the public interest; subject to the substantive restrictions on the manner and basis of such commentary imposed by other code provisions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that when evaluating whether a licensed professional engineer's civic advocacy activities are ethically permissible, the correctness or ultimate validity of the engineer's opinions is not germane — it is sufficient that the engineer was sincere in those opinions and believed they were serving the public interest, prohibiting ethics bodies, employers, and supervisors from conditioning the permissibility of civic advocacy on the engineer's ability to prove the substantive correctness of the positions advocated, and establishing that good-faith sincerity in service of public welfare is the operative ethical standard for civic advocacy permissibility.
Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
He shall seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of his community.
A professional ethics standard obligating engineers to seek opportunities to provide constructive service in civic affairs and to work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their community, including participation in public engineering debates and infrastructure decisions.
In Section II.2., the introductory section makes the clear statement that the engineer is obligated to perform services only in his area of competence.
Professional norms and NSPE Code provisions establishing that engineers must perform services only within their areas of competence, must undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved, and may supplement their competence by retaining qualified specialists — applicable in both consulting and employment contexts
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the requirement that engineers practice only within their areas of demonstrated competence, and the duty to disclose limitations before undertaking work outside their expertise
Engineer Confidentiality and Loyalty Obligation Standard
engineers have an obligation not to disclose (without consent) confidential information concerning the business affairs or the technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to protect confidential and proprietary information obtained from a client or employer, including the duration of that duty after the professional relationship ends, the prohibition on using such information to benefit a competing party, and the obligation to maintain trust and loyalty to former clients even when no current professional relationship exists.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to disclose and manage conflicts of interest when providing services in adversarial legal proceedings, including the limits of loyalty to former clients, the prohibition on representing adverse interests without consent, and the obligation to protect confidential information gained in prior engagements
Engineer Cost Estimate Public Disagreement Permissibility State
The fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
State in which a consulting engineer has publicly disputed the cost estimates produced by government agency engineers for a proposed infrastructure project, where the disagreement is grounded in the engineer's professional knowledge and honest conviction rather than malice or factual distortion. The state recognizes that cost estimation in engineering involves professional judgment and that honest differences among equally qualified engineers on cost projections do not constitute an ethical violation, provided the criticism is temperate, factually grounded, and not motivated by self-interest.
Engineer Departure and Competition Ethics Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the rights and limits applicable when an engineer leaves an employer to establish an independent firm or join a competing firm, including the balance between individual initiative, client rights, employer goodwill, and prohibitions on exploiting specialized knowledge or making disparaging statements about the former employer to divert clients.
A third ethical aspect of the present sustainability case is the engineer's right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern.
A professional ethics framework governing the conditions under which an engineer may ethically refuse to perform an assigned task on grounds of personal ethical conviction, distinguishing between ethically permissible dissent and ethically obligatory dissent, and addressing the professional consequences and obligations associated with conscientious objection in engineering practice.
Engineer Employer Loyalty vs. Professional Judgment Standard
Management rejected the comments of Engineer A
Professional norms and ethical principles governing the tension between an engineer's duty of loyalty and service to an employer and the engineer's independent professional judgment, including the conditions under which an engineer is ethically obligated to persist in raising technical objections against management decisions, and the limits of employer authority to override professional engineering assessments.
Engineer Expert Non-Advocate Independence Constraint
unlike attorneys, they are not advocates in rendering their professional services, and thus they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving as an expert witness or technical reviewer in adversarial legal proceedings from adopting the role of an advocate for the retaining party — establishing that the engineer's duty is to assist the trier of fact (judge or jury) in understanding technical complexities objectively, and that the engineer must not compromise professional independence and autonomy by aligning technical opinions with the adversarial interests of the retaining party, as established by NSPE Code professional independence provisions and the principle that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not advocates in rendering professional services.
Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Obligation
Duty of engineering employers, supervisors, and professional ethics bodies to recognize that a licensed professional engineer retains, as both a citizen and a professional, the right to engage in extra-employment civic advocacy — including organizing citizen committees, making public statements, writing to media, and testifying before legislative bodies on matters of public welfare — without employer interference, suppression, or threatened discharge, provided the engineer has not disclosed confidential employer information, has not made false statements, and has not violated any professional duty in the course of such advocacy; and that the employment relationship does not extinguish the engineer's civic and professional rights to contribute specialized knowledge to public discourse.
Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Principle
Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
Relational principle establishing that engineers, as members of a democratic society, retain the right to engage in lawful civic, legislative, and public advocacy activities outside their employment relationship — including organizing citizen groups, writing to newspapers, and testifying before legislative bodies on matters of public concern — and that this right is not extinguished by the employment relationship so long as the engineer does not exploit confidential employer information, does not represent the employer without authorization, and does not create a direct and demonstrable conflict of interest with specific employment duties.
Engineer Impartiality in Dispute Resolution Standard
citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work
Professional norms and contractual provisions establishing the engineer's role as an impartial initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability in owner-contractor disputes, affirming that objective professional judgment fulfills rather than violates the duty of loyalty to the client.
Engineer Incapacity and Delegation Standard
Engineer B divulged he had suffered a stroke a few months prior
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of licensed engineers who experience physical, cognitive, or health-related impairments that affect their ability to competently perform or supervise engineering work, including obligations regarding delegation of design responsibilities, supervision of subordinates, and the duty to suspend or close practice when competence is compromised
Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration Capability
As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge's position does not align with Wasser's view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser.
Capability of a licensed engineer intern to correctly calibrate the form, intensity, and consequences of professional dissent from an assigned task — including distinguishing between ethically permissible dissent (personal conviction) and ethically obligatory dissent (mandatory code violation), assessing career implications of dissent, and selecting the dissent pathway most likely to achieve ethical objectives while fulfilling faithful agent obligations.
Engineer Intern Formal Objection Formulation Capability
In a formal memorandum to Jaylani, Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals
Capability of a licensed engineer intern to formulate, document, and communicate a formal professional objection to an assigned task — including preparing a written memorandum that identifies the specific normative basis for the objection (code provisions, sustainability frameworks, technical evidence), cites supporting technical analysis, and channels the objection through appropriate supervisory channels — while calibrating the form and intensity of the objection proportionately to the normative weight of the concern.
Engineer Intern Misrepresentation Correction Obligation
Duty of a licensed engineer intern who discovers that firm advertising or official documents misrepresent their licensure status — including listing them as a licensed professional engineer when they hold only engineer intern status — to promptly report the misrepresentation to the responsible party within the firm and, if not corrected within a reasonable time, to escalate the matter to ensure correction, so that the public and clients are not misled about the engineer's qualifications.
Engineer Intern Misrepresentation Escalation Persistence Capability
Capability of a licensed engineer intern (EI) who has reported a professional misrepresentation — such as being listed as a licensed PE in firm advertising — to recognize when initial reporting to the responsible department has not resulted in timely correction, and to persist in escalation by reporting to higher organizational authority or external professional bodies, understanding that continued inaction after actual knowledge of the error transforms negligent oversight into potentially improper and unethical conduct requiring further action.
an engineer intern (EI) observed that the firm's advertising documents listed him as a PE
A licensed engineer intern (EI) role in which the individual is falsely listed or advertised as a licensed professional engineer in firm marketing or public-facing documents, generating obligations to identify and report the misrepresentation to responsible parties within the firm and, if uncorrected, to appropriate professional bodies.
Engineer Intern Task Refusal Proportionality Obligation
Wasser refuses to perform the task and says the traditional irrigation system will waste fresh water
Duty of a licensed engineer intern who objects to an assigned task on sustainability or environmental grounds to calibrate the form and intensity of their objection proportionately to the severity of the identified harm — communicating concerns formally and clearly to the supervising engineer while remaining available to perform the task if the supervising engineer and client make an informed decision to proceed — recognizing that outright task refusal without escalation through proper channels may exceed the intern's authority and may not constitute the most professionally appropriate response when the ethical concern is grounded in an encouraged (rather than mandatory) professional principle.
Engineer Liability Indemnification Contract Standard
Engineer A requires a broad indemnification provision in all of his agreements where he provides pollution-related services
Professional norms and contractual standards governing the permissibility and ethical implications of engineers requiring clients to indemnify and hold harmless the engineer for damages or legal costs arising from the engineer's own negligence in the performance of professional services, particularly in high-risk or specialty service areas such as pollution-related work.
Engineer License Revocation Risk Advisory
Engineer A contacts the state engineering registration board and is informed, based upon the limited information provided to the board that suspension or revocation of his engineering license was a possibility if he prepared a permit that violated environmental regulations
Formal or informal guidance issued by a state engineering registration board advising a licensed engineer of the potential professional licensure consequences — including suspension or revocation — of preparing or certifying documents that violate applicable regulations
Engineer License Revocation Threat for Regulatory Compliance Refusal State
State in which a professional engineer employed in a regulatory capacity has been informally advised by the state engineering registration board that preparing or issuing a permit that violates applicable environmental or safety regulations could result in suspension or revocation of their engineering license — creating a direct personal professional jeopardy that reinforces the engineer's ethical and legal obligation to refuse non-compliant permit issuance, and simultaneously making the cost of compliance with a superior's directive potentially career-ending.
Engineer Mobility Right Ethics-Conditioned Exercise Obligation
There can be no question of the basic right of an American citizen to resign from one position and accept another or initiate a business of his own.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the fundamental right to resign from one position and accept another or initiate an independent business — affirmed by NSPE Professional Policy No. 52 — is not absolute but is conditioned on consistency with the Canons of Ethics as they pertain to relations with clients and employers; the engineer must therefore exercise mobility rights in a manner that does not exploit insider knowledge, violate confidentiality, misrepresent qualifications, or otherwise breach ethical obligations owed to the former employer, clients, or the public, and must not treat the mobility right as a shield against ethical scrutiny of the manner in which the transition was conducted.
Engineer Non-Advocate Expert Independence State
State in which a professional engineer is engaged in an adversarial legal proceeding as an expert witness or technical consultant, where the adversarial structure of the proceeding creates pressure — from retaining counsel, opposing counsel, or institutional expectations — to adopt an advocate's role rather than maintaining the engineer's professional obligation of objectivity and independence. The state is characterized by the structural tension between the legal adversarial system's expectation of partisan advocacy and the engineering profession's requirement that technical opinions be rendered objectively to assist the trier of fact.
Engineer Non-Advocate Status in Adversarial Proceedings
while engineers may find themselves at times working within the confines of the legal adversarial profession, unlike attorneys, they are not advocates in rendering their professional services, and thus they should not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy
Fundamental professional principle establishing that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not advocates when rendering professional services in adversarial legal proceedings — their role is to assist the trier of fact through objective technical expertise, and they must not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy by adopting the partisan stance of the retaining party, even when operating within the legal adversarial system
[Case 136] Fundamental professional principle establishing that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not advocates when rendering professional services in adversarial legal proceedings — their role is to assist the trier of fact through objective technical expertise, and they must not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy by adopting the partisan stance of the retaining party, even when operating within the legal adversarial system.
Engineer Notification Right in Review Contexts
Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
Professional norms establishing the right of an engineer whose work is subject to peer review or independent assessment to be informed of and given opportunity to respond to such review, grounded in principles of professional fairness and the engineer's obligation to stand behind their work
Engineer Openness Philosophy Client Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
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.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's genuine professional philosophy of openness, transparency, and straightforward dealing with facts — while a legitimate and code-endorsed orientation reflected in NSPE Code Sections II.3 and II.3.a — does not override, displace, or diminish the engineer's duty to protect the proprietary rights of a client over facts, data, and information obtained on the client's behalf, as recognized in NSPE Code Section II.1.c; prohibiting the engineer from treating a personal or professional commitment to openness as a sufficient justification for voluntarily distributing a client-commissioned report to third parties without client consent, and establishing that the tension between the openness philosophy and client confidentiality must be resolved in favor of client confidentiality when the client has a proprietary interest in the commissioned work product and no safety or legal exception is triggered.
The widely-held professional philosophy among engineers that their role is to be open, aboveboard, and deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation, as reflected throughout the NSPE Code, and which must be balanced against client confidentiality obligations when the two come into tension.
Engineer Passive Acquiescence to Client Safety Refusal State
The engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous
State in which a professional engineer, having identified a safety concern and presented it to the client, proceeds with project work without further objection, dissent, or escalation after the client refuses to adopt the recommended safety measure — effectively 'going along' with the client's decision in a manner that abrogates the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health and safety. The state is distinguished from active compliance by the absence of any recorded insistence, withdrawal threat, or notification to appropriate authorities.
Engineer Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal Obligation
it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work in this case
Duty of a licensed professional engineer in a regulatory role who refuses to issue a permit or approval they believe would violate applicable regulations or endanger public health and safety to remain engaged in the matter — submitting findings to superiors and standing by their professional position — rather than withdrawing from further work on the project, recognizing that withdrawal would abandon the engineer's obligation to protect the public and that the engineer's continued presence and documented objection serves the public interest.
Engineer Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal Persistence Capability
the Board determined that it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project, because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety, and welfare and refuse to issue the permit
Capability of a licensed professional engineer in a regulatory role who refuses to issue a permit or approval they believe would violate applicable standards or regulations to remain engaged in the matter after the refusal — submitting findings to superiors, documenting the basis for refusal, and continuing to represent the public interest — rather than withdrawing from further work, understanding that withdrawal would abandon the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare and that 'sticking to their guns' is required even when the department ultimately authorizes the permit over the engineer's objection.
Engineer Permit Refusal Obligation with Disassociation Permissibility State
it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position
State in which a professional engineer employed in a regulatory capacity has refused to issue a permit on public safety and regulatory compliance grounds, and faces the question of whether to withdraw from further work on the project — where the ethical analysis holds that withdrawal is permissible (avoiding a professionally compromising situation) but that the engineer's primary obligation is to maintain their professional position and refuse the permit rather than simply withdrawing, because 'sticking to their guns' in defense of public health and safety is the paramount duty.
Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
While the Board understood the frequent pressures that engineers sometimes experience due to time, financial, and other constraints, a professional engineer must act ethically, resist such demands, and act in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Professional virtue principle requiring licensed engineers to resist organizational, managerial, time, financial, and other institutional pressures that would cause them to act in ways inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — establishing that the existence of such pressures, however understandable, does not constitute an ethical justification for non-compliant conduct, and that the engineer's professional obligations are not subordinated by organizational convenience or urgency
[Case 137] Professional virtue principle requiring licensed engineers to resist organizational, managerial, and institutional pressures that would cause them to act in ways inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — establishing that the existence of such pressures does not constitute an ethical justification for non-compliant conduct.
[Case 157] Professional virtue principle requiring licensed engineers to resist organizational, managerial, time, financial, and other institutional pressures that would cause them to act in ways inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — establishing that the existence of such pressures, however understandable, does not constitute an ethical justification for non-compliant conduct, and that the engineer's professional obligations are not subordinated by organizational convenience or urgency.
[Case 175] Professional virtue principle requiring licensed engineers to resist organizational, managerial, time, financial, and other institutional pressures that would cause them to act in ways inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — establishing that the existence of such pressures does not constitute an ethical justification for non-compliant conduct.
[Case 79] Professional virtue principle requiring licensed engineers to resist organizational, managerial, time, financial, and other institutional pressures that would cause them to act in ways inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle prohibiting engineers from acquiescing to client directives that would result in the omission of safety-relevant technical analysis — including specialized hydrologic, hydraulic, or structural analysis — when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material risks to public safety or third-party welfare, even when the client's rationale is cost management and the regulatory minimum does not require the analysis
Engineer Professional Autonomy Categorical Prohibition Non-Subordination Constraint
However, the Board of Ethical Review is not prepared to say that an engineer who fails to follow this approach is somehow acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Ethical constraint establishing that professional engineering ethics bodies must not issue categorical prohibitions that would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise in deciding whether to accept engagements that could place the engineer in a position adverse to a former client's interests — prohibiting the imposition of a blanket rule that any engineer who accepts an engagement adverse to a former client in an unrelated matter is acting in violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics, and establishing that such a categorical prohibition would improperly compromise engineer autonomy and professional independence even where individual engineers might reasonably choose to decline such engagements as a matter of personal professional judgment.
Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
Such an approach would be impractical and compromise the autonomy and professional independence of engineers.
Fundamental professional principle establishing that engineers must retain individual judgment, professional independence, and discretionary autonomy in accepting or declining engagements — and that ethical codes must not be interpreted in ways that would systematically undermine that independence, including by imposing blanket prohibitions on engagements adverse to former clients in unrelated matters, because such prohibitions would compromise the engineer's capacity to exercise the independent professional judgment that defines the profession
Engineer Professional Criticism Conduct Standard
does not prohibit ...public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply due restraint. . .in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer
Professional norms governing the ethical conditions under which engineers may publicly criticize the work of another engineer at public hearings or in public forums, requiring that such criticism be offered with professional restraint, grounded in engineering data and alternative analyses, and free from personal attack or abuse.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms governing the ethical obligations of engineers when a subsequent expert report contradicts or undermines a prior engineer's safety findings, including the obligations of the original engineer to respond, the standards for the subsequent report's completeness, and the ethical implications of reports that introduce uncertainty to delay protective action
Engineer Professional Independence Standard
engineers must analyze technical matters, weighing all appropriate considerations
Professional norms and ethical principles affirming that engineers must maintain individual professional judgment, autonomy, and discretion in accepting or declining engagements, and are not bound by an absolute duty of perpetual loyalty to former clients that would compromise their independence — particularly when new engagements are unrelated to prior work for those clients.
Engineer Public Advocacy Ethics Standard
Professional norms and ethical guidance governing an engineer's right and obligation to engage in public advocacy, civic speech, and legislative participation on matters of engineering quality, public safety, and consumer welfare — including the limits of employer authority to suppress such activities when conducted without identifying the employer or specific products.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical guidance governing the conditions under which an engineer, having fulfilled professional obligations, may take additional personal actions as a concerned citizen — including communicating with political bodies, management, or the public — and the ethical constraints applicable to such actions including employer loyalty, stakeholder consideration, and legal liability
Engineer Public Civic Participation Non-Preclusion Code Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the professional ethics code does not preclude engineers, as citizens, from participating in public discussion of engineering projects that have direct and substantial impact on the daily life of the citizenry — including highway routing, infrastructure siting, and similar public interest matters — and that such participation is not only permitted but welcomed as consistent with the purpose of engineering to serve the public interest, provided the applicable restrictions on public commentary are observed.
Engineer Public Commentary Factual Accord Insistence Constraint
the comment must be in accord with the facts of the situation (Section 5(a))
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who participates in group discussion, public forums, or publication of articles on engineering subjects — including public infrastructure route selection debates — must insist on the use of facts in reference to the engineering project at issue, prohibiting the publication of engineering commentary that misrepresents, distorts, or selectively omits material facts about the engineering project, and establishing that the factual-accord requirement applies to all claims made in public engineering commentary including cost estimates, route comparisons, and technical assessments; distinguishing this factual-accord requirement from the prohibition on honest differences of opinion, which remain permissible when the underlying facts are accurately represented.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint requiring that engineers express technical opinions publicly only when those opinions are founded upon established facts and completed analysis, prohibiting disclosure of unverified concerns as if they were established professional findings.
Engineer Public Commentary Non-Malicious Non-False Peer Critique Constraint
the criticism or comment by the engineer must not be malicious, unjust, or intended to injure another engineer (Section 12)
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, or practice of another engineer through public commentary — including through criticism of another engineer's cost estimates, route analyses, or technical conclusions in public forums or press publications — and prohibiting indiscriminate criticism of another engineer's work in public; establishing that the malice-and-falsity prohibition requires affirmative evidence of malicious or false intent and is not satisfied by the mere fact that the commentary is adverse to the other engineer's professional conclusions; and establishing that temperate, constructive, factually grounded criticism of another engineer's technical work does not constitute the kind of injurious conduct prohibited by this constraint.
Engineer Public Commentary Sound Knowledge and Honest Conviction Prerequisite Constraint
the comment must be based on sound engineering knowledge and judgment (Section 5)
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who expresses an opinion on an engineering subject in any public forum — including through letters published in local press, public hearings, civic meetings, or published articles — must ground that opinion in adequate knowledge of the subject matter and honest professional conviction, prohibiting the expression of engineering opinions that are not founded on sufficient technical knowledge or that do not reflect the engineer's genuine professional judgment; establishing that the sound-knowledge prerequisite is satisfied when the engineer possesses relevant professional background in the engineering field at issue, and that honest conviction requires that the opinion reflect the engineer's actual professional assessment rather than advocacy for a predetermined conclusion.
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer B pointed out at a public meeting with the Water Commissioners that public health and safety would be at risk
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to escalate public health and safety concerns beyond the immediate client when the client fails to act on engineer recommendations, including obligations to notify regulatory authorities, public officials, and the public, and the scope of continuing obligations after discharge from a project
Engineer Public Safety Stick to Guns Representation Constraint
Engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest under the circumstances where they believe the public health and safety is at stake.
Ethical constraint establishing that licensed professional engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to maintain and advocate for their professional safety determinations — to 'stick to their guns' — when they believe public health and safety are at stake, prohibiting capitulation to institutional pressure, superior directives, or employment consequences when the engineer holds a professionally grounded belief that a course of action endangers public health and safety, and establishing that this obligation to represent the public interest persists even after the employing agency has overridden the engineer's safety determination.
Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
engineers who are involved in such activities should perform their obligations in a manner that is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who testifies before public bodies on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare must perform those obligations in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — prohibiting testimony that is selective in a deceptive manner, factually unsupported, or structured to mislead the decision-making body, and establishing that the public role of engineers in policy deliberations carries heightened ethical obligations commensurate with the effect that such testimony may have on public policy decisions.
Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Obligation
Engineers play an important role when testifying before public bodies on technical and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before public bodies on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare to perform that testimony in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, recognizing the heightened responsibility that arises from the potential effect of engineering testimony on public policy decisions and on people's lives.
Engineer Public Testimony Role and Obligation Principle
Professional principle establishing that engineers who testify before public bodies on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare bear a heightened obligation to perform their role consistently with professional ethics standards — because their technical expertise gives their testimony disproportionate influence on public policy — while also recognizing that this role encompasses both retained engineers presenting client projects and independent engineers offering critical perspectives in the public interest.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who possess specialized knowledge of environmental, safety, or public welfare risks associated with a proposed project to provide truthful, objective, and complete public testimony at regulatory hearings — even when acting as private citizens rather than retained professionals — when such testimony serves the public interest and is grounded in established technical facts or professional assessments
Engineer Regulatory Compliance Certification Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's act of formally certifying compliance with specific regulations or technical requirements, establishing that such certification constitutes a guarantee of correctness and is therefore impermissible when the engineer lacks the competence or ability to conduct the exhaustive inspection and verification required to support that guarantee
Engineer Relations Code Evolution Historical Awareness Capability
At one time, the Code had strict provisions regarding relations among engineers. However, with the passage of time, these strict provisions have been carefully modified to reflect the needs of clients and the evolving nature and realities of engineering practice.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the historical evolution of provisions governing relations among engineers in professional ethics codes — including awareness that earlier codes contained strict provisions regarding engineer-to-engineer relations, that these provisions were carefully modified over time to reflect the evolving needs of clients and the realities of engineering practice, and that current provisions must be interpreted in light of this evolution rather than applying outdated strict interpretations — enabling the engineer to correctly apply current, evolved standards when analyzing obligations in engineer-to-engineer contexts such as peer review, competitive solicitation, and successor engagement.
Engineer Relations Code Provision Client Need Balancing Constraint
provisions regarding relations among engineers must be carefully balanced with the needs and requirements of the individual client as well as the particular facts and circumstance of the case.
Meta-ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics governing relations among engineers must be carefully balanced against the needs and requirements of individual clients and the particular facts and circumstances of each case — prohibiting rigid or mechanical application of engineer-relations provisions without contextual assessment of client needs, and recognizing that the evolution of engineering practice has required careful modification of formerly strict provisions to reflect the realities of modern practice, as established by the Board's general interpretive principle in BER Case 93-3.
Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard
State licensing board rules and professional norms establishing the affirmative duty of licensed engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another licensee or firm has violated professional conduct rules to report such knowledge in writing to the relevant board of licensure
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to report known or suspected violations of engineering licensure laws, professional ethics codes, or public safety threats to the relevant state licensing board or regulatory authority, including the tension between personal loyalty and professional duty to protect the public
Engineer Reporting Obligation to State Board Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to report known or suspected violations of engineering licensure laws, professional ethics codes, or public safety threats to the relevant state licensing board or regulatory authority, including the tension between personal loyalty and professional duty to protect the public
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of engineers when a client or owner refuses to accept or implement a safety-protective design recommendation made by the engineer, including the engineer's obligations to document the recommendation, advise the client of the risks, and determine whether the refusal creates a public safety threat requiring escalation beyond the client relationship.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to escalate public health and safety concerns beyond the immediate client when the client fails to act on engineer recommendations, including obligations to notify regulatory authorities, public officials, and the public, and the scope of continuing obligations after discharge from a project
Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conditions under which an engineer presenting technical findings in a public or quasi-judicial forum is required to volunteer material information not specifically solicited, including the principle that engineers are not automatically obligated to disclose all potentially relevant information if, in their professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent' to the matter at hand, provided they respond truthfully when questioned.
Engineer Self-Advocacy Autonomy Constraint
Engineer A certainly has the right to advocate for himself at his sole discretion.
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer retains the autonomous right to advocate for himself or herself at his or her sole discretion regarding personal conditions, disabilities, or characteristics that are unrelated to engineering competence — constraining employers, ethics reviewers, and professional bodies from interfering with, penalizing, or characterizing as unethical the engineer's personal decision about whether, when, and how to disclose personal information that does not affect professional fitness, and recognizing that such decisions are personal matters rather than ethical matters subject to professional code enforcement.
Engineer Self-Advocacy Autonomy Non-Interference Obligation
Obligation of engineering employers, ethics reviewers, and professional bodies to recognize and respect the right of a licensed professional engineer to advocate for himself or herself — including the right to disclose or not disclose personal characteristics, conditions, or identity aspects — at the engineer's sole discretion, without external compulsion through ethics code provisions. This obligation prohibits the use of professional ethics codes as instruments to override an engineer's personal autonomy in self-disclosure decisions that do not implicate engineering practice competence or public safety.
Engineer Self-Advocacy Autonomy Recognition and Respect Capability
Capability of engineering employers, ethics reviewers, professional bodies, and engineers themselves to recognize and respect the right of a licensed professional engineer to make autonomous decisions about voluntary disclosure of personal information — including ADA-protected conditions — understanding that such decisions are personal choices rather than ethical obligations, that the engineer has the right to advocate for himself at his sole discretion, and that professional ethics codes do not compel disclosure of personal characteristics that do not affect professional competence or public safety.
Engineer Sincere Safety Adequacy Belief State
If we assume, as we must, that Engineers A and B are of the sincere opinion that the approach desired by the town council will not jeopardize the public health of the community
State in which the engineers responsible for a contested design hold a sincere, professionally grounded opinion that the proposed design will not jeopardize public health or welfare, even though the design is publicly criticized by a peer engineer and involves foreseeable environmental risks. This state distinguishes the engineers' subjective good-faith judgment from objective confirmed safety — the design may carry residual risk, but the responsible engineers genuinely believe it falls within acceptable professional standards. The state activates obligations to document and defend the technical basis for that judgment, to remain open to contrary evidence, and to decline to proceed only if their own assessment changes to conclude that public health would actually be jeopardized.
Engineer Solicitation and Competition Ethics Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing how engineers may ethically solicit work, compete for contracts, and engage with prospective clients, including prohibitions on injuring the reputation of other engineers, making false or misleading statements about competitors, and using procurement contacts as opportunities for self-interested disparagement of incumbent engineers.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State-level regulatory rules governing professional engineering conduct, including standards for marketing, solicitation of employment, and representation of qualifications, typically patterned after NCEES Model Rules or developed through unique state legislative history
Engineer Specialist Retention Obligation Standard
Professional norms and NSPE Code provisions (formerly Section 6) establishing that engineers must undertake assignments only when qualified by training or experience, and must engage or advise engaging experts and specialists whenever the client's or employer's interests are best served by such service — including the affirmative obligation to upgrade team qualifications when a client signals that additional technical support is required
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and NSPE Code provisions establishing that engineers must perform services only within their areas of competence, must undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved, and may supplement their competence by retaining qualified specialists — applicable in both consulting and employment contexts
Engineer Stamped Document Responsibility Standard
Engineer A, along with one other employee at the firm, stamped the final document.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's ongoing responsibility for work they have stamped and sealed, including the duty to support and stand behind that work in subsequent proceedings, and the limits of that obligation when the engineer has transitioned to a new employer with adverse interests
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to accept responsibility for their professional services, acknowledge errors in their work, and take corrective action when design deficiencies are discovered, including obligations to notify clients and relevant parties of inaccurate data or flawed conclusions
Engineer Statement Professional Bond Integrity Constraint
Foundational ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's words and statements in professional dealings constitute a form of professional bond — a binding representation of the engineer's integrity and character — such that the engineer must be continuously mindful of both statements and actions, recognizing that professional reputation and trustworthiness are judged by the accuracy, honesty, and reliability of the engineer's verbal and written representations, and that this standard applies universally across all professional contexts including technical work, client dealings, business negotiations, and public communications, as established by NSPE Code provisions on honesty and truthfulness and the foundational principle that the public, employers, clients, and colleagues rely upon the honesty and integrity of the professional engineer.
[proethica-intermediate] Professional ethical boundaries beyond legal requirements (Benzmüller et al. 2020)
Engineer Supplanting Prohibition Standard
Professional norms and NSPE Code provisions (formerly Section 11(a)) prohibiting an engineer from attempting to supplant another engineer in a particular employment after becoming aware that definite steps have been taken toward the other's employment, including the threshold conditions (client notification of selection, specific intent to retain) that trigger this prohibition.
Engineer A did not maintain responsible charge in violation of licensure law which violates Code section III.8.a
A licensed professional engineering role that bears statutory and ethical responsibility for active engagement in the engineering process from conception to completion, including supervisory direction and control authority over all engineering decisions, whether made personally or by others (including AI tools), with obligations to ensure quality assurance, mentorship, and professional standards compliance.
[proethica-intermediate] A role within a profession that entails recognized ends/goals of practice (e.g., safeguarding public safety, delivering competent technical solutions) and a coherent set of obligations codified in standards and codes (e.g., NSPE). Often associated with licensure or formal accountability. Examples: Professional Engineer, Project Manager, Public Official.
Engineering Advertising Antitrust Constraint Active State
State in which the ethical evaluation of engineering advertising and self-promotion practices must be conducted within a legal framework that affirmatively protects commercial free speech and prohibits anticompetitive restrictions on professional advertising, such that formerly restrictive professional code provisions have been superseded by antitrust and commercial speech doctrine, and ethical analysis must be tempered by recognition that overly broad advertising restrictions may themselves be legally impermissible.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which the governing legal and regulatory environment at local, state, and/or federal levels affirmatively mandates free and open competition among engineering firms, such that professional conduct must be evaluated against both ethical obligations and the legal requirement to preserve competitive fairness — including the recognition that formerly restrictive professional code provisions (e.g., prohibitions on advertising or competitive bidding) have been removed to align with this framework, and that engineering practice occurs within a competitive marketplace subject to antitrust and procurement law.
Engineering Advocate Honest Conviction Prerequisite Self-Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who serves as an advocate of a technical position before a legislative committee, commission, or public body to verify, before undertaking that advocacy role, that the position being advocated reflects the engineer's own honest professional conviction — and to decline or withdraw from the advocacy role if the engineer does not genuinely believe in the technical soundness of the position being advanced, recognizing that Rule 10's reference to the engineer as 'advocate' presupposes that the advocacy is grounded in sincere professional judgment rather than mere client instruction.
Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who serves as an advocate of a position before a legislative committee, court, commission, or other public body — as recognized by Rule 10's reference to the engineer being an 'advocate' — must hold that advocacy position as a matter of honest professional conviction, prohibiting the advocacy of engineering positions that the engineer does not genuinely believe to be sound, and establishing that the advocate role recognized in Rule 10 presupposes that the engineer's advocacy reflects sincere professional judgment rather than mere client-directed position-taking divorced from the engineer's own technical assessment, as established by Rule 10 and the BER's recognition that 'contrary conclusions are to be expected' in engineering advocacy contexts.
Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention by Non-Engineer Public Official Constraint
Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer holding a formal public engineering role (such as city engineer or director of public works) from permitting her engineering authority over safety-critical matters to be circumvented or overruled by a non-engineer public official — establishing that the engineer's professional authority in safety-critical engineering matters is not subordinate to administrative hierarchy when public safety is at stake, and that acquiescing to such circumvention constitutes an independent ethical violation requiring escalation to proper authorities.
Engineering Authority Non-Circumvention by Non-Engineer Supervisors in Public Safety Matters
As the legally established city engineer and director of public works, Engineer A allowed her engineering authority to be circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer under circumstances involving the public safety.
Professional virtue principle establishing that a licensed professional engineer in a public agency role — particularly one with formal legal authority such as city engineer or director of public works — bears an ethical obligation not to permit their professional engineering authority to be circumvented or overruled by non-engineer supervisors in matters involving public safety. When a non-engineer administrator overrides an engineer's professionally grounded safety determinations, the engineer's ethical obligation is not discharged by acquiescence; rather, the engineer must escalate the circumvention itself to proper authorities as an independent ethical violation.
Engineering Brochure Accurate Academic Qualification Description Obligation
An engineering firms brochure is a sales tool and should describe accurately the academic qualifications of it's employees.
Duty of an engineering firm to ensure that its sales brochures and marketing materials accurately describe the academic qualifications of all listed personnel, including distinguishing between licensed professional engineers, degreed engineers, and non-degreed technical staff, so that prospective clients and the public who rely on brochure representations are not misled about the educational credentials of the firm's workforce.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from falsifying their own qualifications and to refrain from permitting misrepresentation of their own or their associates' qualifications — including refraining from allowing firm advertising or official documents to list an engineer intern as a PE, or to list non-degreed personnel with engineering titles — and to take affirmative corrective action upon discovering such misrepresentation, even when the misrepresentation was initially inadvertent.
Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
While engineering is a profession, the practice of engineering, as with all professional pursuits, is also a business.
Fundamental principle recognizing that engineering practice simultaneously constitutes a profession governed by ethical obligations and a business pursuit governed by competitive market norms, and requiring engineers to exercise independent judgment and discretion in navigating both dimensions — engaging collegially and cooperatively with other professionals where appropriate, while maintaining professional integrity obligations that constrain how business competition is conducted
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental principle recognizing that free and open competition is a basic legal and ethical rule governing engineering practice, and that while certain competitive practices are clearly beyond legal and ethical bounds, engineers must operate within a framework that respects competitive market access — including the removal of formerly anti-competitive provisions from ethics codes — while still maintaining professional integrity obligations that constrain how competition is conducted
Engineering Business Competitive Context Independent Judgment Constraint
the Board has stressed the importance of exercising independent judgment and discretion in all business and professional areas
Ethical constraint requiring that licensed professional engineers who compete with one another for clients in the business of engineering must exercise independent professional judgment and discretion in all business and professional areas — including decisions about reporting, collegial engagement, and competitive conduct — prohibiting the subordination of independent professional judgment to competitive business pressures, client acquisition motivations, or profit-maximization imperatives when those pressures conflict with ethical obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is asked to make a technical recommendation in a context involving significant financial pressures — including costs to the employer, clients, and the public — must formulate and deliver that recommendation based solely on technical findings, treating business and financial considerations as factors to be weighed separately by the employer rather than as inputs that modify the technical recommendation itself, prohibiting the subordination of technical judgment to business pressure and requiring that the engineer present complete technical findings so that the employer can make an informed decision that appropriately weighs both technical and business factors.
Engineering Business Ethics Competitive Context Awareness Capability
the practice of engineering, as with all professional pursuits, is also a business. As a business pursuit, engineers compete with one another for clients in order to maximize individual and firm profits
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and navigate the intersection of professional ethics obligations and the competitive business dimensions of engineering practice — including awareness that engineers compete for clients and profits, that this competitive context can create tensions with collegial and cooperative professional obligations, that business competition does not suspend ethical duties, and that professional ethics codes address business conduct (advertising, fees, firm names, proprietary interests, unfair competition) as well as technical practice — enabling the engineer to exercise independent judgment and discretion across both business and professional domains.
When Client W reviewed the design documents, they found misaligned dimensions and key safety features (including those necessary for compliance with local regulations) were omitted
A client role that reviews engineering deliverables (reports, design documents, plans) produced by a retained engineer, bearing authority to identify errors, raise quality concerns, and question inconsistencies in work products, thereby triggering engineer obligations of transparency and disclosure.
Engineering Code Scope Exclusion of Sub-Professional Activities State
the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage
State in which a formal determination has been made — by the governing professional ethics body — that the applicable engineering code of ethics and rules of professional conduct do not extend to sub-professional, non-professional, or purely commercial/business activities in which a licensed engineer may engage, even when those activities are conducted alongside or in conjunction with professional engineering practice. This state establishes the outer boundary of code jurisdiction and transforms the ethical analysis of sub-professional work: such work is evaluated under general commercial and legal norms rather than professional engineering ethical standards, while simultaneously activating a residual obligation to prevent public confusion between the two categories.
Engineering Cost Estimate Public Disagreement Capability
In determining it was ethical for the principal of a consulting firm to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route, the Board noted that the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to publicly express, in written or oral form, a reasoned professional disagreement with cost estimates or technical conclusions prepared by other engineers — including government agency engineers — without violating professional ethics obligations, recognizing that honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts are ethically permissible and do not constitute unprofessional conduct, provided the disagreement is grounded in genuine professional judgment rather than competitive self-interest or bad faith.
Engineering Credential Title Jurisdictional Scope Triggering Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer uses a credential title that incorporates the word 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' — such as 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' — in a professional submission, report, or testimony in a jurisdiction, that use of an engineering-implying title brings the engineer within the purview of that jurisdiction's engineering practice act, thereby triggering all applicable licensure and compliance requirements for that jurisdiction, regardless of whether the engagement was originally framed as non-engineering expert services, and prohibiting engineers from using engineering-implying credential titles in jurisdictions where they are not licensed as a means of circumventing licensure requirements.
Engineering Discipline Mislabeling in Firm Marketing State
in its literature lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer
State in which a firm's marketing or promotional literature incorrectly identifies an engineer's area of professional specialization or discipline — for example, listing a mechanical engineer as an electrical engineer — creating a public misrepresentation of the engineer's qualifications and the firm's available expertise, and triggering obligations on both the firm and the affected engineer to correct the record.
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineering firms and their personnel must not misrepresent the specific engineering discipline (e.g., mechanical, electrical, civil, structural) in which a listed engineer holds their degree and has performed services, because discipline-specific misrepresentation misleads prospective clients about the actual technical expertise available to them and constitutes a false statement of a pertinent qualification fact — distinct from mere title misrepresentation, which concerns licensure status rather than disciplinary specialization
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
the firm has begun a marketing campaign and in its literature lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer
Duty of an engineering firm and its responsible personnel to refrain from misrepresenting the specific engineering discipline of any listed engineer in promotional or marketing materials — including substituting one engineering discipline (e.g., electrical) for another (e.g., mechanical) — because a client's selection of engineering services depends materially on the discipline-specific competence of the personnel assigned, and discipline misrepresentation constitutes a pertinent-fact misrepresentation that deceives prospective clients about the firm's actual capabilities.
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
Engineer A learns that the firm has begun a marketing campaign and in its literature lists Engineer A as an electrical engineer.
Capability of an engineer or EIT to recognize when firm promotional or marketing materials misrepresent the specific engineering discipline of a named staff member — such as listing a mechanical engineering EIT as an electrical engineer — and to identify this as a violation of professional ethics obligations prohibiting false or misleading representations of qualifications, distinct from broader title misrepresentation in that it concerns the specific subdiscipline rather than licensure status or general engineering credentials.
Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation in Marketing Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting an engineering firm from misrepresenting the specific engineering discipline of a listed engineer in promotional or marketing literature — including listing a mechanical engineer as an electrical engineer — establishing that discipline-specific accuracy is a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients who rely on firm marketing materials to assess the firm's actual technical capabilities, and that such misrepresentation constitutes a deceptive statement regardless of whether other engineers in the firm hold the misrepresented discipline.
Engineering Employer Disability Bias Non-Facilitation Capability
Organizational capability of an engineering firm to recognize, assess, and refrain from taking adverse employment action against a licensed professional engineer based on bias or unfounded concerns about an ADA-protected condition — including the ability to evaluate an engineer's actual professional performance record rather than relying on stereotyped assumptions about disability, to understand ADA obligations in the employment context, and to ensure that disclosure of a protected condition does not trigger discriminatory career consequences.
Engineering Employer with Disability Bias Risk
Engineer A is concerned that doing so might place his career in jeopardy
An organizational stakeholder role borne by an engineering firm that employs or may employ a licensed engineer with an undisclosed disability, and whose potential biases or concerns about client interactions could influence hiring, retention, or career advancement decisions upon disclosure. This role is implicated in the ethical analysis of whether an engineer's non-disclosure constitutes a deceptive act.
Engineering Fact Command Pre-Reporting Readiness Constraint
Professional engineers should be certain that they are in command of the facts and relevant technical information, may need to deliver recommendations that may not be well-received by the public or public officials, are capable of engaging with civic groups to explain the situation, and can articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who intends to report a public health, safety, or welfare concern to appropriate authorities must first ensure they are in command of all relevant facts and technical information — including the specific engineering standards violated, the applicable state law prerequisites, and the precise nature of the safety risk — prohibiting escalation based on incomplete factual command or without readiness to engage the public and officials in substantive technical dialogue, as established by the present BER case and the principle that engineers must be capable of articulating why engineering judgment and expertise matter.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety concern and undertakes escalation to public authorities must first ensure they are in command of all relevant facts and technical information, are prepared to deliver recommendations that may not be well-received by the public or public officials, are capable of engaging with civic groups to explain the situation, and can articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter — prohibiting escalation based on incomplete factual command or without readiness to engage the public and officials in substantive technical dialogue.
Engineering Fact Command and Civic Engagement Readiness Constraint
Professional engineers should be certain that they are in command of the facts and relevant technical information, may need to deliver recommendations that may not be well-received by the public or pubic officials, are capable of engaging with civic groups to explain the situation, and can articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety concern and undertakes escalation to public authorities must first ensure they are in command of all relevant facts and technical information, are prepared to deliver recommendations that may not be well-received by the public or public officials, are capable of engaging with civic groups to explain the situation, and can articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter — prohibiting escalation based on incomplete factual command or without readiness to engage the public and officials in substantive technical dialogue.
Engineering Factual Basis Requirement Standard
The Engineer will insist on the use of facts in reference to an engineering project in a group discussion, public forum or publication of articles.
A professional ethics standard requiring engineers to insist on the use of facts — even when intermingled with opinion — when referencing an engineering project in group discussions, public forums, or published articles, ensuring that professional commentary maintains an empirical grounding.
the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance for the project that the result would most likely be an inadequate design, with higher construction and maintenance costs over the life of the facility, and the possibility that the design could be unsafe and jeopardize the public health
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the submission of engineering fee proposals that are adequate to support competent professional performance, including the prohibition on submitting unrealistically low price proposals that would foreseeably result in inadequate design, compromised public safety, or higher long-term costs to the public.
An organizational role borne by an engineering consulting firm (or its representatives) that advertises positions with specific PE licensure requirements, conducts candidate interviews, makes hiring decisions contingent on licensure expectations, and bears obligations to conduct due diligence on candidates' qualification representations and to enforce stated licensure conditions of employment.
Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
A supervisory engineering role within a consulting firm responsible for overseeing engineer interns hired with a PE licensure requirement, bearing obligations to monitor licensure progress, respond to exam failure disclosures, and determine appropriate employment and compliance actions when a hire fails to meet the PE requirement stipulated at hiring.
Engineering Firm Sale Negotiator Engineer
Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer acts as the chief negotiator in the sale or acquisition of an engineering firm or subsidiary, bearing obligations of truthfulness, non-deception, and complete disclosure of material facts in negotiations with prospective buyers, and refraining from artfully misleading statements designed to obscure the truth or manufacture false competitive pressure.
Engineering Instrument Scope Expansive Interpretation Obligation
Duty of engineers, ethics boards, and professional bodies interpreting engineering ethics code provisions to read specific enumerations of engineering work products — such as 'plans and specifications' — expansively to include all engineering instruments of service, including written reports, studies, analyses, and other technical documents, so that the protective intent of the ethics code is not frustrated by narrow textual construction that would exclude non-traditional work products from the scope of professional obligations bearing on public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings
Professional norms, ethical obligations, and regulatory standards governing the required level of supervision that licensed professional engineers must provide to engineering interns, graduate engineers, and other unlicensed subordinates performing engineering design work, including the scope of review required before signing and sealing documents prepared by supervised personnel
Engineering Judgment Articulation and Civic Engagement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk arising from a proposed ordinance change or infrastructure modification to be capable of engaging with civic groups to explain the engineering situation, articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter, and deliver recommendations that may not be well-received by the public or public officials — ensuring that the engineer is in command of the facts and relevant technical information before engaging in such communications, so that the public and decision-makers receive accurate, complete, and professionally grounded information about the safety implications of the proposed change.
Engineering Judgment Non-Substitution Obligation
the BER stated that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement.
Duty of a licensed engineer to ensure that AI tools, software, or other technological aids are used as supplements to — and never as replacements or substitutes for — independent professional engineering judgment, including the duty to outline solution guidelines and constraints before delegating to AI, to critically challenge AI outputs, and to independently satisfy themselves that proposed solutions meet professional and regulatory standards before acceptance.
Engineering Judgment Public Communication and Civic Engagement Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk to engage directly with civic groups, public officials, and the broader public to explain the engineering situation, articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter, deliver recommendations that may not be well-received, and communicate the technical basis for professional positions in a manner accessible to non-engineers — including the ability to respond to organized public pressure with clear, factually grounded explanations rather than capitulating to non-technical advocacy.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to engage directly with civic groups, citizen advocacy organizations, and non-technical public audiences to explain engineering safety concerns, articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter, and communicate the technical basis for professional positions in a manner accessible to non-engineers — including the ability to respond to organized public pressure with clear, factually grounded explanations rather than capitulating to non-technical advocacy.
Engineering Judgment vs. Public Policy Override State
Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area.
State in which a technically sound engineering recommendation — derived from efficiency, cost, and performance criteria — conflicts with a public policy determination that directs a different outcome for social, political, or community welfare reasons, such that the engineer's technically optimal solution is legitimately overridden by non-engineering public policy considerations. In this state, neither the engineer who advocates for the technically efficient solution nor the engineer who advocates for the policy-preferred solution is ethically incorrect, because both positions reflect valid applications of professional judgment within their respective domains. The state recognizes that large public projects may properly reflect both engineering diagnoses and public policy determinations, and that the engineer's role includes presenting both dimensions transparently.
all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
State statutory provisions defining the legal scope of engineering practice, establishing licensure requirements, and specifying what activities constitute the practice of engineering under state law, including review and approval of engineering design documents
Engineering Notes Safety Finding Formal Written Transmission Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has documented a safety-relevant finding in personal engineering notes to recognize the professional obligation to translate that documented finding into a formal written communication addressed to the client, prime consultant, and/or appropriate public authority — and to execute that translation, ensuring that the finding does not remain confined to personal notes but is transmitted in a form that creates an actionable, documented professional record accessible to parties with responsibility to act on it.
Engineering Notes Safety Finding Written Report Preservation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has documented a safety-relevant finding in personal engineering notes — particularly one bearing on a confirmed fatality — to preserve that documentation and to ensure it is translated into a formal written communication to appropriate parties, recognizing that retention of the finding solely in private engineering notes, without transmission to the client in writing or to public authorities, does not satisfy the engineer's public welfare obligation and that the engineering notes themselves constitute evidence of the engineer's knowledge that triggers affirmative disclosure duties.
Engineering Notes Safety Finding Written Transmission Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has documented a safety-relevant finding in personal engineering notes — whether or not that finding falls within the contracted scope of services — must translate those notes into a formal written communication to the client and, where public safety is implicated, to the responsible public authority, prohibiting the engineer from treating the retention of personal notes as a substitute for formal written transmission of the safety finding, and establishing that the act of documenting a finding in engineering notes creates a professional obligation to formally communicate that finding through appropriate channels.
Engineering Openness Culture Non-Override of Client Confidentiality Principle
Relational principle establishing that the engineering profession's general cultural orientation toward openness, transparency, and sharing factual findings with all interested parties — while a legitimate professional value — does not override or displace the confidentiality owed to a client with respect to a report commissioned in the client's interest; an engineer who discloses commissioned findings to adverse or potentially adverse third parties on the basis of professional openness norms commits a confidentiality violation regardless of the sincerity of that professional philosophy.
Engineering Openness Philosophy Confidentiality Non-Override Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the engineering profession's general cultural orientation toward openness, transparency, and dealing straightforwardly with facts — while a legitimate and admirable professional value reflected throughout the NSPE Code — does not override or supersede the specific confidentiality obligation owed to a commissioning client, and to correctly determine that a personal or professional philosophy of openness cannot serve as ethical justification for sharing a client-commissioned report with third parties who have adverse or potentially adverse interests relative to the client.
Engineering Openness Philosophy Non-Override of Client Commissioned Report Confidentiality Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the engineering profession's general cultural orientation toward openness, transparency, and dealing in a straightforward way with facts — while a legitimate and admirable professional value reflected throughout the NSPE Code (e.g., Sections II.3 and II.3.a) — does not override or displace the client's proprietary right to the exclusive benefit of a commissioned report under NSPE Code Section II.1.c., and that an engineer who distributes a client-commissioned report to adverse parties on the basis of this openness philosophy nonetheless commits an ethical violation regardless of the sincerity of that professional philosophy.
Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Acknowledgment Capability
it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a legislative body or public tribunal on a large and complex engineering project to recognize and explicitly acknowledge that professional opinions on such projects are necessarily grounded in estimates of indeterminate factors — such as construction cost by one method versus another, population growth projections, economic development trends, and future equipment efficiency — and to communicate this inherent epistemic uncertainty honestly to the decision-making body rather than presenting engineering conclusions as if they were mathematically certain or uniquely correct.
Engineering Opinion Estimate-Based Indeterminacy Honest Acknowledgment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a legislative body or public tribunal on a large and complicated engineering problem — such as a water-power complex — to honestly acknowledge that the engineering opinion expressed necessarily rests on estimates of indeterminate factors (e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development trends, future equipment efficiency), and to present those estimates transparently rather than as settled engineering fact, so that the legislative body can properly calibrate the weight to assign the testimony and make an informed policy decision.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineer to express technical opinions publicly only when those opinions are founded upon established facts and completed professional analysis, and to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities.
Engineering Opinion Indeterminacy and Estimate-Based Judgment Principle
Professional virtue principle recognizing that in large and complicated engineering problems — particularly those involving public infrastructure — engineers are frequently required to base their professional opinions on estimates of indeterminate factors such as construction costs by alternative methods, population growth projections, economic development forecasts, and future equipment efficiency trends, and that this inherent indeterminacy means that the engineer is called upon to exercise judgment rather than merely recite known engineering data, such that differing conclusions grounded in honest estimation are professionally legitimate and not ethically impermissible.
Engineering Peer Criticism Forum Extension to Public Bodies Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that while engineering peer criticism is canonically associated with engineering society gatherings and the engineering press, this association should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer, or the public to offer expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies bearing responsibility for acts of public importance — such as legislative committees, courts, commissions, and other tribunals — and that the expression of engineering opinion in connection with testimony before such bodies is a legitimate and ethically sanctioned extension of the engineering peer criticism forum.
Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report 'any alleged violation of this Code,' and B has done so
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer identifies and formally reports suspected violations of procurement laws or professional codes of ethics by other engineers or public entities to appropriate authorities, bearing obligations of accuracy, good faith, and use of proper reporting channels.
Engineering Procurement Whistleblower Obligation
Engineer A brings these findings to City D's Engineer, a licensed professional engineer, recommending improvements to address compliance concerns with the contracting process.
Professional principle requiring engineers who identify credible evidence of procurement law violations — particularly in public engineering contracting — to formally report those violations to appropriate oversight authorities when internal remediation is refused, rather than acquiescing in continued non-compliance
Engineering Profession Advertising Liberalization Contextual Awareness Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics evaluator to recognize that the engineering profession has undergone a fundamental transformation in advertising and promotional practices — moving from a regime of strict legal and ethical proscriptions to a substantially liberalized environment following the elimination of anti-advertising rules — and to apply this historical and contextual awareness when evaluating the ethics of contemporary promotional activities, understanding that the current environment requires heightened vigilance about truthfulness and non-deception precisely because the prior categorical prohibitions no longer serve as guardrails.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics evaluator to recognize that professional engineering advertising ethics have evolved substantially over time — particularly as a result of legal challenges during the 1960s and 1970s and antitrust/commercial free speech constraints — and to apply contemporary standards (grounded in truthfulness, non-deception, and state registration law conformance) rather than outdated prohibitionist interpretations when evaluating the ethics of advertising and marketing activities.
Engineering Profession Collective Reputation Protection Obligation
It becomes a matter which might be considered under Section 19 of the Canons, which states: 'The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.'
Professional virtue principle establishing that individual engineers bear an obligation to endeavor to protect the engineering profession — both collectively and individually — from misrepresentation and misunderstanding; this principle extends beyond protecting individual engineers' reputations to encompass protecting the profession as an institution from conduct that, even if not conclusively proven unethical, creates public doubt about the integrity of engineering practice and procurement, thereby undermining public confidence in the profession as a whole.
Engineering Profession Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution State
At one point in the past, engineering codes of ethics...specifically implored engineers to avoid all conflicts of interest
State in which the governing ethical norm for the engineering profession regarding conflicts of interest has undergone a documented historical transition — from a strict avoidance mandate (engineers must remove themselves from all conflicts) to a disclosure-based regime (engineers must disclose known or potential conflicts and may proceed with informed consent) — such that the current operative standard is disclosure rather than absolute avoidance, and the historical avoidance norm is no longer authoritative. This state is relevant when evaluating engineer conduct under the current disclosure regime and when distinguishing the current standard from the superseded avoidance standard.
Engineering Profession Free Competition Legal Framework Recognition Capability
Engineers and engineering companies compete within the legal framework that exists at the local, state, and federal levels.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that engineering practice operates within a legal framework of free and open competition at local, state, and federal levels — including understanding that NSPE Code provisions formerly restricting competition (such as prohibitions on advertising and competitive bidding) were removed following government regulatory action, that free and open competition is a basic legal rule governing engineering procurement, and that ethical analysis of competitive conduct must be situated within this legal framework rather than evaluated in isolation from it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to understand the historical and legal context of engineering procurement law — including the 1977 US Justice Department antitrust actions, the US Supreme Court ruling in National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States (1978), and the resulting principle that federal, state, and local procurement laws remain in full force — and to apply this contextual understanding when evaluating the legality and ethics of engineering service procurement practices.
Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Ethics Compliance Obligation
For an engineer to permit her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering the public safety and health does grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers.
Duty of every licensed professional engineer to recognize that permitting professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety and health causes grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers collectively, and therefore to fulfill public safety obligations not only for the immediate benefit of the public but also to preserve the integrity and public trust upon which the engineering profession depends; recognizing that individual ethical failures in public safety matters have profession-wide reputational consequences.
Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Personal Integrity Maintenance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that personal dishonest conduct — including criminal offenses such as theft, fraudulent check-writing, or tax fraud — causes grave damage to the image and interests of the engineering profession as a whole, not merely to the individual engineer, and to act on this recognition by maintaining personal integrity as a matter of professional duty to the engineering community, understanding that individual ethics failures in personal conduct have profession-wide reputational consequences that extend beyond the immediate harm of the criminal act.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that permitting professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety and health causes grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers — not merely the individual engineer — and to act on this recognition by fulfilling public safety obligations as a matter of professional duty to the engineering profession as a whole, understanding that individual ethics failures in safety-critical situations have profession-wide reputational consequences.
Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Public Safety Compliance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that permitting professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety and health causes grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers — not merely the individual engineer — and to act on this recognition by fulfilling public safety obligations as a matter of professional duty to the engineering profession as a whole, understanding that individual ethics failures in safety-critical situations have profession-wide reputational consequences.
Engineering Profession Image Non-Compromise Through Safety Compliance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who permits her professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety and health causes grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers — prohibiting conduct that subordinates safety obligations to employment pressures or institutional hierarchy on the grounds that such conduct harms not only the immediate public but the entire engineering profession's credibility and public trust, and establishing that compliance with safety obligations is simultaneously an individual duty and a collective professional responsibility.
The duty of engineers to come forward with information on ethical violations by other engineers is a basic ethical obligation.
Fundamental professional virtue principle establishing that engineering, as a self-policing profession, imposes on every licensed engineer a basic ethical obligation to come forward with information about ethical violations by other engineers and to report instances of unprofessional conduct to the appropriate public authorities — grounded in the profession's collective responsibility to maintain its own integrity and protect the public from harm caused by unethical practitioners.
Engineering Services Client Targeted by Competitor Disparagement
A client of an engineering firm who is contacted by a competing engineer and presented with misleading or disparaging representations about the current firm's capability to perform, bearing interests in receiving accurate information about service providers and in not being manipulated through unethical competitive conduct.
Engineering Standards Consistency Gap State
Engineer A has an obligation to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistent with protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
State in which the actions or decisions of public authorities, governing bodies, or other decision-makers regarding a public safety matter are not consistent with applicable engineering standards — creating a gap between what engineering standards require for protection of public health, safety, and welfare and what authorities are actually implementing — thereby activating a professional engineer's obligation to advocate, report, and escalate to ensure standards-consistent protection of the public.
contrary to a state law that requires an engineering study before proceeding with the change
State statutory provisions requiring that a formal engineering study be conducted and completed before a governmental body may proceed with changes to traffic infrastructure, ordinances, or other engineering-related regulatory changes, establishing a procedural safeguard that protects public safety by ensuring technical review precedes implementation
Engineering Subsidiary Prospective Buyer
A licensed professional engineer or engineering firm principal who is engaged in negotiations to acquire an engineering firm or subsidiary, bearing obligations of good-faith dealing and subject to the seller's duties of honest disclosure; the prospective buyer's deliberative pace and decision-making authority shape the negotiation dynamic.
Engineering Title Conveyance Accuracy Constraint
Use of the title, 'engineer,' conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice.
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the use of the title 'engineer' — including creative variants such as 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' and 'Sanitation Engineer' — conveys to the public substantial education, examination, and experience, and in many states a license to practice, thereby prohibiting the use of such titles by individuals who have not met applicable state licensure or degree requirements, and establishing that the public impression created by engineering titles in government agency contexts is particularly likely to cause confusion about licensure status.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting individuals who do not hold a professional engineering license or qualifying engineering degree from using the title 'Engineer' or engineering-implying titles — including 'Associate Engineer,' 'Transportation Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' or similar designations — in professional contexts, arising from state licensing statutes and professional norms establishing that such titles convey licensure, competence, and ethical accountability that unlicensed individuals do not possess, and prohibiting firms and agencies from assigning such titles to unqualified personnel regardless of industry custom.
Engineering Title Credential Scope Self-Assessment Capability
by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a credential title — including board certifications, diplomate designations, or specialty certifications — incorporates the word 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' in a manner that implies PE licensure, and to correctly assess whether use of that credential in a given jurisdiction or context constitutes a claim of engineering qualification that triggers licensure requirements, even when the engineer has deliberately excluded the 'P.E.' designation from a signature block.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to understand and apply state-specific statutory and regulatory provisions governing permissible use of engineering titles — including knowledge of degree requirements, licensure requirements, and the conditions under which non-degreed personnel may use engineering titles — and to correctly assess whether a given individual's use of an engineering title complies with applicable state licensing act provisions.
Engineering Title Invocation Triggering Licensure Obligation State
by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
State in which a professional engineer, while operating in a context where non-engineering services might otherwise be permissible without local licensure, invokes a credential, title, or designation that incorporates the word 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' — thereby bringing themselves under the purview of the jurisdiction's licensing law, converting a conditionally permissible engagement into unlicensed practice, and triggering both ethical and legal violations regardless of the engineer's intent to limit the scope of services.
Engineering Title Misrepresentation Non-Facilitation Obligation
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a. is very clear: 'Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, engineering firm, and government agency to refrain from assigning, permitting, or facilitating the use of engineering titles — including 'Engineer,' 'Transportation Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' or creative variants — by individuals who do not meet the educational, examination, and licensure requirements established by applicable state law, and to correct any such misrepresentation upon discovery, so that the public is not misled about the qualifications of individuals performing engineering-related functions.
Engineering Title Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
Engineer A is concerned that the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents.
Capability to recognize when an individual or organization is using engineering-related titles — such as 'Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' or 'Transportation Engineer' — in a manner that misrepresents the holder's professional qualifications, licensure status, or engineering credentials to clients, the public, or regulatory bodies, and to identify the professional and ethical obligations triggered by such misrepresentation, including obligations to report and to refuse to acquiesce in the misrepresentation.
ENGCO referred in sale materials to key personnel as 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer,' when those personnel were not licensed, did not have engineering degrees
A firm or organizational stakeholder that uses engineering titles for personnel who do not hold engineering licenses or degrees—sometimes consistent with federal agency contract terminology—and proactively seeks ethical guidance from a professional board about whether such usage violates the code of ethics, bearing obligations to ensure public-facing titles accurately represent the qualifications of personnel.
Engineering Title Non-Entitlement Use Prohibition Constraint
using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting any individual — whether licensed or unlicensed — from incorporating the word 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' into a professional title, credential designation, or business identification when that individual does not actually hold the credential, licensure, or qualification that the title presupposes, establishing that using a title to which one is not entitled is unethical regardless of whether the usage is consistent with federal agency contracts or industry custom, as established by BER Case 95-10 and the NSPE Code provisions requiring truthful public statements, avoidance of deceptive acts, and prohibition on falsifying or permitting misrepresentation of qualifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the use of the title 'engineer' — including creative variants such as 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' and 'Sanitation Engineer' — conveys to the public substantial education, examination, and experience, and in many states a license to practice, thereby prohibiting the use of such titles by individuals who have not met applicable state licensure or degree requirements, and establishing that the public impression created by engineering titles in government agency contexts is particularly likely to cause confusion about licensure status.
Engineering Title Regulatory Knowledge Capability
This case also suggested that most states have in their state licensing act how and when the word 'engineer' can be used in a title, usually requiring a college degree and/or meeting licensing requirements, but it went on to point out that when 'non-degreed personnel have fulfilled the state requirements to be licensed, they may use the term regardless of their formal education.'
Capability to understand and apply state-specific statutory and regulatory provisions governing permissible use of engineering titles — including knowledge of degree requirements, licensure requirements, and the conditions under which non-degreed personnel may use engineering titles — and to correctly assess whether a given individual's use of an engineering title complies with applicable state licensing act provisions.
the State Agency has given staff in management positions the title of 'Engineer' when they are not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers' design documents
Professional norms, statutory provisions, and regulatory standards governing the lawful and accurate use of the title 'Engineer' by individuals and organizations, prohibiting use of the title by unlicensed persons in contexts that imply licensure or engineering competence, and establishing obligations for organizations to accurately represent the qualifications of staff performing engineering functions
Engineer B prepared, designed, and sealed the design documents for which she was responsible
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer prepares, signs, and seals engineering documents (reports, plans, analyses, specifications) for a defined scope of work, bearing exclusive authority and responsibility over those documents, and generating obligations on all other parties to refrain from modifying those documents without the engineer's knowledge and approval, and to protect the integrity of the signing and sealing process.
Environmental BER Precedent Triangulation for Disclosure Obligation Determination Capability
BER Case No. 97-13 appears to present this ethical dilemma starkly.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to identify, retrieve, and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases with partially overlapping fact patterns involving environmental disclosure, confidentiality, and scope-of-work limitations — specifically distinguishing BER Case 89-7 (engineer without domain expertise, client reliance on confidentiality), BER Case 97-13 (civil engineer making speculative structural observation outside scope), and BER Case 04-8 (environmental engineer with domain expertise discovering post-contract wetland violation) — and applying the most apposite precedent to the current case while articulating the critical factual distinctions that produce different ethical outcomes across the cases.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to identify, retrieve, and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases with partially overlapping fact patterns involving environmental violations, confidentiality obligations, and scope-of-work limitations — specifically distinguishing which precedent governs when an engineer has domain expertise in the subject matter of the violation (present case) versus when the engineer lacks such expertise (BER 89-7, BER 97-13) — and applying the most apposite precedent while articulating the critical factual distinctions that produce different ethical outcomes across the cases.
local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources
Local, state, or regional environmental regulations requiring protective measures for public water sources and natural resources affected by development activities
[proethica-intermediate] Legal framework constraining professional practice
Environmental Design Sincere Professional Judgment Ethical Sufficiency Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who proceeds with a client-directed design involving environmental trade-offs — such as a higher-intensity landfill expansion — to base that decision on sincere professional judgment that the design will not jeopardize public health, recognizing that when the engineer's honest professional judgment supports proceeding and the engineer has fulfilled all disclosure and consultation obligations, proceeding with the design constitutes ethical conduct even if other qualified engineers reach a different conclusion from the same facts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to design or evaluate a project that involves unavoidable environmental trade-offs — where society's need for a facility must be balanced against some level of environmental degradation — to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between competing interests, recognizing that no finite answer exists to such trade-offs, that a growing body of law and regulation establishes governing criteria but does not eliminate the need for professional judgment, and that the engineer's honest and objective application of that judgment — even when it produces a controversial outcome — constitutes ethical conduct.
Environmental Design Sincere Professional Judgment Ethical Sufficiency Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who proceeds with a client-directed design involving environmental trade-offs — such as a higher-contour landfill expansion — to assess whether their decision to proceed is grounded in sincere professional judgment that the design will not jeopardize public health, rather than in deference to client pressure or economic interest, and to recognize that proceeding on the basis of sincere professional judgment satisfies the ethical sufficiency standard even when other qualified engineers reach different conclusions from the same facts — while also recognizing that if the engineer cannot sincerely form such a judgment, the ethical obligation shifts to declining the client's direction.
Environmental Engineer Heightened Domain Stewardship Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer with specialized environmental engineering credentials — particularly one who performed the very environmental assessment services (such as wetland delineation) on the site where a violation subsequently occurs — to recognize and fulfill a heightened professional stewardship obligation arising from the combination of domain expertise and prior site-specific engagement, including the ability to understand that the engineer's specialized knowledge of the site's environmental conditions creates an amplified duty to respond to observed violations beyond that of a generalist engineer.
Environmental Engineer Heightened Wetland Stewardship Constraint
Engineer A is an environmental engineer.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who specializes in environmental engineering — and who performed wetland delineation services on the very site where an unauthorized fill was subsequently installed — bears a heightened professional obligation to respond to the observed violation, arising from the engineer's specialized domain expertise, prior site knowledge, and professional identity as an environmental steward, prohibiting the environmental engineer from treating the violation as outside their professional concern on the grounds that the delineation contract has been completed.
Engineer A was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report
A client role that retains environmental engineering consulting services for site-specific environmental analysis, contaminant reporting, and groundwater infrastructure design, bearing authority to review deliverables and instruct revisions.
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and was requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area
A professional engineering role providing consulting services on environmental impact assessments, ecological analyses, and environmental compliance for development projects, with obligations to report factual findings truthfully to clients and public authorities.
[Case 7] A licensed professional engineering role providing consulting services on environmental assessments, contaminant analysis, groundwater monitoring, and environmental compliance, with obligations to deliver competent, accurate, and transparent technical work products to clients.
Environmental Field Sampling Technician Under Engineer Supervision
Technician A serving as a field technician employed by a consulting environmental engineering firm
A non-licensed field technician role employed by a consulting environmental engineering firm who performs physical sampling of potentially hazardous materials at client sites under the direction of a supervising engineer, bearing obligations to accurately report findings to the supervising engineer and possessing experiential knowledge that informs assessment of sample contents, but whose further action is constrained by the supervisory chain of command.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A field-level inspector working under the supervision of an engineer intern within a public agency bridge inspection program, bearing obligations to accurately observe and report all visible defects in bridge members in inspection reports, and whose repeated omissions of known defects over multiple inspection cycles constitute a systemic failure with public safety implications.
Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to include all material environmental findings — including potential impacts on threatened or protected species — in written reports submitted to public authorities considering development proposals, prohibiting selective omission of adverse environmental information that was identified during professional analysis.
Environmental Justice Awareness Capability
Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project to upgrade a highway system that runs through Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood.
Capability to recognize when infrastructure project decisions — including routing choices, public engagement design, and community impact assessments — disproportionately burden historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened communities, and to apply environmental justice principles in evaluating the ethical dimensions of such decisions, including awareness of the heightened professional obligations that arise when vulnerable communities bear disproportionate project impacts.
Environmental Justice Community Protection Constraint
Legal, regulatory, and ethical constraint arising from federal and state environmental justice policies — including Executive Order 12898 and successor directives — requiring that infrastructure planning processes affecting historically underserved, underrepresented, or overburdened communities include affirmative measures to ensure those communities receive meaningful opportunity to participate in decisions affecting their welfare, prohibiting project processes that structurally disadvantage such communities relative to less-burdened communities in the same decision context.
Environmental Justice Consideration in Infrastructure Engineering
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers on public infrastructure projects that affect historically underserved, underrepresented, or overburdened communities to give heightened consideration to the disproportionate burdens those communities already bear, to ensure that project planning processes do not further marginalize those communities, and to advocate within professional channels when project siting, routing, or engagement processes appear to impose unjust distributional burdens on vulnerable populations
Community P, a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood
Federal, state, and local policies, executive orders, and agency guidance requiring that infrastructure planning and public engagement processes give equitable consideration to historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened communities, ensuring they are not disproportionately burdened by infrastructure decisions
Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure Obligation
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies that a proposed design alternative could disproportionately harm an underserved or vulnerable community — including by diverting flood risk, pollution, or other hazards to that community — to disclose that disproportionate impact clearly and completely to the client and relevant decision-makers, including the probability, magnitude, and distributional inequity of the risk, so that decision-makers can make informed choices consistent with environmental justice principles and public welfare obligations.
Environmental Justice as Engineering Design Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers designing public infrastructure to identify and disclose foreseeable disproportionate adverse impacts on underserved, low-income, or otherwise vulnerable communities that may result from design choices, and to advocate for design alternatives or mitigation measures that reduce such disparate impacts, recognizing that engineering decisions can perpetuate or exacerbate existing social inequities when they redirect hazards toward communities with less political or economic power to resist them
Environmental Law Incidental Observation Client Inquiry Constraint
In its decision, the BER set forth an appropriate course of action for Engineer A, concluding that Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law—and that steps needed to be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer incidentally observes that a former or current client has taken actions constituting a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws — such as installing fill material on wetlands without permits — requiring the engineer to contact the client, inquire about the actions, point out the legal violation, and direct the client to take remedial steps in full compliance with applicable environmental laws, prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about an observed environmental law violation on the grounds that the observation occurred outside the contracted scope of services.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes a safety deficiency outside the contracted scope of services — while lawfully present at a client's property — must disclose that deficiency in writing to the client and, where applicable, to the responsible party (such as a builder), prohibiting the engineer from treating the scope boundary as a justification for silence about an observed condition that poses a risk to public health, safety, or welfare.
Environmental Law Violation Client Inquiry and Remediation Direction Capability
Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law—and that steps needed to be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes that a client has taken unauthorized actions constituting a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws — such as installing fill material on wetlands without permits — to contact the client, inquire about the actions, point out the legal violation, direct the client to take remedial steps in full compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, and, if the client fails to act, to bring the matter to the attention of appropriate regulatory authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is lawfully present at a client's property in connection with a contracted scope of work to recognize, upon incidental observation, that a condition observed outside that contracted scope constitutes a safety deficiency — including the ability to distinguish between conditions that are merely suboptimal and conditions that pose a genuine risk to public health, safety, or welfare — and to correctly classify the observed condition as triggering professional disclosure and notification obligations regardless of the absence of a contractual duty to inspect that condition.
Environmental Law Violation Client Inquiry and Remediation Direction Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes that a former or current client has installed fill material or otherwise modified a wetland or environmentally protected area without required permits, variances, or permissions — in substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws — to contact the client, inquire about the actions taken, point out that the actions constitute a violation of law, and advise that steps must be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from proper authorities, with all remedial actions in full compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, including review by a licensed engineer where appropriate.
Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who discover, through incidental observation or professional engagement, that a client has committed a material violation of federal or state environmental laws — including unauthorized filling of wetlands — to first confront the client and demand remediation, and then, if the client fails to act, to report the violation to appropriate regulatory authorities, recognizing that the engineer's environmental stewardship obligation extends beyond the contracted scope of work to encompass discovered illegality that threatens protected natural resources
[Case 175] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who discover that a proposed or existing activity would violate federal or state environmental laws to report this to appropriate authorities and refuse to certify or authorize the non-compliant activity, recognizing that environmental stewardship obligations extend to active refusal to participate in regulatory violations.
[Case 86] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who discover, through incidental observation or professional engagement, that a client has committed a material violation of federal or state environmental laws — including unauthorized filling of wetlands — to first confront the client and demand remediation, and then, if the client fails to act, to report the violation to appropriate regulatory authorities, recognizing that the engineer's environmental stewardship obligation extends beyond the contracted scope of work to encompass discovered illegality that threatens protected natural resources.
Environmental Permit Issuing Regulatory Engineer
Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, was ordered to draw up a construction permit
A licensed professional engineering role within a state environmental protection agency responsible for reviewing and issuing construction or operating permits, bearing obligations to refuse issuance of permits that violate applicable environmental regulations (e.g., Clean Air Act standards) even when directed by superiors to expedite approval, and to document and submit findings to supervisory authority when permit requirements are not met.
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources.
Constraint arising from local, state, or regional environmental statutes and regulations requiring that engineering designs and project execution include measures to safeguard public water sources and natural watersheds, binding both the engineer and the client regardless of budget preferences.
Environmental Resource Depletion Risk State
Wasser cites a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table
State in which independent technical evidence — such as a hydrogeological study — indicates that a proposed engineering design or system will contribute to measurable depletion of a shared natural resource (e.g., lowering of a regional water table), creating a documented risk of harm to third parties and the broader public beyond the immediate project site, and triggering heightened obligations to evaluate and communicate that risk.
Environmental Risk Escalation Beyond Scope Obligation
Wasser refuses to perform the task and says the traditional irrigation system will waste fresh water, cites a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern who identifies credible technical evidence — such as a hydrogeological study — that a design specification within another professional's domain (e.g., a landscape architect's irrigation specification) poses a material risk to environmental resources affecting public welfare, to escalate that risk concern to the responsible supervising engineer and, through appropriate channels, to the client, even when the specification originates outside the engineer's direct scope of work, so that the environmental risk is not silently incorporated into the project.
Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer who has completed technical studies establishing that a client's discharge or activity will violate established environmental standards to disclose those findings to the applicable regulatory authority — even absent client authorization and following contract termination — when the violation poses a risk to public health, safety, or welfare, establishing that the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare supersedes client confidentiality interests and contractual termination when environmental regulatory standards are at stake.
Environmental Standards Violation Technical Assessment Capability
XYZ Corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
Technical capability to conduct engineering studies evaluating whether a proposed or existing discharge of manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water will meet or violate established environmental quality standards, including the ability to analyze discharge composition, receiving water capacity, dilution factors, and applicable regulatory thresholds, and to reach defensible professional conclusions about standards compliance.
Environmental Stewardship Wetlands Adjacent Development Assessment Capability
Engineer A is a principal in an environmental engineering firm and is requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium
Capability of a licensed professional engineer conducting an environmental assessment of property adjacent to a protected wetlands area to apply environmental stewardship principles — including recognition of ecological interdependencies between the development site and the adjacent wetlands, identification of species habitat dependencies, and assessment of development impacts on protected ecological systems — as an integral component of the professional analysis, beyond mere regulatory compliance checking.
Environmental Stewardship Wetlands Adjacent Development Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer conducting an environmental assessment of property adjacent to a protected wetlands area for residential development to apply environmental stewardship principles — including consideration of impacts on species inhabiting the adjacent protected area — and to ensure that all material findings bearing on the ecological integrity of the adjacent protected wetlands are disclosed in written reports submitted to public authorities, consistent with sustainable development obligations under NSPE Code III.2.d.
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development near a small community.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources — including watersheds, wetlands, and ecological systems — that their designs may affect, bridging technical engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities
[Case 13] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources — including water tables, watersheds, and ecological systems — that their designs may affect, bridging technical engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities
[Case 175] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources — including air quality, watersheds, and ecological systems — that their designs or regulatory approvals may affect, bridging technical engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities.
[Case 73] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources and to support legitimate sustainability goals, while ensuring that sustainability-motivated engineering decisions do not compromise public safety or system reliability.
[Case 86] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources — including watersheds, wetlands, and ecological systems — that their work or their clients' activities may affect, bridging technical engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities.
[Case 88] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources — including watersheds, wetlands, and ecological systems — that their designs may affect, bridging technical engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities.
[Case 88] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources — including watersheds, wetlands, tidal marshes, and ecological systems — that their designs may affect, bridging technical engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities
[proethica-intermediate] Bridges engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities.
Environmental Subjectivity and Policy Trade-Off Acknowledgment Capability
there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and explicitly acknowledge that many important public policy questions involving environmental trade-offs are the result of subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations rather than objectively resolvable technical questions — including the ability to communicate this inherent subjectivity to clients, public bodies, and the public, and to apply case-by-case professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between competing environmental and societal needs.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that, when no finite answer exists to the balance or trade-off between society's need for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation that may be unavoidable in filling those needs, professional judgment serves as the final arbiter of the best balance — including the ability to make case-by-case analyses of competing environmental and public welfare considerations, to reach a defensible professional conclusion even in the absence of clear technical consensus, and to communicate that conclusion to clients and public bodies while acknowledging the inherent subjectivity of the trade-off.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serving as a principal in an environmental engineering firm receives information from firm specialists (e.g., biologists) indicating that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' (though not 'endangered') by federal and state regulators, verbally mentions the concern to the client but deliberately omits that information from a written report submitted to a public authority, bearing obligations to include all relevant and pertinent environmental threat information in professional reports submitted to public authorities and to refrain from omitting material environmental findings even when the species does not meet the highest regulatory protection threshold.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serving as a principal in an environmental engineering firm receives information from firm specialists (e.g., biologists) indicating that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' (though not 'endangered') by federal and state regulators, bearing obligations to include that information in written reports submitted to public authorities, advise the client of its inclusion, and refrain from omitting material environmental findings even when the species does not meet the highest regulatory protection threshold.
Environmental Threat Reporting Design Engineer
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer conducting site analysis for a development project receives information from firm specialists (e.g., biologists) about potential environmental threats to protected species or ecosystems, bearing obligations to include all relevant and pertinent environmental threat information in professional reports submitted to public authorities, advise the client of such inclusion, and refrain from omitting material environmental findings even when the threatened species or resource does not meet the highest regulatory protection threshold.
Environmental Trade-Off Professional Judgment Final Arbiter Capability
professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that, when no finite answer exists to the balance or trade-off between society's need for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation that may be unavoidable in filling those needs, professional judgment serves as the final arbiter of the best balance — including the ability to make case-by-case analyses of competing environmental and public welfare considerations, to reach a defensible professional conclusion even in the absence of clear technical consensus, and to communicate that conclusion to clients and public bodies while acknowledging the inherent subjectivity of the trade-off.
Environmental Violation Precedent Triangulation Capability
Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board can easily distinguish BER Case Nos. 89-7 and 97-13 from the present case.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to identify, retrieve, and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases with partially overlapping fact patterns involving environmental violations, confidentiality obligations, and scope-of-work limitations — specifically distinguishing which precedent governs when an engineer has domain expertise in the subject matter of the violation (present case) versus when the engineer lacks such expertise (BER 89-7, BER 97-13) — and applying the most apposite precedent while articulating the critical factual distinctions that produce different ethical outcomes across the cases.
Environmental and Community Advocacy Stakeholder
community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach, citing its long-term environmental and social benefits
A stakeholder role filled by community organizations and environmental groups that participate in public stakeholder engagement processes for infrastructure projects, advocating for sustainable, long-term, and environmentally beneficial design approaches, and whose input engineers are obligated to faithfully represent to decision-making authorities.
Environmental and Infrastructure Policy Subjective Balancing Acknowledgment Principle
Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
Fundamental ethical principle recognizing that many important public policy questions in engineering — particularly those involving environmental impacts, infrastructure trade-offs, and competing community interests — cannot be resolved through purely objective technical analysis, but instead require subjective and sometimes difficult policy considerations, such that engineers who reach different conclusions in good faith are each acting ethically and no single engineer's conclusion can be declared definitively correct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when engineers must balance society's need for essential public facilities against unavoidable environmental degradation — in the absence of definitive regulatory answers — professional engineering judgment serves as the final arbiter of the appropriate balance, and engineers who exercise that judgment in good faith and in compliance with applicable law act ethically even when their conclusions are publicly contested
Epistemic Humility Constraint on Escalation Urgency
Engineer A was not personally involved in the engineering decision-making process and did not have any particular expertise in the technical area involved.
Professional principle establishing that an engineer who raises a safety concern based on personal observation but who lacks direct involvement in the engineering decision-making process, full technical expertise in the relevant domain, and complete situational knowledge must calibrate the urgency and form of their escalation response to their actual epistemic position — recognizing that the absence of full information may counsel internal inquiry and dialogue before threats of external reporting, without diminishing the underlying obligation to pursue resolution if genuine safety risks are confirmed.
Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Misconduct Report Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reason to believe that a competing engineer or firm is engaged in unlicensed practice or other professional misconduct to verify the relevant facts — including confirming the current licensure or certificate of authority status of the competitor through authoritative sources — before filing a report with a licensing board or other authority, so that the report is grounded in verified fact rather than assumption, rumor, or incomplete information, and so that the engineer does not unjustly injure the competitor's professional reputation through a report based on erroneous information.
Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has reason to believe a competing firm or engineer is operating in violation of jurisdictional regulatory requirements must independently verify the factual basis of that belief — including confirming the absence of the required authorization through available public records or direct inquiry — before filing a formal report with the relevant licensing board, prohibiting the engineer from submitting a regulatory complaint based solely on rumor, inference, or competitive suspicion without reasonable factual confirmation.
Equal-Rank Peer Contribution Non-Erasure Capability
Engineer A was a staff engineer along with five other staff engineers of equal rank
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who was one of multiple equal-ranked team members on a collaborative design project to recognize that omitting or obscuring the existence and contributions of co-equal peers from professional representations — particularly in employment-seeking contexts — constitutes an impermissible erasure of those peers' professional credit, and to refrain from such omission by ensuring that co-equal contributors are acknowledged whenever the joint work is cited as a professional qualification.
Equal-Rank Team Member Sole-Credit Implication Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A is seeking employment with Employer Y
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who participated as one of multiple engineers of equal rank in a collaborative design effort from structuring any professional self-presentation — including resumes, qualification statements, or verbal representations — in a manner that implies the engineer bore singular or primary responsibility for the collaborative output, establishing that the equal-rank status of all contributors is a material fact whose omission or obscuration constitutes misrepresentation of professional qualifications regardless of whether the engineer makes an explicit false claim, as grounded in NSPE Code Section II.5.a and the principle that artfully misleading implications are ethically equivalent to affirmative false statements, and as applied in BER Case No. 86-6.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from including in a resume, qualification statement, or professional self-presentation any description of work products — including patented products, designs, or projects — that implies personal sole responsibility for work that was in fact designed or produced through the joint effort of a team of engineers, establishing that the prohibition applies even when the engineer does not explicitly claim sole authorship but instead uses framing, structure, or omission of collaborative context in a manner intended to obscure the team nature of the work and mislead a prospective employer, as established by NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness and non-deception and BER Case No. 86-6, which held that statements intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth about collaborative work constitute an ethical violation.
Equal Access to Bid Information in Public Procurement
Domain-specific principle requiring public agency engineers and procurement officials to ensure that all prospective bidders have equal and timely access to material project information — including existing as-built drawings, site conditions, and constructability data — that is relevant to preparing accurate and competitive bids, prohibiting arrangements where some bidders receive information unavailable to others, whether through post-award disclosure practices that become selectively known pre-bid, or through informal relationships with agency personnel
Equal Competitive Access in Design-Phase Consultation
Engineer A is concerned that by discussing technical and other aspects of the project with the contractor, Engineer A may be providing the contractor with an unfair advantage during the public bidding process
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who consult with prospective bidders during the design phase of a publicly bid project to ensure that any information, access, or constructability insight shared with one prospective bidder is made equally available to all prospective bidders through formal, institutionally sanctioned channels — prohibiting informal selective consultation that confers competitive advantage on a single contractor while excluding others from equivalent information
Equal Competitive Amendment Opportunity Fairness Sufficiency Recognition Capability
We do not see any basis to question the fairness of such a procedure when all competing firms are given the same opportunity.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewing body, or procurement authority to recognize that a procedure allowing one competing firm to revise its joint venture team composition is ethically fair — and does not constitute improper favoritism or competitive advantage — when the same amendment opportunity is extended equally to all competing firms, and to articulate why equal access to the amendment procedure is the decisive fairness criterion that resolves the ethical question about procedural permissibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to evaluate whether engineering service contracting practices provide fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms, including assessing whether RFQ processes are being conducted, whether sole-source awards are justified, and whether exclusionary patterns in contract awards are consistent with QBS procurement law requirements and professional ethics obligations.
Equal Opportunity Condition as Fairness Threshold in QBS Team Amendment
Domain-specific principle establishing that the ethical permissibility of allowing a competing firm to revise the composition of its joint venture or project team during a qualifications-based selection process — in response to publicly identified deficiencies — depends critically on whether all competing firms are given the same opportunity to make equivalent revisions, and that equal opportunity to all competitors is the necessary and sufficient condition for such amendments to be procedurally and ethically fair
Equal Pre-Bid Information Access Enforcement Obligation
Over time, sprinkler contractors who received as-built drawings from Engineer D in the past begin to ask for these documents when projects are advertised, before bids are turned in.
Duty of a public agency engineer who has been providing material technical information (such as as-built drawings) to contractors on a post-award basis to recognize, upon learning that some contractors are requesting that information pre-bid, that the equitable and legally sound practice requires formalizing equal pre-bid access for all prospective bidders — including revising bid document procedures to ensure no contractor gains informational advantage through prior relationships — and to advocate for or implement that procedural correction within the agency.
Firm DBA organizes meetings at times and locations that are difficult for Community P residents to attend, such as during work hours at venues far from the area and not easily accessible via public transit.
Ethical, regulatory, and environmental justice constraint requiring that public engagement processes for infrastructure projects affecting historically underserved, underrepresented, or overburdened communities be conducted in a manner that is genuinely accessible, inclusive, and representative — including accessible meeting times and locations, provision for written comments, and virtual participation options — prohibiting engagement designs that structurally exclude the primary affected community from meaningful participation.
Equitable Public Engagement Design Capability
Capability to design, plan, and evaluate public engagement processes that are genuinely accessible and inclusive to all affected communities — including historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened populations — by selecting appropriate meeting times, locations, transit-accessible venues, virtual participation options, and written comment mechanisms that provide meaningful opportunity for participation regardless of socioeconomic status, work schedules, or geographic barriers.
Errata Sheet Expeditious Correction Mechanism Deployment Capability
In the case of marketing brochures and other similar materials, errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a marketing or business development role, or any firm representative responsible for promotional materials, to identify and deploy low-cost, expeditious correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints — upon receiving actual knowledge of an inaccuracy in distributed marketing materials, recognizing that the availability of such low-cost mechanisms heightens the ethical obligation to act promptly and that failure to employ them when available constitutes a breach of professional ethics independent of the original error's origin.
Errata Sheet Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Utilization Obligation
errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs and, if necessary, reprints should be employed within a reasonable period of time in order to correct inaccuracies, particularly where a firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur
Duty of an engineering firm or its marketing personnel who have identified an inaccuracy in printed promotional materials to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters accompanying distribution, strike-outs on existing copies, or targeted reprints — rather than treating the logistical difficulty or cost of full reprinting as a justification for continued distribution of inaccurate materials. This obligation recognizes that the practical and financial burden of correction is typically low relative to the ethical harm of continued misrepresentation, and that the availability of such mechanisms eliminates the logistical excuse for inaction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of licensed professional engineers and engineering firms to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they remain accurate, truthful, and not deceptive as qualifications, licensure status, and personnel change over time. This obligation is continuous and not discharged by a one-time review; engineers and firms must monitor and revise these materials as necessary to prevent public misunderstanding about their or their firm's qualifications. The reduced time and cost of updating materials in the electronic age reinforces the practical feasibility of this obligation.
Errata Sheet Reasonable Period Correction Deployment Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that engineering firms that use printed promotional materials — including brochures and resumes — and that have reason to believe a misunderstanding might occur due to inaccurate personnel listings, deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints within a reasonable period of time; constraining firms to treat the availability of these low-cost mechanisms as eliminating any logistical justification for delay, and establishing that failure to deploy such mechanisms within a reasonable period — particularly where the firm has reason to believe a misunderstanding might occur — constitutes a risk of ethical breach independent of whether the original inaccuracy was intentional.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that engineering firms and their marketing personnel, upon identifying inaccuracies in printed promotional materials, deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints where necessary — within a reasonable period of time, prohibiting the use of logistical difficulty or printing cost as a justification for indefinite delay in correcting known inaccuracies, particularly where the firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Capability
Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue.
Capability to recognize when professional obligations under NSPE Code III.1.a (acknowledging errors) and III.8 (accepting responsibility for professional activities) require formal acknowledgment of a design error — including understanding that actual adverse consequences (flooding) combined with independent third-party analysis confirming the error create an affirmative obligation to acknowledge the error to the client and affected parties, drawing on BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 as precedent.
Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem
State in which a licensed professional engineer has received credible independent evidence — through third-party analysis, modeling, or observed real-world outcomes — that their completed design contains errors or produced non-compliant results, triggering an affirmative professional obligation to verify the independent findings against their own work, acknowledge the error to the client and relevant parties, and engage the firm's risk management process to identify and implement corrective measures.
Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who discover errors, inaccuracies, or deficiencies in their own prior professional work — whether through their own review, third-party analysis, or real-world outcomes — to affirmatively acknowledge those errors to their client and relevant parties, and to take steps toward correction, rather than suppressing, minimizing, or rationalizing the deficiency
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to take responsibility for their professional decisions and actions, including acknowledging non-compliance and taking corrective action rather than rationalizing violations through convenience or longstanding practice
Escalating Confrontation Obligation for Subcontractor Ethics Violations
the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA.
Professional principle requiring a lead engineer who discovers that a subcontractor has produced a materially deficient, deceptive, or incomplete professional work product to follow a structured escalation sequence: first conferring directly with the subcontractor and its PE supervisors to seek voluntary correction; then, if correction is refused, conferring with the client in the presence or with the knowledge of the subcontractor; and finally, if the client also fails to act, reporting the subcontractor's conduct to the appropriate licensing authority — recognizing that each escalation step is a necessary predicate to the next, and that the lead engineer's obligation is not discharged until the violation is corrected or reported
Escalation Obligation When Initial Regulatory Report Is Insufficient
If R's judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency.
Professional principle requiring engineers who have made formal presentations to a regulatory body about public health or safety risks, but whose concerns were not adequately addressed or acted upon, to escalate those concerns to higher-level regulatory authorities rather than treating the initial formal presentation as the terminus of their professional obligation
[Case 112] Professional principle requiring engineers who have made formal presentations to a regulatory or legislative body about public health or safety risks, but whose concerns were not adequately addressed or acted upon, to escalate those concerns to higher-level regulatory authorities rather than treating the initial formal presentation as the terminus of their professional obligation
Established Engineering Standard Violation Recognition Capability
The proposed change to the ordinance is contrary to established engineering standards.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed ordinance, policy, or infrastructure change is contrary to established engineering standards, current best practices, and applicable state law requirements — including the ability to identify specific technical deficiencies, articulate why the proposed change fails to meet professional standards, and correctly classify the situation as one requiring professional intervention.
Ethical Appearance Conflict Without Demonstrated Actual Conflict State
there are clear ethical appearance issues that would presumably need to be addressed
State in which a professional engineer's dual roles or relationships create a visible appearance of conflict of interest — recognizable to reasonable observers — even where no actual, demonstrated conflict has yet materialized, triggering obligations to address the appearance itself as an independent ethical concern under professional codes that treat the appearance of impropriety as a distinct harm to public trust.
Ethical High Road Identification Beyond Standard of Care Capability
the BER affirms the 'ethical high road' of considering more than one design approach, and certainly the BER would agree with seeking critical input from construction safety professionals.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate the distinction between the minimum ethical floor established by the accepted professional standard of care — which is required and non-negotiable — and the 'ethical high road' that goes above and beyond what is legally and ethically required in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, including the ability to identify specific actions that would constitute the ethical high road in a given situation (such as presenting multiple design alternatives, soliciting constructability review, or proactively reporting concerns) even when those actions are not obligatory, and to communicate this distinction clearly in professional practice and post-accident reflection.
Ethics-Exceeds-Legal-Permissibility County Surveyor Appointment Compliance Obligation
While it is true that Engineer A meets the legal requirements for the position because he is a licensed professional engineer, professional ethics requires an engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by the law
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that satisfying the legal credential requirement for a statutory public position (e.g., holding a PE license as required by county ordinance) does not exhaust the engineer's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics, which imposes a higher standard requiring that the engineer also possess the domain-specific competence necessary to perform the substantive duties of the position; and therefore to decline appointment to a statutory public position for which the engineer meets the legal credential requirement but lacks the domain competence required by the Code, recognizing that legal permissibility and ethical permissibility are distinct standards and that the Code requires the higher standard.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a determination by a state engineering licensure board that the engineer has fulfilled the legal minimum standard of professional obligation does not exhaust the engineer's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics, which establishes a higher threshold of conduct — requiring the engineer to take additional steps beyond those sufficient to avoid disciplinary action, particularly when public safety is implicated and further protective action is feasible.
Ethics-Exceeds-Minimum Employment Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
Engineering ethics is not about performing the minimum amount required but, instead, ought to be about going the extra mile to exceed the employer or clients requirements
Capability of a professional engineer to recognize that professional ethics in employment and client relationships requires going beyond the minimum literal compliance with application questions, contractual terms, or legal requirements — actively seeking to exceed employer and client expectations through candor, transparency, and proactive disclosure — and to apply this 'extra mile' standard as a self-regulatory norm in professional conduct, particularly in disclosure and honesty contexts.
Ethics-Law Jurisdiction Boundary Self-Restriction Capability
it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
Capability of a professional engineering ethics body or adjudicator to recognize and enforce the boundary between its ethical jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of state registration law — specifically, to restrict analysis and conclusions to the sole question of whether an engineer acted ethically, without passing judgment on whether the engineer's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law, and to explicitly disclaim any advisory function with respect to registration law questions that fall outside the ethics body's proper jurisdiction.
Ethics Beyond Minimum Employment Relationship Conduct Obligation
Duty of a professional engineer in an employer-employee or engineer-client relationship to conduct themselves according to a standard that exceeds the minimum required by law or the literal terms of any contractual or application obligation, recognizing that engineering ethics demands going the extra mile to exceed employer and client requirements — particularly with respect to honesty, candor, and proactive disclosure — rather than performing only the minimum amount required to avoid formal sanction.
Ethics Board Evidentiary Limitation Procedural Constraint
The evidence in this case is of such a nature and the implications so far reaching, that a pinpoint decision is difficult if not impossible to achieve.
Procedural and resource constraint arising when a professional ethics board is unable to convene in person, call witnesses for examination, or conduct cross-examination of relevant parties — establishing that such evidentiary limitations constrain the board's ability to reach definitive factual findings on contested questions of whether specific unfair competitive conduct occurred, and requiring the board to calibrate its conclusions to the available evidence, distinguish between established facts and unresolved possibilities, and avoid adverse findings on contested factual questions that could only be resolved through full evidentiary proceedings.
Ethics Body Jurisdiction Registration Law Non-Adjudication Constraint
we must make it as clear as possible that it is not our function to give gratuitous advice to a state registration board, or to pass judgment on this case as related to the question of whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
Jurisdictional and procedural constraint establishing that a professional engineering ethics body (such as the BER) must restrict its analysis and conclusions to the ethical question of whether an engineer acted ethically under the professional code of ethics, and must not pass judgment on whether the engineer's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law — recognizing that registration law violations are within the exclusive jurisdiction of state engineering registration boards and courts, not ethics bodies, and that conflating ethical analysis with registration law adjudication exceeds the proper scope of ethics body authority and may prejudice separate legal proceedings.
Ethics Body Registration Law Jurisdiction Non-Conflation Obligation
Duty of professional engineering ethics bodies to restrict their analysis and conclusions to the ethical question of whether an engineer acted ethically, without purporting to pass judgment on whether the engineer's conduct constituted a violation of state registration law — recognizing that ethics adjudication and registration law enforcement are distinct functions, that ethics bodies lack jurisdiction to determine registration law violations, and that conflating the two would constitute an improper advisory opinion on a legal question outside the ethics body's competence.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional ethics review body — and by analogy, of any engineer rendering an ethical opinion on a competitor's fee proposal — to refrain from making technical determinations about whether a specific fee level is or is not sufficient for competent engineering performance when the body has not been presented with a technical analysis of the engineering requirements for the facility at issue, recognizing that ethical review bodies operate within their epistemic competence and that technical adequacy determinations require project-specific engineering analysis that goes beyond the scope of an ethics opinion.
Ethics Code Business-Form Non-Waivability Individual Engineer Compliance Obligation
In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code.
Duty of every licensed professional engineer to recognize that the engineering ethics code applies to real persons — individual licensed engineers — and that the business form or type through which engineering services are delivered (corporation, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship) does not negate or diminish the individual engineer's personal obligation to conform to the ethics code, because real persons establish and implement policies within business structures and the code is clearly written to apply to the engineer as an individual.
Ethics Code Business-Form Non-Waivability Individual Engineer Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that the engineering ethics code applies to real persons — not to business entities — and that business form or type (corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.) does not negate or influence the conformance obligations of individual engineers who establish and implement policies within those business structures, thereby preventing the use of corporate or organizational form as a shield against individual professional ethical accountability.
Ethics Code Company Non-Applicability and Individual Engineer Personal Responsibility Principle
If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the engineering ethics code applies exclusively to individual engineers as persons and does not bind or regulate the conduct of companies or corporate employers — meaning that when an employer takes punitive action against an engineer for ethics-code-sanctioned public welfare activities, the code provides no direct remedy against the company, and the engineer must accept the personal professional and employment risk as an inherent cost of fulfilling professional obligations in an employment context where the employer's commercial interests diverge from the public welfare mandate.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle establishing that the engineering ethics code applies to real persons — individual licensed engineers — and cannot be negated, diluted, or circumvented by the business form or organizational type through which engineering services are delivered, because real persons establish and implement policies within business structures and bear personal professional obligations regardless of corporate or partnership form
Ethics Code Corporate Non-Rescue Individual Engineer Punitive Action Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the professional engineering ethics code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies or corporate employers, and therefore cannot rescue individual engineers from punitive employment actions — including discharge — taken by employers in response to the engineer's ethics-code-consistent civic advocacy; prohibiting engineers from relying on the Code as a shield against employer retaliation, while simultaneously establishing that the Code binds the individual supervisor who threatens or executes such punitive action, creating an asymmetry in which the Code constrains the supervisor's conduct but cannot compel the employer organization to refrain from adverse employment action.
Ethics Code Cross-Provision Non-Vacuum Reading Obligation
While we noted earlier that the Code makes no direct exception to the language contained in Section III.4., as we have stated on numerous occasions, no section of the Code should be read in a vacuum or independent of the other provisions of the Code.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicatory bodies — to interpret and apply any single provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics not in isolation but in conjunction with all other relevant provisions, recognizing that the Code is an integrated normative instrument in which provisions interact, qualify, and constrain one another, and that reading any single provision in a vacuum — such as treating Section III.4's confidentiality obligation as absolute without reference to Section I.1.'s paramount safety language or Section II.1.c.'s exception clause — produces an ethically incorrect result that the Code's drafters did not intend.
Ethics Code Deception Provision Non-Overextension Obligation
The extent of one's legitimate right to privacy cannot be measured by language in the NSPE Code of Ethics relating to the 'avoidance of deception.' To do so would give an unintended and far too broad meaning to the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Obligation of a professional ethics board, reviewing body, or engineer applying the NSPE Code of Ethics to refrain from interpreting the Code's 'avoidance of deception' provision so broadly as to compel disclosure of personal conditions — particularly ADA-protected conditions — that have no demonstrated impact on the engineer's ability to practice competently. The obligation requires that the deception provision be read in its intended scope: prohibiting affirmative misrepresentation and material omissions, not mandating disclosure of every personal characteristic that a third party might find relevant. To extend the deception provision to cover silence about personal conditions unrelated to engineering practice would give the Code an unintended and disproportionate reach into engineers' private lives.
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation
Hermeneutic principle establishing that the 'avoidance of deception' provision in a professional ethics code must not be interpreted so expansively as to compel engineers to disclose personal characteristics, medical conditions, or ADA-protected attributes that are unrelated to demonstrated professional competence — because such an over-broad reading would give the deception prohibition an unintended scope that conflicts with legally protected privacy rights and the proper domain of the ethics code, which is professional conduct rather than personal identity
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation Capability
Capability of a professional ethics board, reviewing body, or engineer to correctly recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics provision requiring engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts' cannot be interpreted so broadly as to compel disclosure of personal conditions — particularly ADA-protected conditions — that have no bearing on professional conduct or competence, and to resist the temptation to give the deception provision an 'unintended and far too broad meaning' that would effectively eliminate legitimate privacy rights of engineers.
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics provision requiring engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts' cannot be interpreted so broadly as to compel disclosure of personal conditions — including ADA-protected disabilities — that have no apparent impact on the engineer's ability to competently practice engineering, prohibiting ethics reviewers and employers from weaponizing the deception provision to require disclosure of legitimately private personal information that does not relate to engineering conduct, professional character, or fitness for practice, as established by the present BER case's distinction between concealment of engineering-related conduct (BER Cases 75-5, 03-6) and non-disclosure of personal conditions unrelated to engineering practice.
Ethics Code Employment Qualification Provision Employer-Protection Teleological Reading Obligation
Duty of a professional ethics adjudicator, engineer, or professional society to interpret the scope and application of an ethics code provision prohibiting exaggerated qualification statements in employment contexts by reference to the provision's protective purpose — namely, to protect prospective employers from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant so that the employer is not tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them — rather than by a purely literal or maximally expansive reading of the prohibition. Under this obligation, conduct that does not threaten the employer's ability to make an informed competence assessment falls outside the provision's intended scope, even if the conduct involves some degree of favorable self-presentation. The obligation requires that interpretive judgments about whether a qualification representation violates the code be anchored in whether the employer's legitimate interest in accurate competence information is actually compromised.
Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Canon
Hermeneutic principle requiring that specific enumerations of engineering work products or instruments in ethics code provisions — such as 'plans and specifications' — be read expansively to encompass all engineering instruments of service, in light of the overall public welfare thrust of the code, so that the protective purpose of the provision is not defeated by narrow textual literalism
Ethics Code Expansive Interpretation Non-Narrow Professional Services Limitation Obligation
It may be argued that a code of ethics of any profession is only intended to relate to conduct which prejudices or may tend to prejudice the performance of professional services, and accordingly personal misconduct unrelated to such performance should be left to other proper authority.
Obligation of a professional ethics reviewing body and of licensed professional engineers to reject the narrow argument that a professional code of ethics applies only to conduct that directly prejudices or tends to prejudice the performance of professional services — and instead to interpret the ethics code expansively to encompass personal misconduct that undermines public confidence in the profession's integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior, recognizing that the foundational purpose of a professional ethics code is to regulate practitioners so that the public may have confidence in them, not merely to police technical engineering conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Obligation of a professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics extends its jurisdiction beyond conduct directly related to the practice of engineering to encompass personal misconduct that reflects on the engineer's integrity, honesty, and fitness for professional practice — because the fundamental purpose of a professional ethics code is to ensure public confidence in the profession's practitioners, not merely to regulate technical engineering conduct. This obligation requires that engineers not treat the Code as limited to purely technical engineering activities when personal conduct bears on professional character and public trust.
Ethics Code Foreign Exception Chipping-Away Resistance Capability
the Board of Directors in January l968 rescinded the 'When in Rome' clause from the code as recommended by the Professional Engineers in Private Practice Section, which recognized a division of opinion on the policy but concluded, '... the profession should maintain a "pure" position on competitive bidding; otherwise our opposition to competitive bidding will be chipped away, piece by piece.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and professional ethics body to recognize and resist the incremental erosion of ethics code standards through the adoption of foreign-practice exceptions — including the ability to identify when a proposed exception for foreign practice would, if accepted, progressively weaken the code's protections by creating precedent for domestic exceptions, to articulate the 'chipping away' dynamic by which each exception weakens the overall standard, and to maintain a 'pure' position on core ethics provisions by refusing to adopt geographically variable standards.
Ethics Code Foreign Exception Chipping-Away Resistance Obligation
the NSPE Board of Directors in July l966 adopted a so-called 'When in Rome' clause to permit the submission of tenders for work in foreign countries when such is required by laws, regulations, or practices of the foreign country.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of professional ethics bodies to resist the adoption of foreign-practice exceptions to core ethics code prohibitions — such as permitting gift-giving to foreign officials that would be prohibited domestically — on the ground that any such exception, even if limited in stated scope to foreign work, will inevitably erode the domestic ethical standard by creating precedential pressure to accept the same conduct when argued to be local or area practice within the United States, thereby 'chipping away' at the profession's ethical standards piece by piece.
Ethics Code Government-Agency and Consulting-Firm Individual Engineer Applicability Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators — to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies to real persons who exercise decision-making power or effective recommendation authority within any organizational form, including government agencies and consulting firms, not merely to corporations; and to correctly apply the NSPE Board of Directors' 1971 directive that business form or type (governmental, corporate, partnership, or otherwise) does not negate or influence the conformance obligations of individual engineers who establish and implement policies within those structures, thereby preventing any organizational form from serving as a shield against individual professional ethical accountability.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that the engineering ethics code applies to real persons — not to business entities — and that business form or type (corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.) does not negate or influence the conformance obligations of individual engineers who establish and implement policies within those business structures, thereby preventing the use of corporate or organizational form as a shield against individual professional ethical accountability.
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Competence Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's satisfaction of the legal minimum requirement for a position or assignment — such as holding a valid PE license — does not satisfy the engineer's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires the engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by law and to practice only within their demonstrated area of competence, prohibiting engineers from invoking legal compliance as a defense to ethical competence violations, as established in BER Case 85-3 and NSPE Code II.2.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Foundational ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a professional engineer's general PE license — regardless of the discipline in which it was obtained — does not authorize unrestricted practice in all areas within the broad practice of engineering, requiring instead that engineers exercise careful professional judgment and practice solely within their demonstrated area(s) of competency, and prohibiting engineers from interpreting general licensure as a blanket authorization to offer or perform services in technical domains where they lack substantive education and experience, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and the Board's longstanding interpretation across BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 94-8.
Ethics Code Individual-Engineer-Only Applicability Corporate Non-Rescue Recognition Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies, individual engineers, and supervisors to recognize that the engineering ethics code applies exclusively to individual engineers as natural persons — not to companies, corporations, or other organizational entities — and that, as a consequence, when an employer takes punitive action against an engineer for engaging in good-faith civic advocacy, the ethics code cannot rescue the engineer from those employment consequences, because the code has no jurisdiction over the employing company; while simultaneously recognizing that this limitation does not diminish the ethical right of the engineer to engage in such advocacy or the ethical obligation of individual supervisors to refrain from suppressing it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of every licensed professional engineer who exercises decision-making power or effective recommendation authority within any organizational form — including government agencies, consulting firms, corporations, partnerships, or other entities — to recognize that the ethics code applies to them as real persons, not to the organization as an abstract entity, and that the organizational form or type (governmental, corporate, or otherwise) does not negate, diminish, or excuse the individual engineer's personal obligation to conform to the ethics code, because real persons establish and implement policies within all business and governmental structures.
Ethics Code Individual-Engineer Corporate Non-Rescue Limitation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewing body, and engineering employer to recognize that the engineering ethics code applies only to individual engineers — not to companies or corporate entities — and that therefore, when an employer takes punitive action against an engineer for engaging in ethically permissible civic advocacy, the ethics code cannot 'rescue' the engineer from that punitive action because the code has no binding force over the corporate employer, while simultaneously recognizing that the individual supervisory engineer who threatens or carries out such punitive action remains personally bound by the same ethics code provisions that protect the subordinate engineer's civic advocacy rights.
Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Non-Waivability Through Business Form
business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code
Professional virtue principle establishing that the engineering ethics code applies to real persons — individual licensed engineers — and cannot be negated, diluted, or circumvented by the business form or organizational type through which engineering services are delivered, because real persons establish and implement policies within business structures and bear personal professional obligations regardless of corporate or partnership form
Ethics Code Internal Cross-Provision Integration Obligation
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that no single provision of an engineering ethics code may be read in isolation or applied independently of the code's other provisions; engineers must interpret and apply each provision in light of the code as a whole, integrating potentially conflicting provisions through purposive reasoning that gives effect to the code's overarching values rather than treating any single provision as absolute.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when two provisions of an engineering ethics code appear to impose conflicting obligations on an engineer in a specific factual situation, the engineer must engage in contextual balancing of the competing provisions — weighing the purposes served by each provision, the specific facts of the case, and the relative harm to all affected parties — rather than mechanically applying either provision in isolation, and must articulate the reasoning by which one obligation is given priority over the other in the specific context
Ethics Code Living Document Adaptation Principle
This change reflects the view stated by the Board on numerous occasions that the Code of Ethics is a living document that must be realistic and from time to time reflect changes that occur in the practice environment in order to maintain credibility and currency
Fundamental ethical principle recognizing that a professional ethics code is a living document that must periodically be interpreted and, where necessary, revised to reflect material changes in the professional practice environment — including market conditions, regulatory context, and available risk-management tools — in order to maintain both credibility and practical currency, while preserving the underlying ethical values the code embodies.
Ethics Code Living Document Prevailing Practice Alignment Obligation
This Board has long noted that the Code of Ethics is not a static document and must reflect and be in consonance with generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession.
Meta-ethical duty of a professional ethics board or code-governing body to ensure that the ethics code reflects and remains in consonance with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession — and to modify prior holdings or code interpretations that impose impossible or idealistic standards inconsistent with actual professional practice — recognizing that an ethics code that departs from reasonable and rational methods of practice loses credibility and adherence, and that the code must establish a benchmark of achievable professional conduct rather than an unattainable ideal.
Ethics Code Living Document Temporal Adaptation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics bodies — to recognize that a professional code of ethics is a living document that must periodically reflect changes in the practice environment to maintain credibility and currency; to understand that code provisions adopted in response to specific historical conditions carry temporal justification boundaries; and to interpret and apply code provisions in light of current practice conditions rather than the historical circumstances that originally motivated their adoption, while remaining open to further revision as conditions continue to evolve.
Ethics Code Non-Applicability to Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Business Activities Principle
It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as his sole activity or in conjunction with his engineering practice.
Fundamental principle establishing that the canons of engineering ethics and rules of professional conduct are intended to apply exclusively to professional engineering practice and not to business, commercial, or sub-professional activities in which a licensed engineer may engage — whether as a sole activity or in conjunction with professional practice — such that engineers performing sub-professional or non-professional work are not bound by ethics code provisions designed to regulate professional engineering conduct, though they retain general honesty and transparency obligations toward clients and the public
Ethics Code Non-Narrow Public-Funds Scope Recognition Obligation
The Board noted that the case did not involve a danger to the public health or safety, but related to a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds.
Duty of professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies not only to situations involving direct danger to public health or safety but also to situations involving unsatisfactory engineering plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds — and to refrain from dismissing ethics code claims on the narrow ground that no immediate physical danger to the public is alleged, recognizing that the affirmative responsibilities of engineers to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and to avoid deceptive acts are independently cognizable ethical duties regardless of whether a safety danger is also present.
Ethics Code Non-Narrow Public-Funds Scope Self-Application Capability
The Board indicated that it could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the NSPE Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health and safety, but that was too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers engaged in such activities.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics applies not only to situations involving direct danger to public health or safety, but also to claims of unsatisfactory plans and unjustified expenditure of public funds — and to correctly resist the temptation to dismiss such cases on the narrow ground that no immediate safety hazard is alleged, instead applying the full scope of professional ethical duties including obligations to complete plans in conformity with applicable engineering standards and to avoid deceptive acts.
Ethics Code Organizational-Form Non-Excuse Individual Engineer Compliance Obligation
Duty of every licensed professional engineer who exercises decision-making power or effective recommendation authority within any organizational form — including government agencies, consulting firms, corporations, partnerships, or other entities — to recognize that the ethics code applies to them as real persons, not to the organization as an abstract entity, and that the organizational form or type (governmental, corporate, or otherwise) does not negate, diminish, or excuse the individual engineer's personal obligation to conform to the ethics code, because real persons establish and implement policies within all business and governmental structures.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of every licensed professional engineer to recognize that the engineering ethics code applies to real persons — individual licensed engineers — and that the business form or type through which engineering services are delivered (corporation, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship) does not negate or diminish the individual engineer's personal obligation to conform to the ethics code, because real persons establish and implement policies within business structures and the code is clearly written to apply to the engineer as an individual.
Ethics Code Persistence Across Service-Type Contexts Capability
An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and PE firm principal to recognize that professional ethics obligations under the engineering code of ethics persist in full force regardless of whether the firm is performing professional engineering services or sub-professional commercial services — understanding that the code applies to the individual engineer's conduct in all professional and business activities, and that the sub-professional character of a particular engagement does not suspend, reduce, or modify the engineer's ethical obligations.
Ethics Code Prevailing Practice Consonance Obligation
Meta-ethical principle of professional ethics governance establishing that a professional ethics code must reflect and remain consonant with generally prevailing practices within the profession. An ethics code that imposes impossible or idealistic standards — standards that place a significant number of competent practitioners in violation through ordinary practice — loses credibility and adherence, and must be interpreted or revised to establish a benchmark of reasonable and rational methods of practice. This principle operates as a constraint on overly strict code interpretations that would criminalize widespread legitimate professional conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental ethical principle recognizing that a professional ethics code is a living document that must periodically be interpreted and, where necessary, revised to reflect material changes in the professional practice environment — including market conditions, regulatory context, and available risk-management tools — in order to maintain both credibility and practical currency, while preserving the underlying ethical values the code embodies.
Ethics Code Provision Teleological Scope Limitation Principle
Hermeneutic principle establishing that, in the absence of prior precedent interpreting a specific ethics code provision, the provision's scope should be calibrated by reference to its protective purpose — the harm the provision was designed to prevent — so that conduct falling outside that purpose is not condemned as a violation; specifically, where a qualification-representation provision is designed to protect prospective employers from being deceived about an engineer's competence to perform important engineering decisions, the provision does not reach truthful emphasis of genuine (if limited) experience that does not actually deceive the employer as to the engineer's ability to perform the role sought
Ethics Code Purposive Extension Beyond Literal Text Safety Participation Obligation
A literal construction of the Code language may, therefore, indicate that the engineers of Company 'B' may ethically proceed with their role in the production process. But we think that this is too narrow a reading of the Code
Duty of licensed professional engineers and ethics reviewing bodies to reject a literal or narrow reading of an ethics code provision that would permit engineering participation in operations endangering public health and safety merely because the specific act prohibited by the literal text (e.g., signing or sealing plans) is not being performed, and instead to apply the code's protective purpose expansively so that engineers are prohibited from participating in any engineering operations — including production, processing, or manufacturing — that they believe endanger the public, recognizing that the purpose and force of safety provisions extends to all forms of engineering participation in unsafe operations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to read and apply the ethics code not only in its literal terms but also in the spirit of its purpose — upholding the highest standards of the profession — recognizing that literal compliance that violates the spirit of the code's purpose is insufficient, and that rationalizations which satisfy the letter of the code while undermining its foundational purpose of placing service to the public ahead of all other considerations constitute ethical violations.
Ethics Code Purposive Scope Expansive Interpretation Capability
Capability of a professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to interpret the scope of a professional code of ethics by reference to its foundational purpose — ensuring public confidence in the integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior of practitioners — rather than by a narrow textual reading limited to conduct directly related to the performance of professional services; including the ability to recognize that a purposive interpretation requires the code to reach personal misconduct that brings disrepute to the profession, even when such misconduct is not performed in a professional engineering capacity.
Ethics Code Scope Confinement to Professional Engineering Practice Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, engineering firm, and ethics adjudicatory body to correctly recognize that the canons of engineering ethics and rules of professional conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice — and not to business, commercial, or sub-professional activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as a sole activity or in conjunction with engineering practice — enabling accurate determination of when the ethics code governs conduct and when it does not.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to interpret the scope of a professional code of ethics by reference to its foundational purpose — ensuring public confidence in the integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior of practitioners — rather than by a narrow textual reading limited to conduct directly related to the performance of professional services; including the ability to recognize that a purposive interpretation requires the code to reach personal misconduct that brings disrepute to the profession, even when such misconduct is not performed in a professional engineering capacity.
Ethics Code Scope Limitation to Professional Engineering Practice Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicatory bodies to recognize that the canons of engineering ethics and rules of professional conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business, commercial, or sub-professional activities in which a professional engineer may engage — whether as a sole activity or in conjunction with engineering practice — and accordingly to refrain from applying ethics code provisions to conduct that falls outside the domain of professional engineering services.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional engineering organizations such as NSPE — to recognize that antitrust and First Amendment rulings have removed or constrained ethics code provisions governing professional selection, compensation, competitive bidding, advertising, and related practices, and that this constraint does not diminish the force of applicable federal, state, and local procurement laws; accordingly, engineers must comply with those procurement laws as a matter of legal and ethical obligation even where the ethics code itself cannot directly prescribe conduct in those areas.
Ethics Code Spirit-and-Letter Dual Compliance Constraint
we believe that the code must be read on this most basic point of honor and integrity, not only literally, but in the spirit of its purpose--to uphold the highest standards of the profession.
Ethical constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer to read and apply the ethics code not only in its literal terms but also in the spirit of its purpose — upholding the highest standards of the profession — prohibiting the engineer from exploiting literal ambiguities, definitional gaps, or geographic scope uncertainties in code language to justify conduct that violates the evident purpose and spirit of the prohibition, and establishing that rationalization through narrow literal reading of code provisions constitutes an independent ethics violation when the spirit of the provision clearly prohibits the conduct in question, as established by the BER's instruction that 'the code must be read on this most basic point of honor and integrity, not only literally, but in the spirit of its purpose.'
Ethics Code Spirit-and-Letter Dual Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to read and apply the ethics code not only in its literal terms but also in the spirit of its purpose — upholding the highest standards of the profession — recognizing that literal compliance that violates the spirit of the code's purpose is insufficient, and that rationalizations which satisfy the letter of the code while undermining its foundational purpose of placing service to the public ahead of all other considerations constitute ethical violations.
Ethics Code Spirit-and-Letter Dual Compliance Reasoning Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to read and apply a professional ethics code not only in its literal terms but also in the spirit of its underlying purpose — including the ability to recognize when a literal reading of a code provision might permit conduct that violates the spirit of the provision, to articulate the foundational purpose behind a code provision (e.g., upholding the highest standards of the profession), and to apply that purposive interpretation as the governing standard when literal compliance would undermine the code's fundamental intent.
Ethics Code Standard Erosion Prevention Principle
after further discussion and debate, the Board of Directors in January l968 rescinded the 'When in Rome' clause from the code as recommended by the Professional Engineers in Private Practice Section, which recognized a division of opinion on the policy but concluded, '... the profession should maintain a 'pure' position on competitive bidding; otherwise our opposition to competitive bidding will be chipped away, piece by piece.'
Fundamental principle establishing that professional ethics codes must be interpreted and applied with vigilance against incremental erosion — the 'chipping away' dynamic — whereby accepting a prohibited practice as an exception in one context (e.g., foreign work) creates precedential pressure to accept the same practice in other contexts (e.g., domestic work), ultimately destroying the coherence and protective force of the ethical standard; accordingly, engineers and ethics bodies must resist exception-carving that, while individually rationalized, cumulatively undermines the profession's core ethical commitments
Ethics Code Supersession of Legal Minimum Safety Obligation
A state engineering licensure board, while an important guidepost in determining appropriate conduct, establishes the legal minimum standards of practice under which an individual may be subject to disciplinary action for failing to fulfill the appropriate requirements. However, the NSPE Code of Ethics establishes a higher threshold of ethical conduct.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a determination by a state engineering licensure board that the engineer has fulfilled the legal minimum standard of professional obligation does not exhaust the engineer's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics, which establishes a higher threshold of conduct — requiring the engineer to take additional steps beyond those sufficient to avoid disciplinary action, particularly when public safety is implicated and further protective action is feasible.
Ethics Code Supersession of Prior Canons Current Standard Application Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, ethics board, or reviewing body to apply the current Code of Ethics as the controlling normative document when evaluating professional conduct, recognizing that the promulgation of a formal Code of Ethics supersedes prior Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, and that the current Code's more explicit provisions govern even when prior decisions were reached under the earlier framework — while acknowledging that the underlying axiomatic principles of professional conduct remain continuous across the transition.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Meta-ethical duty of a professional ethics board or code-governing body to ensure that the ethics code reflects and remains in consonance with customary and generally prevailing practices within the engineering profession — and to modify prior holdings or code interpretations that impose impossible or idealistic standards inconsistent with actual professional practice — recognizing that an ethics code that departs from reasonable and rational methods of practice loses credibility and adherence, and that the code must establish a benchmark of achievable professional conduct rather than an unattainable ideal.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that a professional ethics code — such as the NSPE Code of Ethics — sets a higher threshold of required conduct than the legal minimum standards enforced by a state licensure board, such that compliance with the legal minimum does not discharge the engineer's full ethical obligation, and engineers must look beyond regulatory sufficiency to determine whether their conduct meets the aspirational standard of the profession.
[Case 88] Meta-principle establishing that professional ethics codes impose obligations that exceed the minimum requirements of applicable law and regulation — such that legal compliance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical conduct, and engineers may be ethically obligated to take protective action that law does not require.
Professional norms governing whether and to what extent a professional engineer is ethically obligated to disclose a pending ethics complaint filed against them to current clients or employers, including the principle that a mere allegation does not compel automatic disclosure but that prudent background communication may be advisable depending on the nature and seriousness of the charges.
Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
A professional engineering role in which a licensed engineer, while actively rendering services to a client, becomes subject to a pending ethics complaint filed by a different client with the state board of professional engineers, and must weigh whether to proactively disclose the complaint to the current client, bearing obligations of faithful agency and truthfulness balanced against the right not to disclose unproven allegations that could be false or maliciously motivated.
Ethics Compliance Competitive Disadvantage State
the Board recognizes the reality that Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country
State in which an engineer's adherence to a professional ethics code places the engineer at a material competitive disadvantage relative to competitors who are not bound by the same code or who operate under home-country norms that permit conduct the code prohibits. The competitive disadvantage is acknowledged but does not constitute a justification for code non-compliance; rather, it is treated as a foreseeable consequence of voluntary membership that the engineer accepted upon joining the society.
Ethics Minimum Non-Sufficiency Employment Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that professional engineering ethics requires going beyond the minimum literal compliance with employment application questions or contractual requirements — prohibiting engineers from treating technical satisfaction of the narrowest reading of a question as exhausting their ethical disclosure obligations, and requiring instead that engineers exceed minimum requirements by proactively disclosing information that a reasonable employer would consider material to the hiring decision, particularly when the engineer knows or should know that the employer would want the information, as established by the principle that engineering ethics is not about performing the minimum amount required but about going the extra mile to exceed employer or client requirements.
Ethics Standard Erosion Slippery Slope Risk State
the result must be a 'chipping away' of ethical standards, leading to contention that such conduct should also be accepted in the United States when and if it is argued that such is the local or area practice
State in which a proposed exception to a professional ethics standard, if accepted, would predictably lead to progressive erosion of that standard through analogical extension to other contexts. This state is recognized when an ethics body determines that permitting a geographically or contextually bounded exception would undermine the integrity of the rule by creating precedent for further exceptions. The state activates an obligation to maintain categorical prohibition rather than permit case-by-case exceptions, in order to protect the systemic integrity of the professional ethics framework.
Ethics Standard Foreign-Exception Slippery Slope Prevention Constraint
Inviolable ethical constraint prohibiting professional engineering ethics bodies and individual engineers from accepting or advocating for a foreign-practice exception to a categorical ethics prohibition — such as a 'When in Rome' clause permitting conduct abroad that is prohibited domestically — on the ground that accepting such an exception would predictably lead to progressive erosion of the ethical standard through analogical extension, ultimately producing pressure to accept the same conduct domestically when argued to be local or area practice, as established by the NSPE Board of Directors' January 1968 rescission of the 'When in Rome' clause and the BER's recognition that permitting a foreign exception would chip away at ethical standards piece by piece, leading to contention that such conduct should also be accepted in the United States.
Euphemistic Hazard Communication Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Engineer B informed the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggested that they be removed.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when vague, euphemistic, or deliberately understated language — such as describing drums likely containing hazardous waste as containing 'questionable material' — constitutes an artfully misleading communication that violates professional ethics obligations, and to instead communicate the nature and severity of potential hazards in clear, accurate, and professionally candid terms that enable the client to understand the legal obligations and risks involved.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a statement that is technically accurate in a narrow literal sense is nonetheless materially misleading because it omits critical context, exploits ambiguity, or creates a false impression in the listener's mind — and to refrain from making such statements in professional contexts, particularly in regulatory testimony, understanding that professional ethics obligations prohibit deceptive statements regardless of their technical literal truth.
Evaluator-to-Beneficiary Conflict Prohibition in Public Contracting
Domain-specific principle prohibiting an engineer who serves in a public advisory or oversight role — with authority to evaluate a contractor's performance and recommend or concur in termination — from subsequently accepting the contract or commercial benefit that becomes available as a direct result of that termination, because the evaluator's authority over the contractor's fate creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest that taints any subsequent competitive benefit derived from the adverse outcome
Evaluator Feedback Informational Advantage Equal-Access Neutralization Constraint
Firm A, one of the seven, following an initial interview, was advised that the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects, nor reflect a desirable backup of specialized technical personnel.
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when a competing firm in an active qualifications-based selection process has received specific, individualized feedback from a screening committee identifying deficiencies in its proposal — establishing that the informational advantage created by this feedback must be neutralized before any amendment is ethically permissible, by extending an equal amendment opportunity to all other competing firms, prohibiting the advantaged firm from leveraging the feedback to improve its submission while other firms remain unaware of the evaluation criteria weighting or the specific deficiencies identified, and establishing that the procuring authority bears a corresponding duty to equalize the informational playing field if it permits any amendment at all.
Evaluator Feedback Informational Advantage in Active Procurement State
the screening committee of the authority felt that its joint venture proposal did not indicate sufficient experience in certain technical aspects
State in which a competing firm in an active qualification-based selection process has received specific, individualized feedback from the evaluating authority identifying weaknesses in its submission — feedback not available to other competing firms — creating an asymmetric informational condition that the firm may use to improve its competitive position, raising ethical questions about whether acting on such feedback constitutes an unfair advantage even when the authority permits responsive modification with equal access offered to all.
Evolving Conflict Circumstance Ongoing Disclosure Trigger Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineering firm that has been determined ethically permissible to serve in a dual role as city engineer and municipal contractor must continuously monitor for and promptly disclose to the municipal client any further circumstances that arise — including the commencement of private client work within the municipality, situations requiring review of the firm's own work, new contract awards creating additional self-oversight potential, or any other development that materially changes the conflict-of-interest profile — and that the initial ethical clearance for the dual arrangement does not constitute a permanent license but is conditioned on the absence of such further circumstances, requiring re-evaluation of the ethical permissibility of the arrangement whenever material new circumstances arise.
Evolving Professional Standard Awareness Capability
The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development.
Capability to recognize and track the evolution of professional ethical standards over time — including awareness of when new code provisions have been added (such as the 2007 NSPE sustainable development provision), how BER precedent has shifted in response to new provisions, and how the profession's collective ethical perspective has evolved — and to apply current standards rather than outdated interpretations when analyzing professional obligations.
[proethica-intermediate] Ability to adapt to new cases, changing standards, and novel situations while maintaining consistency (Anderson & Anderson 2018)
Evolving Sustainability Standard Judicial Deference Constraint
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER's perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs.
Ethical and professional constraint arising from the increasing priority of sustainability principles in professional engineering ethics — as reflected in the 2007 addition of NSPE Code Section III.2.d and subsequent BER case evolution — requiring that licensed professional engineers and engineer interns interpret their professional obligations in light of the expanding scope and weight of sustainability considerations, prohibiting reliance on pre-2007 BER precedent or pre-sustainability-provision professional norms as sufficient authority for dismissing sustainability concerns as outside the scope of professional ethical obligation.
Exaggeration-Deliberate-Untruth Definitional Boundary Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the code prohibition on 'exaggerated' qualification statements in employment-seeking contexts applies only to deliberate factual untruths about the facts of former employment — not to the degree of emphasis placed on genuine experience or qualifications; distinguishing between (a) prohibited exaggeration, which requires a deliberate untruth about what the engineer actually did or accomplished, and (b) permissible emphasis, which involves selective highlighting of genuine qualifications without fabricating facts; establishing that an engineer who truthfully describes genuine experience but strongly emphasizes its extent and level does not commit 'exaggeration' within the meaning of the code provision, provided the engineer possesses some genuine competence in the emphasized area, as established by BER Case No. 72-11.
Exaggeration-Emphasis Distinction Threshold Determination State
we are inclined to the more charitable view that his action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis
State in which a professional ethics body must determine, for the first time under a code provision prohibiting 'exaggerated' qualification statements, whether a job applicant's conduct constitutes a prohibited deliberate untruth about prior experience versus a permissible degree of emphasis on genuine but minor qualifications — with the threshold determination turning on whether the applicant had any truthful basis for the claims made and whether the conduct rises to the level of deceiving a prospective employer about actual competence to perform the role.
Exaggeration-vs-Emphasis Code Term Deliberate-Untruth Threshold Interpretation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to correctly interpret the term 'exaggerated' in a professional ethics code provision — specifically NSPE Code Section 3(e) — as applying only to deliberate factual untruths about former employment, rather than to the degree of emphasis placed on genuine experience or qualifications; including the ability to distinguish between (a) affirmative false statements of fact about prior roles, which constitute impermissible exaggeration, and (b) selective emphasis on genuine, if limited, competence areas, which may be condoned as an accepted sales technique, and to apply this threshold distinction to novel resume qualification scenarios in the absence of prior precedent.
Exaggeration Code Provision Deliberate Untruth Threshold Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to understand and comply with the ethics code prohibition on 'exaggerated statements' of qualifications in employment contexts as applying only to deliberate untruths of the facts of former employment — such as fabricating job titles, inventing responsibilities, or falsely claiming credentials — rather than to the degree of emphasis placed on genuine experience or qualifications actually possessed. Under this interpretive obligation, an engineer who genuinely possesses some degree of competence in an area and emphasizes that competence on a resume does not violate the exaggeration prohibition, even if the emphasis is strong and the competence is minor, provided no factual falsehood is asserted. The obligation requires engineers to refrain from deliberate factual fabrication while recognizing that favorable self-presentation through emphasis of genuine qualifications falls within the permissible zone of professional self-promotion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer crafting a resume to ensure that any selective emphasis of qualifications remains within the permissible zone defined by whether the prospective employer is protected from being deceived as to the engineer's actual competence for the role sought — recognizing that emphasis which does not deceive the employer about competence (such as emphasizing genuine but minor managerial experience for a management role) is permissible, while emphasis that creates a false impression of qualifications the engineer does not genuinely possess (such as implying sole authorship of jointly-designed work) crosses into prohibited misrepresentation under NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
Executing Engineer Non-Sealing Participation Bar Purposive Extension Constraint
A literal construction of the Code language may, therefore, indicate that the engineers of Company 'B' may ethically proceed with their role in the production process. But we think that this is too narrow a reading of the Code and that the purpose and force of Section 2(c) is that the engineer will not participate in any way in engineering operations which endanger the public health and safety.
Ethical constraint establishing that the prohibition in Section 2(c) of the NSPE Code — which literally bars engineers from completing, signing, or sealing plans and specifications that are not safe — must be read purposively and not literally, such that engineers who are not asked to sign or seal plans (because another firm's engineers have already done so) are nonetheless prohibited from participating in any engineering operations that endanger public health and safety; establishing that the purpose and force of the sealing prohibition extends to all forms of engineering participation in unsafe operations, not merely to the act of signing or sealing, and prohibiting the use of a narrow literal reading of the code to justify participation in production of equipment believed to be unsafe.
Executing Engineer Participation Bar in Unsafe Design State
the purpose and force of Section 2(c) is that the engineer will not participate in any way in engineering operations which endanger the public health and safety
State in which an engineer responsible for manufacturing, constructing, or otherwise executing a design — who has not been asked to sign or seal the plans — nonetheless holds a sincere belief that the design is unsafe to public health and safety, triggering a code-based obligation to refuse participation in any engineering operations related to that design, even absent a sealing obligation. The state arises from a broad reading of professional codes that extends the prohibition on unsafe work beyond the literal signing/sealing act to all forms of engineering participation in unsafe operations.
Executing Firm Engineer Unsafe Design Production Participation Bar Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that engineers of a firm tasked with producing or manufacturing equipment designed by another firm are barred from participating in production when they have identified miscalculations and technical deficiencies of a nature that the final product might endanger the lives of persons in proximity to it — prohibiting continuation of production work regardless of employer instruction or the designing firm's self-serving assurance of adequacy, and establishing that the executing engineers' independent professional judgment of safety inadequacy is a sufficient basis for the participation bar even when the designing firm disputes that judgment.
Exhaustive Inspection Prerequisite for Compliance Certification Constraint
it would be impossible for Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility that would be required
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer cannot ethically certify compliance with a detailed regulatory framework unless the engineer is capable of performing — and has performed — the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility or system required to verify that compliance, prohibiting certification when the scope, complexity, or technical specificity of the required inspection exceeds the engineer's knowledge or practical capacity, on the grounds that certification without the ability to conduct the required inspection is inherently misleading and deceptive, as established by the BER's analysis of Engineer A's inability to perform the detailed inspection required to certify Army arms storage compliance.
Expeditious Correction Obligation Upon Actual Knowledge of Marketing Material Inaccuracy
the marketing director has an ethical obligation to take expeditious action to correct the error
Relational principle establishing that once an engineer or engineering firm receives actual notice that a marketing or promotional material contains inaccurate information that could mislead or deceive clients or prospective clients, the firm bears an affirmative ethical obligation to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — within a reasonable time; the obligation is triggered by actual knowledge of the inaccuracy, not merely by the passage of time, and continued inaction after actual knowledge independently constitutes a risk of ethical violation regardless of whether the original omission was inadvertent.
Expeditious Marketing Material Error Correction Upon Actual Knowledge Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a marketing or business development role — or any firm representative with authority over promotional materials — who receives actual notice from a colleague or staff member that a firm brochure or marketing document contains an inaccuracy capable of misleading clients or prospective clients, to take expeditious corrective action within a reasonable period of time, employing low-cost mechanisms such as errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints as necessary, rather than allowing the known inaccuracy to persist uncorrected. This obligation arises at the moment of actual knowledge and is not excused by logistical difficulties, printing costs, or the inadvertent origin of the error; the marketing director's professional engineering license independently grounds this duty.
Expert Ambiguous Prime Role Acceptance State
Engineer X responded by submitting his qualifications but not stating definitely if he would be willing to undertake the work as the prime professional.
State in which a recognized expert, having been directly solicited by a government agency to serve as prime professional on a contract, submits qualifications without definitively committing to undertake the work as prime — creating an ambiguous professional posture that leaves the agency, and the expert's prior informal commitments to other firms, in an unresolved condition.
Expert Prior Informal Commitment Conflicting with Direct Agency Solicitation State
Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X, a recognized expert in the technical subject matter and a principal in his own firm, to provide the highly specialized expertise
State in which an expert has made prior informal arrangements with multiple competing firms to serve as their subconsultant if they are awarded a contract, and is subsequently directly solicited by the procuring agency to serve as prime professional — creating a conflict between prior informal commitments to the competing firms and the new direct engagement opportunity, with obligations to be transparent about both sets of relationships.
Expert Report Credential Designation Accuracy Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who provides forensic expert opinions or expert testimony to present credential designations in expert reports, signature blocks, and testimony in a manner that is accurate, non-misleading, and complete — including correctly representing licensure status in the relevant jurisdiction, accurately identifying the scope of held credentials (such as board certifications), and refraining from presenting credentials in a manner that implies licensure or qualification that does not exist in the jurisdiction where the opinion or testimony is offered.
Expert Report Credential Omission Non-Deception Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who signs an expert report or professional opinion using a credential designation must ensure that the credential presentation does not create a misleading impression of licensure status in the jurisdiction where the report is submitted — including by omitting the PE designation while retaining an engineering-implying board certification title — prohibiting signature block presentations that allow a reader to reasonably infer jurisdictional licensure compliance when the engineer is not in fact licensed in the relevant jurisdiction, as established by NSPE Code non-deception provisions and the principle that omission of material credential information constitutes a form of misrepresentation.
Expert Report Peer Review Opportunity Preservation Constraint
Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from drafting or submitting an expert technical report using language so absolute, foreclosing, or conclusory that it effectively denies other qualified engineers the opportunity to conduct independent expert review and interpretation of the underlying technical data — establishing that report language must preserve, rather than foreclose, the possibility of peer engineering review, and that language which precludes any interpretation other than the engineer's own adverse conclusion violates the objectivity and completeness obligations of the NSPE Code.
Expert Testimony Licensure Disclosure Constraint
The licensing statute in State M specified that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer providing expert testimony in a jurisdiction must either hold licensure in that jurisdiction or refrain from presenting credentials that imply engineering qualifications, prohibiting self-presentation under engineering titles or certifications when such presentation would create a misleading impression of jurisdictional licensure compliance, as established by state licensing statutes governing expert testimony.
Expert Testimony Licensure Non-Compliance State
The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M.
State in which a professional engineer agrees to provide expert testimony in a jurisdiction whose licensing statute explicitly requires licensure in that jurisdiction for such testimony, but the engineer does not hold a license in that jurisdiction — creating direct tension between the professional's willingness to serve as an expert witness, the statutory requirement for local licensure, and the obligation of honest self-representation regarding licensure status.
Expert Witness Conflict of Interest Disclosure Standard
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise [Defendant's attorney] that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers serving as expert witnesses to fully disclose to retaining counsel any professional relationships, committee roles, or organizational affiliations that may bear on their independence or create the appearance of conflict, including relationships with opposing experts, and the obligation to avoid ex parte communications with opposing experts during pending litigation
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to fully disclose all viable options and their own financial or competitive interest when providing professional recommendations to clients, particularly when the engineer stands to benefit from the recommended option and has omitted alternatives from which they cannot benefit
Expert Witness Credential Presentation Non-Misleading Obligation
Engineer A then stated that he was employed by the US Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer providing expert testimony at a regulatory hearing or legal proceeding to accurately represent the capacity in which they are testifying — including affirmatively disclosing when testimony is funded by or on behalf of a private party rather than a governmental employer — and to refrain from presenting governmental employer credentials in a manner that creates a false impression of official governmental endorsement of the testimony, whether through negligent or intentional use of official titles, job designations, or institutional affiliations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who provides forensic expert opinions or expert testimony to present credential designations in report signature blocks and professional communications in a manner that does not create a false or misleading impression about the engineer's jurisdictional licensure status — including refraining from using alternative credential titles (such as 'Consultant' or board certification designations alone) in a manner that obscures the absence of required licensure in the jurisdiction of the engagement, when a reasonable reader of the report could interpret the credential presentation as implying full jurisdictional qualification to provide engineering expert services.
Expert Witness Credential and Affiliation Transparent Presentation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing expert testimony at a regulatory hearing or legal proceeding to accurately and transparently present all relevant credentials, affiliations, and the capacity in which testimony is being offered — including clearly distinguishing between governmental employment credentials and private consulting credentials, disclosing the identity of the party retaining and compensating the witness, and refraining from presenting governmental affiliation in a manner that implies official governmental endorsement of testimony that is in fact offered in a private consulting capacity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who provides forensic expert opinions or expert testimony to present credential designations in expert reports, signature blocks, and testimony in a manner that is accurate, non-misleading, and complete — including correctly representing licensure status in the relevant jurisdiction, accurately identifying the scope of held credentials (such as board certifications), and refraining from presenting credentials in a manner that implies licensure or qualification that does not exist in the jurisdiction where the opinion or testimony is offered.
Expert Witness Engagement Conflict Assessment Pre-Acceptance Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is solicited to serve as an expert witness in adversarial litigation must, before accepting the engagement, conduct a thorough conflict of interest assessment — including identifying all professional relationships between the engineer and the opposing expert, any shared committee memberships, supervisory relationships, prior collaborative work, and any other circumstances that could create an appearance of compromised impartiality — prohibiting acceptance of the expert witness engagement without completing this pre-acceptance conflict assessment and disclosing all identified conflicts to the retaining attorney.
Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as an expert witness or technical reviewer in litigation or adversarial proceedings to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as an advocate for any party — and to resist any characterization, pressure, or structural expectation that would cause the engineer to adopt the partisan advocacy role characteristic of attorneys, recognizing that engineers are not members of an institutionalized plaintiff's or defense bar and that their professional independence and autonomy must be preserved.
Expert Witness Firsthand Knowledge Privileged Information Contamination Avoidance Obligation
There is a danger that Engineer A's opinions, based on his firsthand knowledge and his understanding of the facts of record, would touch upon privileged, specialized, and confidential knowledge gained while he was retained by the U.S. government.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained as an expert witness in adversarial litigation to recognize that, when the engineer's firsthand knowledge and understanding of the facts of record were acquired during a prior confidential engagement on behalf of the opposing party, the expert testimony the engineer would be required to give — based on that firsthand knowledge — necessarily risks touching upon privileged, specialized, and confidential knowledge gained during the prior engagement, and that this contamination risk is irremediable and constitutes an independent ground for declining the expert witness engagement, separate from and in addition to the switching-sides prohibition.
Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to provide forensic evaluation, expert opinion preparation, or expert testimony in a jurisdiction other than those in which the engineer holds licensure to verify whether the applicable state licensing statute requires licensure in that jurisdiction before providing such services, and to obtain the required licensure or decline the engagement if licensure is required and not held, so that the engineer does not engage in unlicensed engineering practice in violation of state law and does not mislead the retaining attorney or the court about the engineer's legal authority to provide engineering expert services in that jurisdiction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who provides verbal engineering input at a public regulatory hearing in a jurisdiction other than the state in which they are licensed — where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making — to verify whether such testimony constitutes the practice of engineering under the applicable state statutes and regulations, and to obtain the required licensure in that jurisdiction before providing such input if it does, so that the engineer does not engage in unlicensed engineering practice.
Expert Witness Jurisdiction Licensure Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is contacted to provide forensic evaluation, expert opinion preparation, or expert testimony to proactively identify and verify whether the jurisdiction in which the testimony or opinion will be offered imposes a licensure requirement on expert witnesses — including researching the applicable state licensing statute, understanding its scope and applicability to expert witness roles, and correctly determining whether licensure in that jurisdiction is required before agreeing to the engagement.
Expert Witness Jurisdictional Licensure Compliance Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint arising from state licensing statutes that require any engineer providing expert testimony in a state court to hold a valid professional engineering license in that state, prohibiting engineers licensed only in other jurisdictions from providing expert testimony without first obtaining the required licensure, and establishing that the use of engineering-implying credentials or titles in the expert report signature block brings the engineer within the purview of the state's engineering practice act regardless of whether the engagement was framed as non-engineering expert services.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer providing expert testimony in a jurisdiction must either hold licensure in that jurisdiction or refrain from presenting credentials that imply engineering qualifications, prohibiting self-presentation under engineering titles or certifications when such presentation would create a misleading impression of jurisdictional licensure compliance, as established by state licensing statutes governing expert testimony.
Expert Witness Licensure Non-Compliance Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has agreed to provide forensic evaluation, expert opinion, or expert testimony in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed — and where licensure is required by statute — to affirmatively disclose this licensure deficiency to the retaining attorney and in any expert opinion report or testimony, including understanding that omission of this disclosure constitutes a misrepresentation of professional qualifications and that the disclosure must be made proactively rather than only in response to direct inquiry.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when and how to disclose the use of AI tools in the generation of professional work product, including understanding applicable professional codes, client expectations, and regulatory requirements regarding AI tool disclosure, and to accurately represent the intellectual provenance and authorship of AI-assisted deliverables to clients, employers, and other stakeholders.
State statutory provisions specifying licensure requirements for engineers who provide expert testimony in state courts, establishing that expert witnesses must hold a valid license in the jurisdiction where testimony is provided
Expert Witness Licensure Status Affirmative Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has agreed to provide forensic evaluation, expert opinion, or expert testimony in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed — particularly where the applicable licensing statute requires licensure for such services — to affirmatively disclose the engineer's non-licensure status in that jurisdiction to the retaining attorney and, where required, in the expert report itself, so that the retaining attorney can make an informed decision about the engagement, the court is not misled about the engineer's legal authority to testify, and the engineer does not create a false impression of jurisdictional qualification through silence or through the use of alternative credential designations that obscure the absence of required licensure.
Expert Witness Non-Advocate Objectivity in Regulatory Testimony Capability
Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by an industry client to testify at a governmental or regulatory hearing to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions independent of the retaining party's advocacy interests — including the ability to resist pressure to shade testimony in favor of the industry client, to present technically complete and balanced analysis, and to maintain the same objectivity standards as in non-adversarial professional contexts, recognizing that the engineer's primary duty is to the regulatory body and the public rather than to the compensating industry client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness in adversarial litigation to conduct investigations and render opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment — independent of the retaining party's litigation interests — including the ability to resist pressure to shade findings in favor of the retaining party, to report adverse findings completely, and to maintain the same objectivity standards as in non-adversarial professional contexts.
Expert Witness Non-Engineering Services Standard
Case 04-11, situation (3) clearly contemplates that engineers who qualify as experts in non-engineering areas may provide those non-engineering services in jurisdictions in which they are not licensed.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conditions under which a licensed engineer may provide expert witness or consulting services in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed, particularly when the services are characterized as non-engineering in nature, and the ethical constraints on how such experts may represent their credentials in reports and testimony without implying licensure in the jurisdiction
Expert Witness Opposing Counsel Professional Relationship Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
Relational principle requiring engineers retained as expert witnesses to disclose to retaining counsel not only their own professional relationships and committee roles that may bear on the engagement, but also any known professional relationships — including shared committee membership, supervisory relationships, or organizational affiliations — between themselves and opposing expert witnesses, so that retaining counsel can assess the full landscape of professional relationships that may affect the proceeding
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who serve in leadership or membership roles on technical standards-setting committees and are simultaneously retained as expert witnesses in cases involving those standards to affirmatively disclose both their own committee role and the roles of any opposing expert witnesses who serve on the same or related committees, to retaining counsel and other relevant parties, so that potential conflicts of interest and professional relationships can be assessed and managed
Expert Witness Privileged Information Contamination Risk Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained as a forensic expert witness to recognize and assess the risk that expert testimony in an adversarial proceeding will necessarily draw upon, disclose, or be contaminated by privileged, confidential, or specialized information gained during a prior engagement with the opposing party — including the ability to identify that firsthand knowledge and understanding of facts of record acquired during the prior engagement cannot be mentally segregated from subsequent expert analysis, to recognize that the expert may be called upon to opine on the very facts in which the engineer was previously involved as a consultant, and to use this contamination risk assessment as a basis for declining the adverse engagement.
Expert Witness Unlicensed Jurisdiction Status Proactive Disclosure Capability
In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a regulatory body in a jurisdiction where the engineer does not hold a professional engineering license to affirmatively disclose this non-licensure status at the outset of testimony — including understanding that proactive disclosure is required regardless of whether the regulatory body inquires, and that failure to disclose constitutes a misrepresentation of professional qualifications relevant to the weight the regulatory body should assign to the testimony.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has agreed to provide forensic evaluation, expert opinion, or expert testimony in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed — and where licensure is required by statute — to affirmatively disclose this licensure deficiency to the retaining attorney and in any expert opinion report or testimony, including understanding that omission of this disclosure constitutes a misrepresentation of professional qualifications and that the disclosure must be made proactively rather than only in response to direct inquiry.
Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Threshold Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to calibrate the threshold and form of disclosure obligations — including whether to include findings in a written report submitted to a public authority — based on the engineer's domain expertise relative to the observed condition, such that an engineer with relevant domain expertise who receives a non-speculative finding from a qualified specialist is obligated to include that finding in a written report, while an engineer without domain expertise whose observation is based on surmise and speculation may appropriately limit disclosure to verbal notification through the client chain, without including the speculative finding in a formal written report.
Expertise-Calibrated Disclosure Threshold Principle
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's obligation to formally disclose observations about conditions outside their contracted scope is calibrated to the engineer's level of expertise in the relevant technical domain — such that an engineer with clear domain expertise in the observed condition bears a stronger and more immediate disclosure obligation than an engineer whose observation is based on general surmise without specialized competence, and that the absence of domain expertise in the observed condition is a relevant factor in determining whether formal written disclosure or mere verbal notification is appropriate.
Expertise-Calibrated Environmental Disclosure Threshold Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to calibrate the threshold and form of disclosure obligations — including whether findings must be included in written reports submitted to public authorities — based on the engineer's domain expertise relative to the subject matter of the finding: when the engineer possesses relevant domain expertise (e.g., an environmental engineer with biologist consultation identifying a threatened species), the obligation to include findings in written reports is clear and direct; when the engineer lacks such expertise (e.g., a civil engineer making a general surmise about structural failure), a more cautious approach is warranted, limiting disclosure to field notes and verbal reporting through the client chain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the threshold for reporting an observed violation — and the degree of caution warranted before acting — differs materially depending on whether the engineer possesses domain expertise in the subject matter of the violation: when the engineer has specialized expertise in the violated domain (e.g., an environmental engineer observing a wetland fill violation), the obligation to act is more immediate and direct; when the engineer lacks such expertise (e.g., a civil engineer observing a suspected electrical or structural deficiency outside their specialty), a more measured and cautious approach is warranted before taking action.
Explicit Non-Competition Representation Binding Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who makes an explicit, voluntary representation to a former employer — at the time of departure — that they will not compete with that employer is ethically bound by that representation, prohibiting the engineer from subsequently engaging in direct competition with the former employer in a manner that contradicts the stated intention, regardless of whether the representation was memorialized in a formal written non-compete agreement, because the engineer's professional honor and the duty of non-deception require that voluntary representations made to induce reliance be honored, as established by NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness and non-deception in professional dealings.
External Civic Advocacy Without Employer Identification State
State in which a professional engineer participates in public advocacy — including legislative testimony, media statements, and citizen committee activities — on matters of professional and public concern (such as product quality standards) without identifying their employer, naming specific companies, or disclosing confidential information, such that the advocacy is conducted purely in the engineer's capacity as a professional citizen rather than as a representative of any employer or client.
External Convention Non-Excuse for Brochure Title Misrepresentation Obligation
This practice has arisen from federal agency engineering contracts that refer to inspection personnel as 'Engineers.'
Duty of an engineering firm to refrain from using federal agency contract terminology, industry convention, or external labeling practices as justification for assigning engineering titles — such as 'Engineer' or 'Design Engineer' — to non-degreed, non-licensed personnel in firm marketing materials, brochures, or public-facing documents, recognizing that the origin of a misleading title in an external convention does not diminish the misrepresentation conveyed to the public and does not relieve the firm of its independent obligation to ensure accurate credential representation.
External Convention Non-Excuse for Title Misrepresentation
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineering firm's adoption of misleading professional titles for non-qualified personnel cannot be ethically justified by the fact that the title usage originated in, or was normalized by, an external contractual convention (such as federal agency contract language), because the ethical obligation to accurately represent personnel qualifications to the public is independent of and not superseded by contractual or institutional labeling practices
External Convention Non-Excuse for Title Misrepresentation Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that an engineering firm or licensed professional engineer cannot invoke external industry convention, federal agency contracting practice, or client-imposed terminology as a justification for assigning engineering-implying titles to non-degreed or unlicensed personnel in firm marketing materials, establishing that the origin of a misleading practice in external sources does not diminish the firm's independent obligation to ensure its own public representations are accurate and non-deceptive.
External Convention Non-Excuse for Title Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize that the origin of a misleading engineering title in an external convention — such as federal agency contract language, industry custom, or government procurement terminology — does not excuse or justify the continued use of that title in firm marketing materials when such use misrepresents the qualifications of non-degreed or unlicensed personnel to the public, and to correctly identify the firm's independent ethical obligation to audit and correct such titles regardless of their conventional or contractual origin.
Engineer A is assigned to serve as the lead engineer on the independent external review of the design of the major road transportation project
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serves as the lead engineer on an independent external peer review of a public agency's design documents for a major infrastructure project, bearing obligations of objectivity, independence, and completeness in review findings, and generating conflict-of-interest concerns when the same engineer or firm subsequently seeks to participate in a design-build procurement for the same project whose plans and specifications were shaped by the peer review.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm that previously conducted an independent external review of a public agency project subsequently participates in a design-build joint venture responding to a request for proposals for that same project, bearing obligations to obtain agency approval, comply with applicable conflict-of-interest laws, and ensure prior review knowledge does not confer unfair competitive advantage.
Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Conflict Heightened Ethical Scrutiny Recognition Obligation
Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when a dual public-private employment conflict involves exact same-domain overlap — rather than merely interrelated domains — the ethical severity is heightened to a level that makes the conflict 'virtually impossible' to manage through disclosure or consent alone, requiring complete non-engagement in private consulting in that domain rather than merely enhanced disclosure or management measures, and to apply this heightened standard when self-assessing the permissibility of dual-role arrangements.
Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Conflict Heightened Scrutiny Self-Application Capability
This case seems to present a more extreme example of the ethical issues involved in a situation of this type.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when a dual public-private employment conflict involves exact same-domain overlap — rather than merely adjacent or interrelated domains — the ethical concerns are qualitatively more severe and require heightened scrutiny, including the ability to self-apply this heightened standard by recognizing that the ordinary conflict-of-interest analysis applicable to adjacent-domain dual roles is insufficient, and that same-domain overlap creates a conflict that is 'virtually impossible' to manage through disclosure or procedural safeguards alone.
Extreme Same-Domain Dual-Role Irresolvable Conflict Recognition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer's dual public-private employment involves exact identity of subject matter — rather than merely adjacent or interrelated domains — the conflict of interest is so extreme as to be virtually impossible to resolve through disclosure or consent alone, prohibiting the engineer from treating the dual engagement as manageable through ordinary conflict-of-interest mitigation measures and requiring recognition that the same-domain overlap makes it virtually impossible to serve as a part-time consultant in the same area for private clients while employed by a government agency in that same area, as established by BER Case 07-12's characterization of the coal bed methane dual role as 'a more extreme example' than the adjacent-domain conflicts in BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8.
Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Risk Communication Capability
Capability to clearly communicate to organizational decision-makers the specific energy reliability risks that arise during extreme weather events — including the probability and consequences of rolling blackouts, the inability of solar-without-storage systems to provide power during grid outages, and the public safety implications of energy supply interruption for critical organizational operations — in a manner that enables informed decision-making about energy system replacement options.
Extreme Weather Rolling Blackout Vulnerable Population Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has learned from utility resource planners that extreme weather events may trigger rolling outages must disclose that risk — including its foreseeable disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations dependent on continuous electricity — in any advisory report to the decision-making authority, prohibiting the engineer from omitting or minimizing the rolling blackout risk on the grounds that it is contingent on extreme weather conditions or that it originates from the utility rather than the proposed project.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer disclose to clients and relevant stakeholders identified risks that are low in probability but high in consequence — particularly when those consequences include disproportionate harm to vulnerable or underserved populations — prohibiting the engineer from omitting or minimizing such risks on the basis of their low likelihood alone, and requiring that the full consequence profile be presented alongside probability assessments to enable informed client decision-making.
FAA QBS Consultant Selection Integrity Non-Interference Obligation
The State DOT does not contract directly with consultants hired by the municipalities for their airport improvements, nor is the state involved in the selection of airport consultants other than to provide FAA guidelines with respect to consultant qualifications-based selection procedures.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a state DOT that provides FAA guidelines for qualifications-based selection of airport consultants to refrain from personally participating as a candidate consultant in those same QBS selection processes — or from being solicited to seek such contracts through a private firm — recognizing that the engineer's governmental role in providing QBS procedural guidance creates an appearance of impropriety and potential structural advantage over competing consultants who do not have access to the governmental QBS administration function.
FAA QBS Consultant Selection Non-Interference Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a state DOT that provides FAA guidelines for qualifications-based selection of airport consultants to recognize that participating — through a former employer or otherwise — in seeking airport consulting contracts with municipalities subject to those FAA QBS guidelines constitutes interference with the integrity of the consultant selection process the engineer's agency oversees, and to correctly determine that such participation is ethically impermissible because it exploits the engineer's governmental role in disseminating and enforcing QBS procedures.
FAA QBS Guideline Dissemination Role Private Airport Consulting Solicitation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed by a state DOT that disseminates FAA qualification-based selection guidelines to municipalities for airport consultant procurement from simultaneously seeking or accepting private airport consulting contracts with those same municipalities — establishing that the engineer's institutional role in shaping the consultant selection process creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that would compromise the integrity of the FAA QBS procurement framework, generate an appearance of impropriety, and constitute an improper use of the engineer's governmental position to obtain private consulting work, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.4, III.2, and III.7 and FAA qualification-based selection requirements.
FOIA-Acquired Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
Engineer B's use of a state FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's submitted qualifications before Engineer B's own firm submitted its RFQ response
Legal and ethical constraint establishing that while a licensed professional engineer or firm may lawfully use state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) mechanisms to obtain publicly disclosed qualification submissions of competing firms in a public procurement process, the engineer must ensure that such FOIA-acquired intelligence is used only for legitimate competitive purposes — such as understanding the competitive landscape — and must not be used to tailor or misrepresent the engineer's own qualifications in a manner that creates a misleading impression of superiority, or to gain an unfair advantage that undermines the integrity of the qualification-based selection process.
FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Acquisition State
Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intended to respond to the same RFQ, submitted a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
State in which a professional engineer or firm, participating in a public procurement process, uses a statutory public records request (such as a Freedom of Information Act request) to obtain a competitor's submitted qualifications or procurement materials before or after submitting their own — creating a condition where the acquisition is legally permissible under applicable public records law but raises ethical questions about timing, competitive fairness, and the appearance of impropriety, particularly when the request is made before the requesting firm has submitted its own qualifications.
FOIA-Based Competitor Intelligence Ethical Use Constraint
Engineer B FOIA Requesting Competitor -- Submitted a FOIA request to obtain Engineer A's qualifications submission before submitting his own firm's qualifications to the same state agency
Relational principle establishing that while a licensed engineer may lawfully submit a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a competitor's publicly filed qualifications submission, the engineer must use the obtained information only for legitimate competitive purposes — such as understanding the competitive landscape — and must not use it to reverse-engineer, copy, or misappropriate the competitor's proprietary methodologies, project descriptions, or other competitively sensitive content in a manner that constitutes unfair competitive conduct, even when the information was lawfully obtained through a public records process
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a competitor for a public engineering contract submits a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain a copy of a competing firm's qualifications submission to a public agency, bearing obligations to avoid the appearance of impropriety by submitting the FOIA request only after the requesting firm has itself submitted its own qualifications, and to act consistently with applicable public procurement laws and regulations.
FOIA Competitor Intelligence Post-Submission Timing Obligation
Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who intends to use a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a competitor's qualifications submission in a public procurement process to submit that FOIA request only after the engineer's own firm has submitted its qualifications to the same agency for the same procurement — refraining from using FOIA-obtained competitor intelligence to inform or improve the engineer's own submission — so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to preserve the integrity of the competitive procurement process.
FOIA Pre-Submission Competitor Intelligence Abstention Obligation
Prior to the interview process, Engineer B, a competitor of Engineer A, whose firm also intends to respond to the same RFQ, submits a state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to obtain a copy of the qualifications information Engineer A submitted to the state.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has submitted or intends to submit qualifications to a public agency in response to an RFQ to refrain from submitting a FOIA request to obtain a competitor's qualifications submission prior to the close of the engineer's own submission window, recognizing that obtaining competitor intelligence before finalizing one's own submission creates an unfair informational advantage, undermines the integrity of the qualification-based selection process, and constitutes an appearance of impropriety regardless of the lawfulness of the FOIA request itself.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who intends to use a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a competitor's qualifications submission in a public procurement process to submit that FOIA request only after the engineer's own firm has submitted its qualifications to the same agency for the same procurement — refraining from using FOIA-obtained competitor intelligence to inform or improve the engineer's own submission — so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to preserve the integrity of the competitive procurement process.
FOIA Pre-Submission Competitor Intelligence Appearance of Impropriety Constraint
the NSPE Board of Ethical Review determined that it was ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state's procurement of engineering services, pursuant to the State's RFQ procedures, but that in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to and not before Engineer B's firm submitted its RFQ
Ethical constraint establishing that while a licensed professional engineer or firm may lawfully use a state Freedom of Information Act mechanism to obtain a competitor's publicly disclosed qualification submission in a public procurement process, the engineer must submit the FOIA request only after — not before — the engineer's own firm has submitted its qualifications response, prohibiting pre-submission FOIA requests that create an appearance of impropriety by suggesting that the requesting firm sought to tailor its own submission based on advance knowledge of a competitor's qualifications, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that public procurement processes must be free from even the appearance of unfair competitive advantage.
FOIA Procurement Timing Integrity Obligation
Relational principle requiring engineers who intend to use Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain competitor qualifications submissions in a public procurement to submit their own qualifications before making the FOIA request, so that the FOIA request cannot be used to gain competitive intelligence that influences the content of their own submission — recognizing that while FOIA requests are lawful, their timing relative to the requesting engineer's own submission determines whether the request creates an appearance of impropriety that undermines procurement fairness
FOIA Request Competitive Ethics Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a competitor for a public engineering contract to assess the ethical permissibility of submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain a competitor's previously submitted qualifications from a public agency — including the ability to recognize when such a request, while legally permissible, may constitute an attempt to gain improper competitive advantage through access to a competitor's proprietary qualification materials, and to correctly calibrate the ethical obligations arising from that assessment.
FOIA Request Competitive Timing Ethics Compliance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a competitor for a public engineering contract to recognize the ethical timing requirement for submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a competitor's previously submitted qualifications — specifically, that the FOIA request must be submitted only after the engineer's own firm has submitted its qualifications to the same agency, in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety — and to comply with this timing requirement in practice.
Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact,' and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts
Professional principle requiring that engineers' public disclosures and technical opinions be grounded in established facts or completed professional assessments, distinguishing between unverified concerns (which may be shared prudentially) and confirmed findings (which must be disclosed), thereby balancing premature alarm against suppression of material information
[Case 73] Professional principle requiring that engineers' public disclosures and technical opinions be grounded in established facts or completed professional assessments, distinguishing between unverified concerns (which may be shared prudentially) and confirmed findings (which must be disclosed), thereby balancing premature alarm against suppression of material information.
Fact-Based Public Policy Statement Obligation
For the purposes of this case we assume that both Engineer A and Engineer B relied on the use of facts, even if intermingled with opinion, in commenting upon the alternative routes and the preference for route Y, as required under Section 5(a).
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who issues statements, criticisms, or arguments on matters of public policy — including highway routing, infrastructure decisions, or other engineering-related civic matters — to ground those statements in established facts, even when intermingled with professional opinion, so that public discourse on engineering matters is informed by honest technical analysis rather than unsupported advocacy or speculation.
Fact-Gathering Diligence Before Adverse Technical Conclusion Constraint
It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is tasked with evaluating the adequacy of another engineer's work must exercise diligent fact-gathering — including communicating with on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and others present during the original work — before rendering adverse technical conclusions, prohibiting the engineer from issuing adverse findings based solely on independently conducted tests while failing to inquire from persons with direct knowledge of the original work conditions, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions and the professional duty of diligent investigation.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to supervise a testing or evaluation program — particularly one intended to assess another engineer's work in an adversarial or quasi-legal context — to exercise diligent fact-gathering by consulting all reasonably available sources of relevant information, including on-site representatives, contractors, workers, and others present during the original or test program, before drawing and publishing professional conclusions; recognizing that failure to inquire from available witnesses and participants constitutes a failure of professional diligence that undermines the validity and completeness of the resulting report.
per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts
Constraint requiring that engineers express technical opinions publicly only when those opinions are founded upon established facts and completed analysis, prohibiting disclosure of unverified concerns as if they were established professional findings.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
Duty of an engineer to express technical opinions publicly only when those opinions are founded upon established facts and completed professional analysis, and to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities.
Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development. Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact'
Capability to distinguish between preliminary professional concerns or suspicions that do not yet constitute established technical facts, and confirmed findings that rise to the level of fact requiring mandatory disclosure, thereby correctly calibrating disclosure obligations under professional codes
Fact Command Before Public Safety Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who intends to report a public health, safety, or welfare concern to appropriate authorities — including local, state, or federal agencies — to first ensure that they are in command of all relevant facts and technical information before making such reports, so that the reports are accurate, complete, and technically grounded, and so that the engineer can credibly defend the professional basis for the reported concern against challenge by public officials, citizen groups, or other parties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work — particularly in a litigation or adversarial context — to consult all reasonably available evidence, including pile driving records, on-site representatives, contractors, and workers, before publishing conclusions adverse to that engineer's professional standing, recognizing that rendering adverse opinions without consulting available corroborating or refuting evidence constitutes a fundamental failure of objectivity and completeness in professional engineering practice.
Facts-Versus-Adversarial-Interests Distinction Capability
Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and maintain the conceptual distinction between technical facts — which are not inherently adversarial even when conflicting — and adversarial interests — which are polarizing and may cause parties to prefer certain facts over others; and to apply this distinction in practice by treating all established technical facts as equally available for professional analysis regardless of which party's interests they favor.
Factual Certainty vs. Speculation Distinction in Disclosure Obligation Calibration
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's disclosure obligation — including the form, urgency, and reach of that disclosure — is calibrated to the evidentiary basis of the engineer's observation: observations grounded in confirmed factual violations of law or regulation (such as visible illegal fill of delineated wetlands) generate a stronger, more immediate, and more comprehensive disclosure obligation than observations grounded in general surmise or speculation (such as a visual impression that a structural condition may have contributed to a failure), because the risk of harm from inaccurate disclosure is lower when the underlying observation is factually certain.
[Case 83] Professional principle establishing that an engineer's disclosure obligation — including the form, urgency, and reach of that disclosure — is calibrated to the evidentiary basis of the engineer's observation: observations grounded in confirmed factual findings (such as a qualified biologist's identification of a threatened species) generate a stronger, more immediate, and more comprehensive disclosure obligation than observations grounded in general surmise or speculation (such as a visual impression that a structural condition may have contributed to a failure), because the risk of harm from inaccurate disclosure is lower when the underlying observation is factually certain.
Relational principle requiring engineers — particularly those in public agency roles — to ensure that procurement and contracting processes provide fair and equal competitive access to all qualified engineering firms, prohibiting exclusionary practices that favor incumbents without lawful justification
[Case 12] Relational principle requiring that engineering procurement processes provide fair and equal competitive access to all qualified engineering firms, prohibiting exclusionary practices — including local preference policies that restrict competition to geographically limited pools — that may result in awarding contracts to less qualified firms
Faithful Agent Boundary Recognition in Peer Review Context Capability
Capability of a peer review engineer to recognize the boundaries of faithful agent obligations to a commissioning client — including understanding that faithful agent duties do not require compliance with client instructions that would violate professional ethics obligations owed to the reviewed engineer (such as the obligation to notify), and that the peer reviewer must decline ethically impermissible client instructions while still fulfilling the legitimate scope of the peer review engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to simultaneously manage and balance fiduciary duties to a client with overriding professional obligations to public welfare, recognizing when client interests must yield to public safety imperatives and communicating this tension transparently
Once the decision is made, Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials.
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having fulfilled their trustee obligation by presenting complete design alternatives with full information to a client authority, must now transition to acting as a faithful agent executing the client's chosen decision — including refraining from further advocacy for a preferred alternative or from attempting to influence the outcome through self-interested action.
Faithful Agent Boundary Within Public Safety Paramount Tension Resolution Obligation
This case presents one of the classical ethical dilemmas faced by engineers, which is the fundamental conflict between the obligation to hold paramount the public health and safety and some another key provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics—here the obligation to act for each employer or client as 'faithful agent or trustee.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer confronting a direct conflict between the obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee to an employer and the obligation to hold paramount public health and safety to resolve that tension through a structured, sequential process — first fulfilling the faithful agent duty by raising concerns internally and allowing internal mechanisms to operate, then escalating internally if those mechanisms are unresponsive, and only then considering external reporting — recognizing that the faithful agent obligation is not extinguished by the public safety paramount principle but is rather subordinated to it in a graduated, contextually calibrated manner that respects both obligations to the maximum extent possible.
Faithful Agent Client-Safety Balance Classical Dilemma Navigation Capability
Engineers are frequently placed in situations where they must balance the extent of their obligations to their employer or client with their obligations to protect the public health and safety.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to navigate the classical ethical dilemma between the obligation to be a faithful agent to the client — protecting client confidentiality and business interests — and the obligation to hold paramount the public health and safety, by correctly identifying the factors that determine which obligation takes precedence in a given case, including the presence or absence of a confidentiality agreement, the mode of information conveyance, the speculative versus confirmed nature of the safety concern, and the availability of client-chain corrective action as an intermediate step.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and correctly frame the classical ethical dilemma in which the obligation to hold paramount the public health and safety directly conflicts with the obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee to an employer or client — including the ability to identify this as a fundamental structural tension in the NSPE Code of Ethics, to understand that the public safety paramount obligation takes precedence when the conflict is direct and demonstrable, and to navigate the tension through a graduated, proportionate response that respects both obligations to the extent possible before allowing one to override the other.
Faithful Agent Client Benefit Primacy Over Personal Advantage Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer acting as faithful agent and trustee for a client to recognize that the duty of loyalty and fair dealing requires carrying out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client — not in a manner that serves the engineer's own personal advantage, altruistic impulses, or collegial relationships — including the ability to identify when a disclosure or action, even if not motivated by personal gain, constitutes a neglect of client interests because the benefits to other parties do not outweigh the detriments to the client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to correctly identify when an engineering engagement requires the engineer to act as a faithful trustee and objective advisor — rather than as a service provider pursuing commercial interests — and to execute that trustee role faithfully by subordinating firm self-interest to the client's need for complete, objective, and unbiased professional advice, including refraining from selective presentation of options, omission of material information, and self-promotional conduct that would compromise the advisory relationship.
Faithful Agent Client Instruction Non-Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained by a client who has given an explicit instruction of non-disclosure — specifically, an instruction not to reveal the engineer's new engagement relationship to an incumbent or outgoing engineer — must comply with that instruction as part of the engineer's duty as faithful agent and trustee, prohibiting the engineer from disclosing the new client relationship even when motivated by altruistic or collegial impulses, because the general duty of loyalty requires carrying out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client rather than in a manner that serves the engineer's personal advantage or altruistic preferences, as established by BER Case 93-3.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's good intentions — including the desire to improve design quality or help contractors — do not exculpate or mitigate an ethical violation arising from unauthorized sharing of employer or client confidential information, as established by BER Case 82-2, which found that an engineer acting without ulterior motive nonetheless acted unethically by sharing client information without authorization, prohibiting engineers from treating benevolent motivation as a defense to confidentiality or procurement integrity obligations.
Faithful Agent Client Interest Non-Neglect Through Unauthorized Disclosure Obligation
Engineer B had an obligation not to notify Engineer A once Engineer B was told by client not to tell Engineer A about Engineer B's relationship with the client
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as faithful agent and trustee for a client to refrain from disclosing information to third parties — including other engineers whose work is being reviewed — when the client has explicitly instructed that such disclosure not occur, recognizing that unauthorized disclosure, even when motivated by altruistic or collegial concern rather than personal advantage, constitutes a neglect of the client's interests that is not justified by the benefits of disclosure to other parties, and that the faithful agent standard requires the engineer to carry out the client's transaction in the manner most beneficial to the client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client to replace an incumbent engineer to comply with the client's explicit instruction to keep the new engagement confidential from the incumbent, recognizing that the duty of loyalty and fair dealing as a faithful agent and trustee requires the engineer to carry out the client's transaction in the manner most beneficial to the client — and that disclosing the engagement to the incumbent, even without personal advantage motivation, constitutes a neglect of the client's interests that is not justified by the benefits of disclosure.
Faithful Agent Client Interest Primacy Over Altruistic Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as a faithful agent and trustee for a client to refrain from disclosing client-confidential information to third parties — including incumbent engineers — even when the disclosure is motivated by altruistic, collegial, or benevolent considerations rather than personal advantage, recognizing that the general duty of loyalty and fair dealing requires the engineer to carry out the client's transaction in the manner most beneficial to the client, and that the absence of personal advantage motivation does not render an unauthorized disclosure ethically permissible.
Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation Constraint
while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
Ethical constraint establishing that the professional engineer's duty to act as a faithful agent and trustee for clients and employers — including obligations to avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, and avoid conflicts — does not automatically extend to compelled disclosure of all personal information, pending allegations, or personal conditions that have not been adjudicated or that do not materially affect the engineer's ability to perform the contracted services, constraining the over-extension of the faithful agent duty to encompass personal matters beyond its intended professional scope, as established by the synthesis of BER Cases 97-11, 75-5, 03-6, and the present case.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer's recognized right to personal privacy and non-disclosure of potentially damaging personal or professional information is bounded by the prohibition against omitting material facts in professional representations — requiring that the engineer assess whether the withheld information crosses the threshold from legitimately private to materially outcome-determinative, and prohibiting the invocation of privacy rights to justify omissions that would render professional statements, applications, or representations materially false or misleading, as established by the interplay of BER Cases 19-1, 97-11, and 03-6.
Faithful Agent Duty Peer Review Collegial Obligation Boundary Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to act as a faithful agent and trustee for a client — including the duty to carry out client instructions and maintain client confidentiality — is bounded by and must yield to the engineer's independent professional obligations of collegial courtesy and procedural fairness owed to other engineers, specifically the obligation under NSPE Code Section III.8.a to notify an incumbent engineer of a peer review engagement, establishing that faithful agent duty does not authorize compliance with client instructions that require the engineer to violate professional obligations owed to third-party engineers.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained by a client who has given an explicit instruction of non-disclosure — specifically, an instruction not to reveal the engineer's new engagement relationship to an incumbent or outgoing engineer — must comply with that instruction as part of the engineer's duty as faithful agent and trustee, prohibiting the engineer from disclosing the new client relationship even when motivated by altruistic or collegial impulses, because the general duty of loyalty requires carrying out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client rather than in a manner that serves the engineer's personal advantage or altruistic preferences, as established by BER Case 93-3.
Faithful Agent Immediate Structural Hazard Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client who incidentally discovers a structural hazard during contracted work to immediately advise the client of the observed structural instability and preliminary findings, fulfilling the faithful agent duty to keep the client informed of material conditions discovered in the course of the engagement.
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
If Engineer A has a duty to intervene, it would arise either because of an imminent risk to public health, safety, and welfare or from duties associated with Sections I.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful).
Relational principle requiring engineers acting as faithful agents of their clients to advise clients in writing of identified risks that threaten the success, safety, or functionality of the project for which they are engaged, even when those risks arise from conditions outside the contracted scope of work, because the faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare, not merely the narrow contracted deliverable
[Case 73] Relational principle requiring engineers acting as faithful agents of their clients to advise clients in writing of identified risks that threaten the success, safety, or functionality of the project for which they are engaged, even when those risks arise from conditions outside the contracted scope of work, because the faithful agent relationship encompasses the client's overall project welfare, not merely the narrow contracted deliverable.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring engineers to act as faithful agents and trustees of their clients and employers — executing assigned work diligently and within the scope of engagement — while retaining the professional authority and obligation to decline, flag, or escalate assignments that conflict with ethical duties, public welfare, or applicable professional standards
The BER noted an engineer's obligation is to act for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.
Duty of an engineer to act as a faithful agent or trustee for each client or employer, serving their interests loyally within the bounds of professional ethics and public welfare obligations.
Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.' In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly identify the scope and limits of the faithful agent obligation to a client — specifically, to recognize that the faithful agent duty is fulfilled by honestly advising the client of adverse findings, and that the faithful agent role does not require the engineer to suppress, withhold, or refrain from reporting those findings to regulatory authorities when public health, safety, and welfare are at stake.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to correctly identify and navigate the distinction between acting as a client's agent (executing specific client instructions) versus acting as a trustee (exercising discretionary professional judgment on behalf of a client who has delegated authority) — including recognizing which role applies at each phase of a project, understanding the different obligations each role entails, and transitioning appropriately between roles as project phases change.
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering and is under contract to complete the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work for a new resort
Relational principle requiring engineers to act as faithful agents and trustees of their clients and employers — executing assigned work diligently and within the scope of engagement — while retaining the professional authority and obligation to decline, flag, or escalate assignments that conflict with ethical duties, public welfare, or applicable professional standards
[Case 157] Relational principle requiring engineers to act as faithful agents and trustees of their clients and employers — executing assigned work diligently and within the scope of engagement — while retaining the professional authority and obligation to decline, flag, or escalate assignments that conflict with ethical duties, public welfare, or applicable professional standards.
[Case 78] Relational principle requiring engineers to act as faithful agents and trustees of their clients and employers — executing assigned work diligently and within the scope of engagement — while retaining the professional authority and obligation to decline, flag, or escalate assignments that conflict with ethical duties, public welfare, or applicable professional standards.
[Case 88] Relational principle requiring engineers to act as faithful agents and trustees of their clients and employers — executing assigned work diligently and within the scope of engagement — while retaining the professional authority and obligation to decline, flag, or escalate assignments that conflict with ethical duties, public welfare, or applicable professional standards.
[Case 94] Relational principle requiring engineers to act as faithful agents and trustees of their clients and employers — executing assigned work diligently and within the scope of engagement — while retaining the professional authority and obligation to decline, flag, or escalate assignments that conflict with ethical duties, public welfare, or applicable professional standards.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring engineers to serve client interests faithfully within the bounds of professional ethics, including respecting client financial constraints, contractual scope, and business decisions, while maintaining the primacy of public welfare obligations
Faithful Agent Peer-Notification-Conflicted Reviewing Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained to review another engineer's work faces a direct conflict between the duty to notify the original engineer of the review (NSPE Section III.8.a) and the duty to act as a faithful agent and trustee of the client (NSPE Section II.4), where the client has explicitly instructed the reviewing engineer not to disclose the engagement to the original engineer, requiring the engineer to balance collegial transparency obligations against client loyalty obligations.
Faithful Agent Peer-Review Collegial Duty Boundary Obligation
Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a peer review of an incumbent engineer's work to serve the client faithfully by conducting a thorough and competent review while simultaneously recognizing that faithful agent loyalty does not extend to suppressing the incumbent engineer's right to know that their active work is under independent evaluation — and that the reviewing engineer must exercise independent professional judgment to fulfill collegial notification duties even when doing so conflicts with explicit client confidentiality instructions, because the faithful agent role operates within the outer boundary set by professional ethics obligations.
Faithful Agent Priority Sequencing Before External Escalation Capability
Engineer A was obligated to act as a faithful agent to Client B by advising Client B of the structural instability before contacting the county building official
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety concern to correctly sequence the notification obligations — advising the client (faithful agent duty) before or in conjunction with contacting external regulatory authorities — recognizing that the faithful agent obligation to the client is fulfilled first, and that this sequencing does not diminish or delay the subsequent obligation to notify regulatory authorities, but rather ensures that the client is not blindsided by external escalation without prior notice.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly identify the scope and limits of the faithful agent obligation to a client — specifically, to recognize that the faithful agent duty is fulfilled by honestly advising the client of adverse findings, and that the faithful agent role does not require the engineer to suppress, withhold, or refrain from reporting those findings to regulatory authorities when public health, safety, and welfare are at stake.
Faithful Agent Project Success Risk Notification for Non-Technical Failures
Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b.
Professional principle requiring engineers acting as faithful agents of their clients to advise clients in writing — and to confer with subcontractors and the client — when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful due to non-technical failures, including failures in mandatory public engagement processes, regulatory compliance, or report integrity, that could result in project invalidation, legal exposure, or reputational harm to the client
Faithful Agent Property Inspection Engineer
Engineer A's duties under Sections 1.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful) require that Engineer A advise the Owner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained to inspect a residential or commercial property for a specific contracted scope (e.g., fire protection systems, structural assessment) and, while performing that work, observes conditions outside the contracted scope—such as frozen pipe risks or inoperable sprinkler systems—that may pose risks to the client's property or public safety, bearing obligations under the faithful agent and project success provisions of the NSPE Code to advise the owner in writing of those risks, without a corresponding duty to investigate further or recommend mitigation alternatives.
Faithful Agent Public Hearing Presentation Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as a faithful agent for a private client in a public regulatory hearing context to recognize the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: the engineer may legitimately highlight project benefits and present the project in its best light, but must not suppress, distort, or affirmatively misrepresent material facts about adverse public welfare impacts — with the key ethical test being whether the presentation, taken as a whole, would leave the regulatory body with a materially false impression of the project's net public welfare effects, rather than merely an incomplete one that other witnesses or the board's own inquiry can supplement.
Faithful Agent Public Safety Balancing Reasonable Conduct Recognition Constraint
Looking at the facts and circumstances in their totality, the Board is convinced that Engineer A acted reasonably under the circumstances by properly balancing the obligation of the engineer to be faithful to the client and not to disclose what might be considered by the client to be confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client without that client's consent, and the obligation of the engineer to hold paramount the public health and safety.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who, in a situation involving competing obligations of client fidelity and public safety paramount duty, makes a reasonable good-faith judgment that appropriately balances both obligations — including by verbally reporting a speculative safety concern through the client chain, documenting it in field notes, and monitoring for corrective action — satisfies the ethical requirements of both the faithful agent duty and the public safety paramount duty, prohibiting the imposition of an ethical violation finding when the engineer's conduct reflects a reasonable balancing of the two competing obligations under the specific facts and circumstances present.
Faithful Agent Public Safety Paramount Classical Dilemma Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and correctly frame the classical ethical dilemma in which the obligation to hold paramount the public health and safety directly conflicts with the obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee to an employer or client — including the ability to identify this as a fundamental structural tension in the NSPE Code of Ethics, to understand that the public safety paramount obligation takes precedence when the conflict is direct and demonstrable, and to navigate the tension through a graduated, proportionate response that respects both obligations to the extent possible before allowing one to override the other.
A licensed professional engineering role within a public agency who acts as a faithful agent or trustee for the public employer, bearing obligations to share project-relevant information (such as as-built drawings) through formal, equitable, and transparent procurement channels rather than informally or selectively, so as to avoid favoritism, protect procurement integrity, and serve the public employer's best interests.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role within a public agency responsible for managing and controlling access to existing infrastructure documentation (such as as-built drawings), bearing obligations to share such information through formal, equitable, and transparent processes rather than informally or selectively, so as to avoid favoritism, protect procurement integrity, and serve the public employer's interests.
Faithful Agent Reliability Deficiency Board Notification Constraint
This discussion has so far not addressed the obligation of Engineer A in this case to act as a faithful agent or trustee for the employer.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has been engaged to evaluate an energy system replacement proposal and has determined that the proposed system is materially less reliable than the existing system — including by increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts and facility interruptions — must present that reliability deficiency prominently and completely in the board report as a faithful agent of the organization, prohibiting the omission or minimization of reliability findings on the grounds that the system meets normal-condition energy production equivalence, and establishing that faithful agent obligations require disclosure of all information material to the organization's decision-making authority, including information that may counsel against a stakeholder-preferred option.
Faithful Agent Role Confidentiality Absolutism Misapplication Non-Acquiescence Capability
Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the 'faithful agent and trustee' role under the NSPE Code does not authorize treating confidentiality obligations as absolute trumps over all other professional duties — specifically, to correctly identify that invoking the faithful agent role to justify non-disclosure of known safety code violations to public authorities constitutes a misapplication of that role, and that the faithful agent obligation is itself bounded by and subordinate to the paramount public safety obligation when the two conflict.
Faithful Agent Role Misapplication to Confidentiality Absolutism Prohibition Obligation
Engineers, in the performance of their professional services, act as 'agents' or 'trustees' to their clients. They are privy to a great deal of information and background concerning the business affairs of their client.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the 'faithful agent and trustee' role under NSPE Code Section II.4 does not authorize — and in fact prohibits — treating client confidentiality as an absolute obligation that overrides the paramount public safety duty, because the faithful agent role is bounded by the engineer's ethical obligations to the public, and an engineer who treats client loyalty as requiring suppression of known safety hazards has misapplied the faithful agent concept in a manner that the Code does not sanction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to interpret and apply the 'faithful agent and trustee' obligation under NSPE Code Section II.4 as imposing a general duty of loyalty and fair dealing toward the client — carrying out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client without allowing personal advantage to distort that service — rather than as imposing a strict fiduciary or confidentiality relationship, recognizing that the Code separately and specifically addresses confidentiality obligations in distinct provisions (Sections II.1.c., III.4., III.4.a., III.4.b.), and that the trustee language therefore expresses a broader, non-fiduciary loyalty standard.
Faithful Agent Route Specification State Contract Obligation
JKL Engineering has a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a state agency under a contract to specify a road route to diligently serve the state's legitimate objective of connecting two towns efficiently — including identifying the shortest workable route and its travel time benefits — while simultaneously fulfilling all overriding public welfare, historic resource, and multi-interest balancing obligations, so that the faithful agent duty to the state client is discharged within the ethical limits imposed by the NSPE Code.
Faithful Agent Specification Review Diligence Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer assigned to review subcontractor submissions on behalf of an employer must diligently and thoroughly evaluate those submissions for adequacy and specification compliance, documenting all identified deficiencies through proper internal channels such as written memoranda to management superiors, and prohibiting the engineer from approving or acquiescing to subcontractor submissions that the engineer has determined to be non-compliant with applicable specifications, regardless of management pressure to accept such submissions for business or cost reasons.
Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization Capability
Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code's ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles.
Capability to simultaneously fulfill mandatory faithful agent obligations to a client or employer and the professional encouragement to adhere to sustainable development principles — including correctly distinguishing between mandatory code provisions (shall) and encouraged provisions (encouraged), recognizing when client choice governs design decisions, and identifying the path that best serves both obligations rather than treating them as irreconcilable opposites.
Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Engineer
Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm acts simultaneously as a faithful agent to the client and as a proactive trustee who introduces sustainable development alternatives, bearing obligations to complete accepted contractual tasks while informing clients of sustainable options, and deferring to client choice when the client's preferred approach is technically and legally permissible even if not optimal from a sustainability standpoint.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which the engineer is granted discretionary authority by a client to develop design solutions, acting as a trustee who exercises independent professional judgment on behalf of the client's interests, with obligations to present complete and objective information, recommend best options, integrate all applicable code provisions including sustainability, and ultimately defer to client decision-makers once informed choices are made.
Faithful Agent Trustee Duty as General Loyalty and Fair Dealing
Code Section II.4 places the obligation upon engineers to act in professional matters for clients as 'faithful agents or trustees.'
Relational principle establishing that the engineer's obligation to act as a 'faithful agent and trustee' of the client, as prescribed by engineering ethics codes, is properly interpreted as a general duty of loyalty and fair dealing — requiring the engineer to carry out the client's transaction in the manner most beneficial to the client and not in a way that serves the engineer's personal advantage — rather than as a strict fiduciary or confidentiality relationship, given that separate code provisions already address confidentiality obligations specifically
If the City hires Engineer K and gives them discretion in how to complete a task, Engineer K is acting as a trustee
A licensed professional engineering role in which the engineer is granted discretionary authority by a client to develop design solutions, acting as a trustee who exercises independent professional judgment on behalf of the client's interests, with obligations to present complete and objective information, recommend best options, integrate all applicable code provisions including sustainability, and ultimately defer to client decision-makers once informed choices are made.
Faithful Agent Trustee General Loyalty Non-Fiduciary Interpretation Compliance Obligation
we interpret the term 'trustee' to refer to the more general duty of loyalty and fair dealing
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to interpret and apply the 'faithful agent and trustee' obligation under NSPE Code Section II.4 as imposing a general duty of loyalty and fair dealing toward the client — carrying out transactions in the manner most beneficial to the client without allowing personal advantage to distort that service — rather than as imposing a strict fiduciary or confidentiality relationship, recognizing that the Code separately and specifically addresses confidentiality obligations in distinct provisions (Sections II.1.c., III.4., III.4.a., III.4.b.), and that the trustee language therefore expresses a broader, non-fiduciary loyalty standard.
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
The BER holds that Engineer A's duties under Sections 1.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won't be successful) require that Engineer A advise the Owner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who observes a condition posing risk to a client's property or safety — while performing contracted work — to correctly calibrate the scope of the resulting faithful agent obligation: recognizing that the duty extends to advising the owner in writing of the identified risks, but does not extend to conducting an independent investigation of the condition, recommending specific mitigation alternatives, or expanding the contracted scope of work, thereby fulfilling the notification obligation without overstepping professional boundaries.
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Without Investigation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing contracted work for a client, observes a condition posing a foreseeable risk to the client's property or to the operability of a safety system — where the risk does not rise to the level of an imminent public health, safety, and welfare emergency — to advise the client in writing of the identified risk, while recognizing that this notification duty does not extend to an obligation to investigate the condition further, to diagnose its root cause, or to recommend specific mitigation alternatives, unless separately engaged to do so.
Faithful Agent and Trustee Confidentiality Obligation Source Recognition Capability
The engineer's duty in this area is rooted in the obligation to serve as a faithful agent and trustee to the client or employer, and also the obligation to avoid circumstances that could appear to influence the engineer's professional judgment.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the duty to maintain confidentiality of client and employer information is rooted in the dual obligations to serve as a faithful agent and trustee and to avoid circumstances that could appear to influence professional judgment — including the ability to identify both the fiduciary and the appearance-of-impropriety dimensions of confidentiality obligations, and to apply this dual-source understanding when assessing the scope and persistence of confidentiality duties across different professional contexts.
False Community Consent Recognition Capability
Firm DBA submits a report claiming Community P's support for the project, citing a lack of significant opposition and comments in support of the project.
Capability to recognize when a public engagement process has been designed or reported in a manner that falsely implies community consent, support, or lack of opposition — including through selective omission of participation barriers, mischaracterization of low participation as tacit approval, and framing of comments from non-affected communities as representative of affected community sentiment — and to identify the professional and ethical obligations triggered by such false consent representations.
False Urgency Misrepresentation in Negotiation State
Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary
State in which a professional acting as a negotiator makes a materially false or misleading statement to a counterparty — specifically misrepresenting the existence, nature, or currency of competing interest from a third party — in order to create artificial urgency and pressure the counterparty into accelerating or concluding a transaction, thereby violating honesty and non-deception obligations that apply even in adversarial negotiation contexts.
Falsified Public Engagement Report Prohibition
Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
Professional principle prohibiting engineers and engineering firms from preparing, submitting, or certifying public engagement reports that materially misrepresent the nature, accessibility, inclusiveness, or results of community outreach processes — including omitting material facts about session locations, times, accessibility barriers, and comment submission methods — when such misrepresentations falsely claim community support or suppress evidence of community opposition
Fault Allocation and Multi-Party Responsibility Apportionment Capability
There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
Capability to analyze and apportion professional responsibility and fault among multiple parties — including the design engineer, the municipal reviewer, the developer client, and affected property owners — following a confirmed design deficiency with public safety or property damage consequences, drawing on causal analysis, professional code obligations, and applicable legal standards to reach a fair and defensible allocation of responsibility.
Faustian Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Capability
In finding that it was not ethical for Engineer Adam to concur with the chairman's proposal – a politically-motivated 'Faustian bargain' to hire additional building code officials – the BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is offered a politically-motivated trade — such as resource allocation in exchange for concurrence with a safety-compromising ordinance or policy — to recognize the offer as an impermissible 'Faustian bargain' that would require righting a wrong with another wrong, and to refuse concurrence with the safety-compromising element of the bargain while continuing to advocate through proper channels for the legitimate resource need, understanding that public health and safety cannot be traded against administrative or political benefits.
the applicable laws are similar to the Federal A/E selection law (Brooks Act) and the laws of other states, which contemplate a procedure whereby the public body may select the 'best qualified' firm
Federal statutory framework (Brooks Act) mandating qualification-based selection procedures for architecture and engineering services on federally funded public projects, requiring public bodies to select the 'best qualified' firm through a merit-based process rather than competitive bidding on price
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State and local statutory provisions codified within professional engineering licensure laws that mandate qualification-based selection (QBS) processes and request for qualifications (RFQ) procedures for awarding public engineering contracts, ensuring competitive and merit-based procurement
A government agency or contracting authority that designates inspection personnel with the title 'Engineer' in federal engineering contracts, regardless of whether those individuals hold engineering degrees or licensure, thereby establishing a contractual usage pattern that downstream firms may adopt in their own materials.
Federal Funding Cost-Coverage Rationalization State
Engineer A was confident that sufficient federal funds (and not local funding) would cover any potential increased costs
State in which a professional engineer, having submitted incomplete or deficient work product, rationalizes the non-disclosure of that deficiency on the basis that anticipated federal or third-party funding will absorb any resulting cost overruns — thereby substituting a financial assumption about cost allocation for the professional obligation to disclose known deficiencies, and potentially exposing public funds to preventable waste.
Federal Funds Rationalization Fraud Recognition Capability
Engineer A's bold assertion that the work was incomplete, but that this was due to time pressures and his expectation that Federal funds would be awarded to complete the work is wholly unconvincing.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when an assertion that anticipated future funding — such as federal grant funds — will cover costs arising from incomplete or inadequate professional work constitutes not merely an insufficient professional justification but an act bordering on fraud and misrepresentation, including the ability to identify when such a rationalization is used to conceal known deficiencies in delivered work product, and to correctly classify such conduct as a clear violation of professional ethics codes prohibiting deceptive acts.
Federal Grant Agency Design Approval Engineer
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B of the engineering staff of the federal agency funding the project
A licensed professional engineering role within a federal funding agency in which an engineer reviews, approves, signs, and seals design drawings and specifications submitted by a grantee's design engineer as a condition of federal project funding, bearing obligations of independent technical review, verification of design completeness and adequacy, and public safety assurance before authorizing project advertisement for bids.
Federal Grant Project Engineering Obligation Standard
Engineer A responds to an RFP from a small local public agency to build a new dam to be financed in part by a federal grant
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing engineers working on publicly funded projects that involve federal grants, including duties of completeness, transparency about deficiencies, and prohibition on assuming public funds will absorb costs arising from professional inadequacy
Federal Plan Approval Competence Boundary Recognition Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer employed by a federal or governmental funding agency who is assigned to review and approve engineering work product submitted by a design engineer must recognize the limits of their own technical competence relative to the complexity of the work under review — prohibiting the approving engineer from affixing approval to documents that exceed their competence to evaluate, and requiring escalation to qualified technical reviewers or refusal to approve when the reviewing engineer cannot conduct a substantively adequate technical review.
Federal Plan Approval Engineer Substantive Competence Review Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a federal or governmental funding agency who is assigned to review, approve, sign, and seal engineering documents submitted by a design engineer as a condition of grant funding to conduct a substantive, technically adequate review of those documents sufficient to identify material deficiencies, incompleteness, or inadequacies — and to refrain from approving and sealing documents through a perfunctory or superficial review that fails to exercise the technical competence necessary to detect material problems, recognizing that the federal approval seal represents an independent professional certification of adequacy that downstream parties, including clients and contractors, rely upon.
Federal Plan Approval Substantive Technical Competence Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a federal or governmental funding agency who is assigned to review and approve design documents submitted by a project engineer to assess whether they possess the technical competence necessary to conduct a substantive, technically adequate review of those documents — including dam design, hydraulic structures, or other specialized infrastructure — and to recognize when they lack that competence, disclose the limitation to supervisors, and either decline to approve or seek technically qualified assistance before affixing their seal of approval.
Fee-Based Award Pre-Execution Safety Verification Capability
The agency announced its intention to award the contract to Firm A
Capability of a public agency that selects engineering firms through competitive fee-based bidding to verify, before executing a contract with the lowest or selected bidder, that the proposed fee is sufficient to fund competent, code-compliant, and safe engineering performance — including reviewing the scope of work against the proposed fee, consulting with engineering staff about minimum cost thresholds, and taking seriously formal protests from competing firms about fee adequacy.
Fee-Based Procurement Safety Adequacy Agency Pre-Award Verification Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public agency conducting a fee-competitive procurement for engineering services verify, before awarding a contract, that the selected firm's proposed fee is sufficient to fund competent, code-compliant, and safe engineering performance — prohibiting the agency from awarding a contract at a fee level that is facially inadequate to support proper engineering performance on a public safety-critical project, and requiring the agency to take seriously formal protests raising fee-adequacy and public safety concerns before finalizing the award.
Fee-Based Procurement Safety Adequacy Agency Verification Obligation
The agency procedure states that it is not required to accept the lowest price, but that price will be a factor in the selection decision
Duty of a public agency that selects engineering firms through competitive fee-based bidding — rather than qualifications-based selection — to verify, before awarding a contract to the lowest-fee bidder, that the proposed fee is sufficient to fund competent and safe engineering performance meeting all applicable professional and safety standards, and to refrain from awarding a contract solely on the basis of lowest price when credible professional evidence suggests the fee is inadequate for safe project execution, recognizing that the agency's paramount obligation to protect public safety supersedes its interest in minimizing procurement costs.
Fee-Based Public Engineering Procurement Authority
the procedure described in the facts is contrary to the practice of most public agencies, local, state, and federal, which select engineering firms on the basis of professional qualification
A public agency role that selects engineering firms through competitive fee-based bidding rather than qualifications-based selection (QBS), bearing obligations to evaluate whether the lowest fee is consistent with competent and safe service delivery, and subject to receiving formal protests from competing firms on public safety grounds.
Fee-Based vs QBS Procurement Ethics Distinction Capability
A state agency, operating under a new procedure for selection of engineering services
Capability of a public agency and competing engineering firms to recognize the ethical and legal distinction between qualifications-based selection (QBS) procurement — where fee negotiation follows qualification ranking — and fee-based competitive bidding — where price is a selection factor — and to understand that fee-based procurement for safety-critical public engineering services creates structural incentives for under-resourcing that QBS was designed to prevent, including awareness of the Brooks Act and analogous state statutes.
Fee-Competitive Procurement QBS Non-Equivalence Acknowledgment Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that when a public body adopts a fee-competitive (non-QBS) procurement method for engineering services — contrary to the prevailing practice of most public agencies and contrary to the Brooks Act for federal projects — the profession requires ethical guidance specific to that context, and engineers operating within such a procurement must apply the full NSPE Code of Ethics notwithstanding the non-standard procurement method, prohibiting engineers from treating the non-QBS procurement framework as a license to engage in conduct that would otherwise be ethically impermissible, as established by the BER's recognition that 'a few public bodies have adopted the method described' and that 'the profession is in need of ethical guidance with respect to compliance with those procedures.'
Fee-Cutting-to-Incompetence Threshold Prohibition
there comes a point in cutting fees at which it is economically infeasible to render competent service
Professional virtue principle establishing that while engineers are not prohibited from losing money on an engagement or subsidizing one project with profits from another, it is unethical to cut fees to such an extent that competent and safe service becomes economically infeasible — because below a certain fee threshold, the economic conditions of performance make it impossible to render the quality of service that public safety and professional standards require, regardless of the engineer's stated intentions.
Fee-Cutting Competence Threshold Breach Risk State
State in which a professional engineer or firm has submitted or accepted a fee so significantly below market rate that it creates a credible risk that economically feasible delivery of competent, safe service is impossible at that price level, triggering heightened scrutiny of whether the fee represents a genuine business judgment (e.g., subsidization from other work) or a deceptive pricing strategy that will result in incompetent and potentially dangerous service delivery.
Fee-Cutting Competence Threshold Non-Breach Self-Recognition Capability
It requires no special insight or acumen to note the obvious fact that in engineering, as in other endeavors, there comes a point in cutting fees at which it is economically infeasible to render competent service.
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm to recognize the point at which cutting a proposed or actual fee crosses from permissible competitive pricing — including loss-leader or cross-subsidized engagements — into economically infeasible territory where competent, code-compliant, and safe engineering service cannot be rendered, and to refrain from submitting or executing a fee proposal that crosses that threshold, understanding that a fee 'too good to be true' may constitute a bait-and-switch deception and an ethical violation of the duty to practice only within competent means.
Fee-Cutting Economic Infeasibility Competence Threshold Non-Breach Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm to refrain from cutting its proposed or actual fee to a level at which it becomes economically infeasible to render competent engineering service — recognizing that while it is not necessarily unethical to lose money on an engagement or to subsidize one engagement from profits on others, it is unethical to cut fees to such an extent that the resulting service would be incompetent and dangerous, and that a fee proposal that crosses this threshold violates the engineer's paramount duty to protect public safety regardless of competitive market pressures.
Fee-Loss Cross-Subsidy Permissibility Boundary Recognition Capability
It is not necessarily unethical for an engineer to lose money on an engagement or to subsidize an engagement by applying to its profits made on other work.
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm to recognize that it is not necessarily unethical to lose money on an individual engagement or to cross-subsidize an engagement from profits earned on other work — provided that the fee level does not fall below the threshold at which competent and safe service can be rendered — and to correctly distinguish between permissible loss-leader or cross-subsidized pricing strategies and impermissible fee-cutting that leads to incompetent or dangerous service.
Fee-Loss Subsidization Ethical Permissibility With Competence Floor Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that it is not necessarily unethical for a professional engineer or firm to lose money on an engagement or to subsidize an engagement from profits made on other work — but that this permissibility is bounded by a hard competence floor: it becomes unethical when fee-cutting reaches the point at which it is economically infeasible to render competent and safe service, prohibiting the use of cross-subsidization or loss-leader strategies when the resulting fee level foreseeably precludes the delivery of competent engineering performance, as established by the BER's recognition that 'there comes a point in cutting fees at which it is economically infeasible to render competent service' and that 'it would be unethical for an engineer to cut fees to such an extent as would lead to the rendition of incompetent and dangerous service.'
Fee-Paying Developer Subject to City Inspection
private developers are required to submit plans to the city for review and approval
A private land developer who is required by local ordinance to fund city-retained engineering inspection of their own construction project, while simultaneously being a potential private client of the same engineering firm conducting that inspection — creating a structural conflict of interest in which the developer's fee payments and private client relationship may compromise the impartiality of the city's regulatory inspection.
Fee Adequacy Public Safety Threshold Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm to assess, before submitting a fee proposal for a public engineering contract, whether the proposed fee is sufficient to fund competent, code-compliant, and safe engineering performance — including bridge design — and to recognize that submitting a fee so far below market norms as to preclude adequate staffing, analysis, and quality control constitutes a potential ethical violation of the duty to practice only within competent means.
Fee Adequacy and Bait-and-Switch Deception Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations establishing that engineering fees must be adequate to support competent professional service, and that submitting an unrealistically low initial fee with the intent or effect of delivering incompetent or dangerous service constitutes deceptive 'bait-and-switch' conduct prohibited by professional ethics codes.
Fee Disparity Inference Calibration Capability
We observe that Firm A's bid was $70,000 less than the bid of Firm B, and that Firm B's was $80,000 less than the bid of Firm C.
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm, public agency, or ethics reviewer to correctly calibrate the ethical inference drawn from a dramatic fee disparity between competing proposals — recognizing that fee differences alone and in the abstract do not give rise to an inference of unethical activity, but that when combined with knowledge of project scope, engineering requirements, and minimum cost thresholds for competent performance, a sufficiently large disparity may raise a reasonable professional inference that the low-bidding firm cannot deliver safe, code-compliant engineering at the proposed fee level.
Fee Disparity Public Safety Risk Inference Capability
the proposal of Firm A was so out of line with realistic costs for proper engineering performance for the project
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm or public agency to recognize that a dramatic fee disparity between competing proposals — where one firm's bid is a fraction of competitors' bids for the same scope — raises a reasonable professional inference that the low-bidding firm cannot deliver safe, code-compliant engineering performance at that fee level, and to act on that inference through protest, investigation, or award reconsideration.
Fee Protest Scope Calibration to Known Facts Capability
Firms B and C were obligated to restrain their characterization of Firm A's proposal to what their actual knowledge supported — namely, that the fee level appeared insufficient
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm filing a protest against a competitor's contract award to calibrate the scope and specificity of protest claims to what the firm actually knows — namely, that the fee level appears insufficient for safe performance — while refraining from asserting specific conclusions about the competitor's internal cost structure, staffing plans, or intent that the protesting firm cannot verify, consistent with the obligation to restrain critique to the bounds of actual knowledge.
Fictitious Utility Conflict Design Manipulation Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize when a proposed design revision would artificially and intentionally create a utility conflict — where none need exist — for the purpose of shifting costs from a municipality to a public agency in violation of the agency's cost-allocation policy, and to correctly classify such manipulation as an ethical violation regardless of the sympathetic financial circumstances of the municipality.
Engineer L bore a fiduciary duty to Client X to act in Client X's best interests within the bounds of professional ethics.
Capability to simultaneously manage and balance fiduciary duties to a client with overriding professional obligations to public welfare, recognizing when client interests must yield to public safety imperatives and communicating this tension transparently
[proethica-intermediate] Capability to manage and resolve conflicts between diverse and potentially conflicting normative requirements (Dennis et al. 2016)
Field Notes Integrity and Alteration Prohibition Principle
However, under no circumstance would it be appropriate for Engineer A to alter his field notes
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's field notes constitute a primary professional record of contemporaneous observations and must not be altered, suppressed, or destroyed under any circumstances — including when the engineer's client or prime consultant instructs that certain observations be omitted from a final report — because field notes serve as the authentic evidentiary record of the engineer's professional work and their integrity is essential to professional accountability, legal proceedings, and future safety investigations.
Field Notes Preservation Non-Alteration Constraint
Absolute ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from altering, modifying, or destroying personal engineering field notes that document observations made during the performance of professional services — regardless of whether those observations fall within the contracted scope of services, regardless of client instruction, and regardless of whether the observations are speculative or confirmed — establishing that field notes constitute an inviolable contemporaneous record of professional observations that must be preserved in their original form, and that the prohibition on alteration applies with equal force even when the engineer has been instructed not to include the observation in the final report.
Field Notes Preservation Non-Alteration Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has documented an observation — including an out-of-scope safety-relevant observation — in engineering field notes to preserve those notes without alteration, even when the engineer has agreed not to include the observation in a formal written report, recognizing that field notes constitute a permanent professional record that must not be altered regardless of client instructions or scope-of-work limitations.
Field Notes Safety Observation Preservation Non-Alteration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize the absolute professional obligation to preserve field notes documenting safety-relevant observations in their original, unaltered form — including the ability to correctly identify that field notes must not be altered under any circumstances, even when the observation documented therein is speculative, out-of-scope, or excluded from the formal written report — and to maintain the integrity of field documentation as a permanent record for possible future reference.
Financial Pressure Driving Scope Overreach State
State in which a professional firm is experiencing a downturn in committed work and financial pressure sufficient to threaten staff layoffs, and in response pursues and accepts a contract in a domain outside its established competence, creating a direct causal link between financial self-interest and the decision to overreach professional capability boundaries.
Financial Pressure Practice Continuation Prohibition Constraint
Being the only licensed professional engineer in his firm, for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from continuing to practice, seal documents, or hold themselves out as providing competent engineering services when the sole or primary motivation for continuation is financial necessity — including avoidance of business closure or income loss — when the engineer lacks the competence, capacity, or ability to exercise genuine responsible charge, establishing that financial hardship does not constitute a justification for practicing beyond one's current competence or capacity.
Financial Pressure Resistance in Impaired Practice Capability
for financial and other reasons, Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
Capability to recognize when financial pressures — including revenue dependence, staff retention, business survival, or personal financial obligations — are creating motivation to continue professional engineering practice despite medical impairment or competence deficiency, and to resist those financial pressures by prioritizing professional obligations to public safety and competent practice over personal financial interests, including the ability to identify and pursue financially viable alternatives to continued impaired practice.
Financial Sympathy Non-Subordination of Policy Capability
The cost to replace is an unaffordable $750,000.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize when sympathy for a municipality's or stakeholder's genuine financial hardship is creating pressure to subordinate an unambiguous agency policy to that sympathy, and to resist that pressure by maintaining policy compliance regardless of the sympathetic circumstances — understanding that financial hardship does not justify policy circumvention and that proper channels exist for addressing legitimate hardship.
Fire-Damaged Structural Member Forensic Assessment Capability
Engineer A measures the tributary area of roof, floor, and wall bearing on the beam and runs a series of structural calculations.
Technical capability to forensically evaluate a fire-damaged or otherwise compromised structural member — including measuring tributary areas, performing load calculations, assessing charring depth and residual section capacity, and determining whether the member is adequate for reuse or was originally under-designed — sufficient to render a professional engineering opinion on structural adequacy and public safety implications.
Fire Protection Engineering Practice Standard
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer in the public sector
Technical standards, professional norms, and regulatory requirements governing the practice of fire protection engineering, including the design, inspection, documentation, and maintenance of fire suppression systems such as sprinkler systems, and the obligations of fire protection engineers in public-sector roles regarding documentation management and contractor support.
[proethica-intermediate] Collective professional agreement on technical acceptability
Fire Protection System As-Built Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer D is a fire protection engineer in the public sector and works for a state agency.
Duty of a public agency fire protection engineer who possesses as-built drawings of existing fire suppression systems to ensure that contractors performing renovation or modification work on those systems have access to those drawings before commencing work, recognizing that as-built drawings of fire protection systems are safety-critical information whose withholding — whether pre-bid or post-award — creates material risk of improper system modification, reduced fire suppression effectiveness, and harm to building occupants.
Fire Protection System Installation Safety Standard
Engineer A observes that the builder routed the piping for the retrofitted sprinkler system through the unheated garage, exposing the pipes to freezing temperatures
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers and contractors responsible for designing or installing fire protection systems — including retrofitted sprinkler systems — to ensure that system components are installed in conditions consistent with their operational requirements, including protection from environmental conditions such as freezing temperatures that would render the system inoperable or create secondary property damage risks
Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
ENGCO is concerned that the company brochure may be conveying a misrepresentation, implying that there are more engineers on its staff than is the true situation.
Relational principle requiring that an engineering firm, upon becoming aware that its public-facing materials (brochures, websites, proposals) use professional titles in a manner that may misrepresent the qualifications of listed personnel, take affirmative corrective action — including auditing all such materials, revising or qualifying misleading titles, and ensuring that the distinction between licensed professional engineers and other technical staff is clear to readers — rather than allowing the misrepresentation to persist
Firm-Partner Advocacy Alignment Institutional Credibility Non-Exploitation Constraint
Engineer B, a partner in the same firm as Engineer A
Ethical constraint establishing that a partner in an engineering firm whose colleague holds an active client retainer may not appear before an independent professional body in a manner that structurally aligns the partner's advocacy with the client's interest while implicitly presenting that advocacy as independent professional judgment — prohibiting the use of the partner's independent professional standing to launder client-interested advocacy through an institutional channel that presupposes independence, and requiring that the structural alignment between the partner's advocacy and the client's interest be fully disclosed so that the receiving body can appropriately discount or independently evaluate the advocacy.
Firm Biologist Epistemic Humility and Upward Reporting Capability
one of the engineering firm's biologists reports to Engineer A that in his opinion, the condominium project could threaten a bird species that inhabits the adjacent protected wetlands area
Capability of a biologist or technical specialist employed by an engineering firm to recognize that a professional observation bearing on environmental risk — including identification of a potentially threatened species — must be reported completely and without independent filtering to the firm principal, and to refrain from independently assessing the materiality or reporting implications of the finding before escalating it upward, deferring those judgments to the licensed professional engineer in responsible charge.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of an engineer intern or other unlicensed junior engineering personnel to recognize that they are not yet qualified to independently assess the materiality or urgency implications of contextual information bearing on a safety deficiency — including information about the duration of a defect's existence or prior inspection failures — and to therefore report all potentially material facts to the supervising licensed professional engineer without filtering, editing, or withholding information based on personal materiality judgments, understanding that such judgments are reserved for licensed professionals.
Firm Brochure Engineering Title Audit Capability
Capability of an engineering firm and its responsible licensed professional engineers to systematically audit the firm's public-facing brochures and marketing materials for engineering title accuracy — including reviewing all personnel listings to identify instances where non-degreed or unlicensed individuals are assigned titles implying engineering qualifications, assessing whether the overall impression conveyed to readers accurately reflects the firm's licensed engineering staff composition, and initiating timely corrections upon identifying actual or potential misrepresentation.
Firm Brochure Engineering Title Audit and Correction Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm that becomes aware — or has reason to believe — that its public-facing marketing materials, including company brochures, assign engineering titles to personnel who do not hold engineering degrees or professional engineering licensure, to conduct a prompt audit of those materials, revise or remove misleading title designations, and issue corrected materials, so that prospective clients and the public are not misled about the qualifications of the firm's personnel.
Firm Brochure Personnel Title Accuracy Constraint
ENGCO, an engineering firm, distributes a brochure that, along with the usual information, contains a listing of key personnel.
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that an engineering firm's public-facing marketing brochures, qualification statements, and personnel listings accurately represent the credential and licensure status of each listed individual — prohibiting the assignment of engineering-implying titles such as 'Engineer' or 'Design Engineer' to personnel who do not hold an engineering degree or professional engineering license, and establishing that the firm's obligation to accurate personnel representation in brochures is independent of and not superseded by internal role designations, federal contract terminology, or industry custom.
Firm Licensure Prerequisite for Business Development Representative Activity
it is the opinion of this Board that it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state
Domain-specific principle establishing that a business development representative of an engineering firm — who may not personally be licensed in a given state — may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development activities in that state only if the firm the representative serves employs engineers who are duly licensed in that state and who will perform or supervise the engineering work; where the firm lacks such licensed engineers, the representative's business development activities constitute deception and violate the spirit of the state's engineering licensure laws
Firm Marketing Logistical Constraint Ethical Non-Excuse Recognition Capability
While we recognize the realities of firm practice and the logistical problems involved in marketing and promotion, we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and firm principal to recognize that while the logistical and practical challenges of maintaining accurate printed marketing materials in a busy engineering practice are real and acknowledged, those logistical constraints do not excuse the firm from its ethical obligation to take expeditious corrective action upon discovering inaccuracies — and to identify and deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms (errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, reprints) that minimize the burden of compliance while fulfilling the ethical obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a marketing or business development role, or any firm representative responsible for promotional materials, to identify and deploy low-cost, expeditious correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints — upon receiving actual knowledge of an inaccuracy in distributed marketing materials, recognizing that the availability of such low-cost mechanisms heightens the ethical obligation to act promptly and that failure to employ them when available constitutes a breach of professional ethics independent of the original error's origin.
Firm Partner Advocacy Alignment with Client Interest Before Independent Body State
State in which a partner of an engineering firm whose colleague holds an active client retainer appears before an independent professional or governmental body to advocate for the technical position that serves the retaining client's interest — where the partner's firm affiliation creates a structural alignment between the advocacy and the client's financial interest, even if the partner personally has no direct financial stake in the outcome, raising questions about whether the advocacy is genuinely independent or is an extension of the firm's client service.
Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume
Professional norms and ethical obligations requiring engineering firms to maintain accurate and current representations of their employed personnel in marketing materials, brochures, and firm resumes, prohibiting the continued listing of engineers who have resigned or given notice of departure
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms governing the honest and accurate representation of a firm's or engineer's qualifications, experience, and capabilities when seeking professional engagements, prohibiting misrepresentation or overstatement of competence to secure contracts
Firm Principal Discipline Misrepresentation Corrective Authority Exercise Capability
Engineer A was obligated to escalate the discipline misrepresentation to a firm principal after six months of inaction by the marketing director.
Capability of an engineering firm principal or senior leader who has been informed (or who should be informed through escalation) of a discipline-specific misrepresentation in firm promotional materials to exercise organizational authority to mandate and verify correction of the misrepresentation — including directing the marketing function to update all affected materials, confirming that corrections are implemented across all distributed versions, and establishing accountability mechanisms to prevent recurrence — recognizing that the firm principal bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of firm promotional representations.
Firm Principal Losing Staff to Client-Initiated Departure
Engineer A, a principal in a large engineering firm in the city decided to have his firm submit a proposal
A licensed professional engineer who is a principal or senior leader of an engineering firm whose employed staff engineers are directly solicited by the firm's client to provide independent consulting services, bearing interests in maintaining business goodwill and client relationships while being subject to the client's right to retain engineers of its choice.
Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm principal or owner to promptly remove departed engineers from all firm marketing materials — including brochures, qualification statements, and websites — upon receiving notice of an engineer's departure or termination, and to refrain from distributing any materials that list departed personnel as current key employees, recognizing that continued distribution of such materials after departure constitutes a misrepresentation of the firm's current personnel qualifications to prospective clients and the public, regardless of whether the departure is voluntary or involuntary and regardless of whether a notice period is still being served.
Firm Principal Post-Departure Personnel Listing Prompt Removal Capability
Engineer B was obligated to promptly remove Engineer A from all firm brochures and marketing materials upon receiving notice of Engineer A's termination
Capability of an engineering firm principal or owner to promptly identify and remove departed engineers from all firm brochures, marketing materials, and personnel listings upon receiving notice of departure or termination, recognizing that continued listing of departed personnel constitutes deceptive advertising that misleads prospective clients about the firm's actual staffing and qualifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of licensed professional engineers and engineering firms to actively maintain, review, and update all public-facing marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they remain accurate, truthful, and non-deceptive regarding qualifications, licensure status, and services offered, recognizing that the reduced time and cost of updating materials in the digital age heightens the obligation to keep such materials current.
Firm Unauthorized Jurisdiction Practice State
XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P
State in which an engineering firm is actively providing or contracted to provide engineering services in a jurisdiction where it does not hold a current certificate of authority or equivalent firm-level licensure, creating a condition of unauthorized practice at the organizational level distinct from individual engineer licensure, and triggering obligations for aware professionals to report or address the non-compliance.
First-Stone Non-Determinative Mutual Disparagement Symmetric Violation Constraint
We cannot or do not enter into speculation as to which 'threw the first stone.' Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
Ethical constraint establishing that in a mutual competitive disparagement dispute, the identity of the party who initiated the disparaging exchange — i.e., who 'threw the first stone' — is not determinative of ethical culpability, and that both parties are independently and fully in violation of §12 regardless of the sequence of provocations; prohibiting any party from invoking the other's prior disparagement as a justification, excuse, or mitigating factor for its own disparaging conduct, and establishing that the ethics board will not speculate about or adjudicate the sequence of provocation when both parties have clearly engaged in self-interested adverse commentary.
First Amendment Professional Code Constraint
antitrust, and First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, NSPE and other engineering organizations...have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions
U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment rulings that constrained professional society codes of ethics by limiting restrictions on advertising, solicitation, and competitive practices, thereby reshaping the permissible scope of professional ethics guidance in engineering and other learned professions
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Court rulings and Department of Justice actions that constrain professional society codes and establish the legal boundaries within which engineering procurement and competitive practices must operate
Five-Ton Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this was ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and other such authorities as appropriate.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a safety-restricted infrastructure asset — such as a bridge reopened under a weight limit — is being used in violation of that limit (e.g., log trucks and tankers crossing a five-ton-limit bridge) to immediately press the supervising authority for strict enforcement of the restriction, and, if that escalation is ineffective, to escalate further to external authorities including state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate bodies, rather than passively observing the ongoing violation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has overridden a professional engineering safety determination — such as a bridge closure — by directing an unlicensed individual to perform an engineering assessment and implementing an inadequate remediation without follow-up inspection, to resist that override by immediately escalating to supervisors and then to external authorities including state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities, rather than acquiescing to the non-engineer's decision.
Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a safety-restricted infrastructure element — such as a bridge with a posted weight limit — is being used in violation of that restriction must immediately press their supervisor for strict enforcement of the restriction and, if that escalation is ineffective, escalate to state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities — prohibiting passive observation of safety restriction violations on the grounds that enforcement is the supervisor's responsibility or that the engineer lacks direct enforcement authority.
Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a safety-restricted infrastructure — such as a bridge with a five-ton weight limit — is being used by vehicles exceeding that limit (such as log trucks and tankers) to immediately press the supervisor for strict enforcement of the weight limit, and if that is ineffective, to escalate to state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, the director of public works, county commissioners, and other appropriate authorities.
Five-Ton Weight Limit Strict Enforcement Supervisor Escalation Obligation
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to press his supervisor for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a safety-restricted infrastructure asset — such as a bridge reopened under a five-ton weight limit — is being used in violation of that limit by heavy vehicles such as log trucks and tankers, to immediately press the supervising authority for strict enforcement of the restriction, and if that escalation is ineffective, to escalate further to external authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a safety-restricted infrastructure asset — such as a bridge reopened under a weight limit — is being used in violation of that limit (e.g., log trucks and tankers crossing a five-ton-limit bridge) to immediately press the supervising authority for strict enforcement of the restriction, and, if that escalation is ineffective, to escalate further to external authorities including state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate bodies, rather than passively observing the ongoing violation.
Fixed Public Employment Competence Remediation Structural Impossibility Constraint
We do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer accepts a fixed statutory public employment position whose core duties require competence in a technical domain the engineer does not possess, no ethical course of action is available to the engineer — because the structural features of fixed public employment (non-delegable oversight duties, absence of subcontracting mechanisms, inability to restructure the workforce) foreclose all consulting-style competence remediation pathways, making it impossible for the engineer to comply with NSPE Code II.2.b regardless of what course of action is taken, and prohibiting engineers from accepting such positions on the assumption that compliance will be achievable post-acceptance.
Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for designing flood control and stormwater resilience infrastructure, including evaluation of traditional and sustainable approaches, stakeholder engagement, and disclosure of disproportionate community impacts, with obligations to balance immediate protection needs against long-term sustainability, climate resilience, and equitable public safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role specializing in the design of stormwater management systems, responsible for ensuring designs meet environmental and public safety standards including protection of water sources.
acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements
Regulatory and technical standards governing whether a construction site falls within a designated flood plain, including the effect of historical fill activities on flood plain classification, and the compliance obligations of engineers and developers with respect to floodplain regulations.
Foreign Business Payments Permissibility Law
National or domestic legal frameworks that explicitly permit, and in some cases provide tax deductions for, cash payments or in-kind transfers to foreign public officials as a means of obtaining or retaining business contracts, creating a legal-but-potentially-unethical tension for internationally practicing engineers bound by professional codes of ethics.
Foreign Corrupt Payment Prohibition Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — including an NSPE International Member practicing outside the United States — to recognize that offering, authorizing, or participating in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign government officials in order to obtain or retain engineering contracts constitutes a corrupt payment prohibited by NSPE ethics codes, regardless of whether such payments are legal, customary, or tax-deductible under the engineer's home-country law.
Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
A stakeholder role borne by foreign national or local government entities that retain engineering, consulting, and construction contracting services from internationally practicing engineers, potentially in contexts where payments or in-kind property transfers from the engineer to government officials are legally permitted in the engineer's home country but raise professional ethics concerns under codes such as the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — including an NSPE International Member practicing outside the United States — to refrain from offering, authorizing, facilitating, or participating in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign public officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining engineering contracts, regardless of whether such payments are legal or tax-deductible under the engineer's home-country law, and regardless of prevailing local business customs in the host country.
Foreign Official Gift-Giving Ethics Standard
it is established practice for those awarded contracts to make personal gifts to the governmental officials who are authorized to award the contracts
Professional norms and ethical obligations prohibiting engineers from offering personal gifts, payments, or other inducements to foreign government officials as a condition of obtaining or retaining contracts, even where such practices are asserted to be legal or customary in the host country, grounded in the engineer's duty to act with integrity and avoid conduct that is dishonest, fraudulent, or deceptive.
Foreign Official Payment Prohibition Constraint
Inviolable ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer — including an NSPE International Member practicing outside the United States — from offering, authorizing, or participating in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign government officials in order to obtain, retain, or influence the award of engineering or construction contracts, regardless of whether such payments are legally permitted or tax-deductible under the engineer's home-country law, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.5.b, III.6, and III.7 and BER precedents including Cases 76-6, 96-5, 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, and 81-4.
Forensic Building Investigation Engineer
Engineer A was hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained to conduct forensic investigation of a building—such as determining the origin and cause of a fire or assessing structural integrity following modifications—bearing obligations to report observed structural hazards to the client and to escalate to county building officials, supervisors, fire marshals, and other authorities having jurisdiction when initial notifications are unacknowledged, continuing until a resolution is achieved.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which the engineer provides expert opinion, evaluation, and testimony in legal proceedings, bearing obligations to accurately represent licensure status and comply with state registration laws governing expert testimony.
Forensic Engagement Scope-Exceeding Safety Discovery State
Engineer A initially observes that, aside from the slight fire damage, the beam looks too light to provide adequate structural support
State in which a professional engineer retained for a specific forensic or investigative purpose (e.g., post-arson structural evaluation for an insurance company) discovers, in the course of that limited engagement, a pre-existing design defect unrelated to the original incident — triggering obligations that extend beyond the retaining client to the broader public, while the engineer's formal authority to act is constrained by the limited scope of the original engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer, retained for a limited or specific purpose (such as post-arson evaluation or expert witness review), incidentally discovers a structural deficiency or safety hazard that is outside the scope of their engagement but within their professional competence to assess — triggering an obligation to report the deficiency to affected parties and public authorities beyond the retaining client, regardless of the limited scope of the original engagement.
Forensic Engineer Pre-Acceptance Same-Matter Prior Engagement Conflict Screening Constraint
He is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer, before accepting any forensic or expert witness engagement in an adversarial proceeding, conduct a conflict screening to determine whether the engineer has previously been retained by any party in the same matter — and, if so, whether that prior engagement involved access to confidential information, documents, or case strategy that would create an irresolvable conflict of interest if the engineer were to accept the new engagement on behalf of an opposing party; establishing that this screening obligation applies regardless of whether the prior engagement was terminated, whether the fee was paid, or whether the new engagement is framed as independent, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and NSPE Code conflict of interest provisions.
Forensic Engineering Credential Standard
Professional norms, certification frameworks, and ethical obligations governing the use of forensic engineering credentials (such as Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering) in professional representations, including the scope of authority such credentials confer and the obligation not to use them in ways that obscure or substitute for required licensure status
Forensic Engineering Credential Title Accuracy Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer providing forensic expert services in any jurisdiction to ensure that credential designations used in report signature blocks, professional communications, and expert opinions do not incorporate the word 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' — whether explicitly or implicitly through board certification titles — unless the engineer holds the requisite licensure in the jurisdiction of the engagement, recognizing that use of any credential that invokes engineering qualification brings the engineer under the purview of the applicable state licensing law and that non-compliance constitutes both unethical conduct and unlicensed practice.
Forensic Engineering Engagement Scope Compliance Capability
Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to provide forensic evaluation, expert opinion preparation, or expert testimony to correctly identify the full scope of legal and ethical compliance requirements applicable to the engagement — including jurisdictional licensure requirements, credential disclosure obligations, and the boundaries of permissible expert witness practice — and to structure the engagement so that all activities performed fall within the scope of legally and ethically permissible practice, declining or restructuring the engagement when compliance cannot be achieved.
Forensic Engineering Expert Completeness Standard
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This was an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasilegal, or nonlegal
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers serving as forensic experts to consider and report all material technical data — including pile driving records, dynamic test equipment failures, and accepted engineering methodologies — rather than selectively using data to support a client's litigation position, and the obligation to interview available on-site representatives and other witnesses before issuing conclusions
Attorney X contacted Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M
A licensed professional engineering role in which the engineer provides expert opinion, evaluation, and testimony in legal proceedings, bearing obligations to accurately represent licensure status and comply with state registration laws governing expert testimony.
Forensic Engineering Report Integrity Standard
Engineer A conducts the investigation for Attorney X, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the accuracy, completeness, and post-submission integrity of forensic engineering reports prepared for litigation, including the duty to disclose discovered inaccuracies to retaining counsel and the obligation to correct conclusions based on erroneous data, even when settlement negotiations are ongoing
Forensic Expert Adverse Finding Suppression Resistance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness to resist instructions from the retaining attorney or client to suppress, withhold, or maintain confidential adverse safety findings discovered during the forensic investigation, recognizing that the professional obligation to protect public safety is paramount and that compliance with suppression instructions constitutes an independent ethical violation.
Forensic Expert Affirmative Error Correction Disclosure Capability
once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different, Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has submitted a forensic report to a retaining attorney to recognize, upon subsequent discovery that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate, the affirmative obligation to immediately advise the retaining attorney — including the ability to correctly identify that the adversarial or settlement context creates no exception to this disclosure obligation, and to act promptly regardless of the potentially disruptive effect on litigation or settlement strategy.
Forensic Expert Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert in civil litigation who is forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's work to consult all reasonably available evidence — including pile driving records, on-site representatives, contractors, and workers — before publishing conclusions adverse to that engineer's professional standing, and to refrain from rendering adverse opinions without consulting available corroborating or refuting evidence, recognizing that failure to consult available witnesses and participants constitutes a fundamental failure of objectivity and completeness in professional engineering practice.
Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary Non-Suppression of Error Correction Constraint
Part of Engineer A's duties is to perform forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's faithful agent obligation to a retaining attorney does not extend to withholding, suppressing, or delaying correction of a discovered material data inaccuracy in a submitted forensic report — prohibiting the engineer from treating the faithful agent duty as authority to remain silent about discovered errors that render the report's conclusions unsupportable, and establishing that the faithful agent obligation is bounded by the overriding duty to be objective, truthful, and non-deceptive in professional representations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving as an expert witness or technical reviewer in adversarial legal proceedings from adopting the role of an advocate for the retaining party — establishing that the engineer's duty is to assist the trier of fact (judge or jury) in understanding technical complexities objectively, and that the engineer must not compromise professional independence and autonomy by aligning technical opinions with the adversarial interests of the retaining party, as established by NSPE Code professional independence provisions and the principle that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not advocates in rendering professional services.
Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction Capability
Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a retained forensic expert for an attorney to recognize that the faithful agent obligation owed to the retaining attorney does not extend to withholding, concealing, or delaying notification of a discovered data inaccuracy in a submitted forensic report — including the ability to correctly identify the boundary between legitimate faithful agent service (executing the forensic investigation competently, maintaining confidentiality of privileged communications) and impermissible faithful agent conduct (suppressing discovered errors to protect the attorney's litigation or settlement position), and to act within that boundary by notifying the attorney of the inaccuracy while leaving the attorney to make strategic decisions about how to proceed.
Forensic Expert Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction Obligation
Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the Attorney's client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client in an adversarial or litigation context to refrain from producing reports that selectively omit material technical findings in a manner that disserves the client's actual interests — recognizing that selective omission of material facts may misdirect the client's legal or technical conclusions, deprive the client of a rational basis for evaluating the opposing party's position, and ultimately harm the client's interests even when the engineer believes the omission serves the client; and that an engineer who omits material facts to 'defend' a client thereby fails both professional ethics obligations and the faithful agent duty to the client.
Forensic Expert Hired Gun Non-Participation Self-Regulation Capability
we note that it has sometimes been suggested that engineers who act as paid expert witnesses have an inherent conflict between their duty to tell the truth and their obligation to perform their services consistent with the best interests of the client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness to recognize and resist the 'hired gun' role — in which the expert seeks to testify in favor of the retaining client regardless of the technical merits — including the ability to 'call them as they see them' based solely on independent technical analysis, to report adverse findings to the retaining party even when those findings are inconsistent with the client's legal interests, and to understand that the ethical obligation to render objective professional opinions is not diminished by the adversarial context of litigation or by the fact that the retaining party is paying the expert's fee, consistent with NSPE Code Section II.3.a. and BER Case 85-4.
Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity in Civil Litigation Obligation
Professional engineers are frequently called upon and play a critical role as forensic engineering experts in connection with civil litigation. These professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert in civil litigation to perform forensic engineering services with honesty and integrity, to be truthful and honest in professional reports, and to refrain from assuming a responsibility to defend the retaining client through selective use of data — recognizing that the engineer's role is that of an objective technical expert assisting the trier of fact, not an advocate for the retaining party, and that selective data use to defend a client constitutes an egregious denial of professional duties in any setting, whether legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness in adversarial litigation to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as an advocate for the retaining party — and to resist any characterization, pressure, or structural expectation that would cause the engineer to adopt the partisan advocacy role characteristic of attorneys.
Forensic Expert Immediate Error Correction Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has submitted a forensic report to a retaining attorney in connection with pending litigation or settlement negotiations, and who subsequently discovers that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield materially different conclusions, to immediately and affirmatively advise the retaining attorney of the discovered inaccuracy and the corrected conclusions — notwithstanding the adversarial context, active settlement negotiations, or any implicit expectation that the report supports the attorney's position — recognizing that the attorney requires accurate information to make informed litigation and settlement decisions, and that failure to correct constitutes a continuing professional misrepresentation.
Forensic Expert Insistence on Safety Disclosure or Withdrawal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness who has discovered imminent safety conditions to either insist that the retaining attorney permit disclosure of those conditions to appropriate authorities and affected parties, or to withdraw from the forensic engagement if the attorney refuses — recognizing that continuation of the engagement under a suppression instruction is ethically impermissible when occupant life safety is at immediate risk.
Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Objectivity in Settlement Context Obligation
Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant's attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a forensic expert in civil litigation or mediation to maintain objectivity and render technically complete opinions regardless of the stage of proceedings — including during active settlement negotiations — recognizing that the adversarial nature of the proceeding and the attorney's settlement posture do not transform the engineer's role from objective expert to partisan advocate, and that the engineer's professional obligations of honesty, completeness, and objectivity apply with equal force during settlement as during trial.
Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status in Civil Litigation
Professional principle establishing that engineers retained as forensic experts in civil litigation are not advocates for the retaining party — their role is to provide objective, complete, and technically accurate analysis to assist the trier of fact, and they must not selectively use data, omit material findings, or structure their reports to defend the client's litigation position at the expense of technical truth
[Case 136] Professional principle establishing that engineers retained as forensic experts in civil litigation are not advocates for the retaining party — their role is to provide objective, complete, and technically accurate analysis to assist the trier of fact, and they must not selectively use data, omit material findings, or structure their reports to defend the client's litigation position at the expense of technical truth.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental professional principle establishing that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not advocates when rendering professional services in adversarial legal proceedings — their role is to assist the trier of fact through objective technical expertise, and they must not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy by adopting the partisan stance of the retaining party, even when operating within the legal adversarial system
Forensic Expert Paid Advocacy Non-Equivalence to Hired Gun Prohibition Constraint
we make this point to underscore the importance of forensic engineers 'calling them as they see them'
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving as a paid forensic expert witness in adversarial litigation is not a 'hired gun' obligated to testify in favor of the retaining client — prohibiting the engineer from treating the payment of a fee as creating an obligation to produce analysis favorable to the paying party, and establishing that the engineer's duty is to 'call them as they see them' by rendering objective, technically grounded professional opinions regardless of whether those opinions align with the retaining client's legal interests, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and NSPE Code Section II.3.a.
Forensic Expert Selective Data Defense Assumption Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert from assuming a responsibility to defend the retaining client through the selective use of data — including omitting pile driving records showing refusal, failing to apply accepted wave equation calculations, failing to consult available witnesses, and failing to disclose equipment failures — establishing that such selective data use constitutes an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, whether legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal, as established by BER Case 95-5 and the principle that forensic engineers must render objective, complete, and technically grounded opinions regardless of the adversarial interests of the retaining party.
Forensic Expert Selective Data Omission Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert to recognize when a forensic report has been constructed through selective use of data — including omission of pile driving records, wave equation calculations, equipment failure disclosures, and available witness testimony — in a manner that assumes a responsibility to defend the retaining client rather than render objective professional opinions, and to correctly classify such selective data use as an egregious ethical violation regardless of the legal or quasi-legal context.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when a professional report, advisory memo, or technical analysis omits material information — including contradictory data, alternative interpretations, or unfavorable findings — in a manner that creates a misleading or incomplete picture, and to identify the professional obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information regardless of whether that information supports or undermines the preparer's preferred conclusion, drawing on BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8 as precedent.
Forensic Expert Settlement Context Correction Non-Deferral Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the active status of settlement negotiations between a retaining attorney and opposing counsel does not justify deferring, suppressing, or withholding correction of a discovered material data inaccuracy in a submitted forensic engineering report — prohibiting the engineer from treating the adversarial settlement context as a basis for delaying correction of the report, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to be objective and truthful supersedes the attorney's interest in maintaining the report's conclusions during settlement negotiations, as established by BER Case 95-5 and the principle that critically important corrective information must be immediately conveyed to the retaining attorney regardless of the procedural posture of the litigation.
Forensic Expert Side-Switching Conflict Assessment Capability
Initially retained by Attorney Z (plaintiff's counsel) to provide forensic engineering and safety analysis; terminated after determining findings were not favorable
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation — and subsequently terminated — to assess whether accepting retention by the opposing party in the same litigation creates an impermissible conflict of interest, including the ability to identify the specific information, strategies, and confidential communications accessed during the initial retention that would be exploited in the subsequent retention, and to correctly determine whether side-switching is ethically permissible or constitutes a violation of professional obligations of loyalty, confidentiality, and objectivity.
Forensic Expert Structural Defect Imminent Tenant Danger Identification Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness to conduct a building inspection and correctly identify structural defects that constitute an immediate threat to the safety of building occupants, including the ability to assess severity, imminence, and the gap between discovered safety conditions and the scope of existing litigation claims.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to conduct a preliminary field assessment of structural instability — including identifying signs of roof sagging, outward wall lean, insufficient lateral restraint, and other indicators of structural compromise — sufficient to form a professional judgment about collapse risk and the need for immediate protective action, without requiring a full structural engineering investigation.
Forensic Expert Switching Sides Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is initially retained by one party in adversarial litigation to provide forensic analysis and expert opinion, is terminated or withdraws without producing a favorable report, and is subsequently approached by the opposing party to provide a separate and independent analysis, bearing obligations to decline the second engagement due to irresolvable conflicts of interest arising from confidential information, documents, and knowledge gained during the first engagement — regardless of whether the prior relationship has formally ended.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by one party in an adversarial legal or quasi-legal dispute to supervise physical testing programs (e.g., test pile driving) intended to evaluate disputed design or construction claims, bearing obligations of completeness, objectivity, and full disclosure of all material findings — including equipment failures, anomalous test conditions, and alternative analytical interpretations — even when such findings are unfavorable to the retaining client, and bearing a prohibition against selective use of technical facts to serve adversarial interests.
Forensic Expert Witness Honesty and Integrity in Report Preparation Capability
Professional engineers have an ethical responsibility to perform these services with honesty and integrity and to be truthful and honest in their professional reports regardless of their role, whether performing work in the private sector or as members of organizations with public roles, such as professional or technical societies.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness to perform forensic investigation and prepare expert reports with honesty and integrity — being truthful and honest in professional reports regardless of the retaining party's interests — including the ability to maintain this standard whether performing work in the private sector or as a member of organizations with public roles such as professional or technical societies, and to recognize that the obligation to be truthful and honest in professional reports is not diminished by the adversarial context of litigation.
Forensic Expert Witness Imminent Occupant Danger Direct Notification Constraint
Inviolable ethical and safety constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness who discovers structural defects constituting an immediate threat to building occupants to directly notify those occupants and appropriate public authorities of the danger — establishing that the engineer's duty to protect imminent safety supersedes both the contractual scope of the expert engagement (which concerned quality-of-use defects, not structural safety) and any attorney-imposed confidentiality instruction, and that the engineer cannot treat the absence of a structural safety claim in the pending litigation as a basis for withholding life-safety information from those at immediate risk.
Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness in adversarial litigation to conduct investigations and render opinions based solely on technical evidence and professional judgment — independent of the retaining party's litigation interests — including the ability to resist pressure to shade findings in favor of the retaining party, to report adverse findings completely, and to maintain the same objectivity standards as in non-adversarial professional contexts.
Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity in Adversarial Proceeding Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness in adversarial litigation to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as an advocate for the retaining party — and to resist any characterization, pressure, or structural expectation that would cause the engineer to adopt the partisan advocacy role characteristic of attorneys.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as an expert witness or technical reviewer in litigation or adversarial proceedings to render objective, technically grounded professional opinions based on independent analysis of the facts — functioning as an assistant to the trier of fact rather than as an advocate for any party — and to resist any characterization, pressure, or structural expectation that would cause the engineer to adopt the partisan advocacy role characteristic of attorneys, recognizing that engineers are not members of an institutionalized plaintiff's or defense bar and that their professional independence and autonomy must be preserved.
Forensic Pile Foundation Adequacy Assessment Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert to evaluate the load-carrying adequacy of driven pile foundations using multiple analytical methods — including skin friction area calculations, wave equation analysis, and pile driving record interpretation — and to correctly identify when piles driven to essential refusal satisfy design safety factor requirements, including understanding the significance of pile set-up strength gain over time and the role of plug formation in closed-end pipe piles, sufficient to render defensible expert opinions in civil litigation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical competence to evaluate the load-carrying adequacy of driven pile foundations using multiple analytical methods — including skin friction area calculations, wave equation analysis, and pile driving record interpretation — and to correctly identify when piles driven to essential refusal satisfy design safety factor requirements, including understanding the significance of pile set-up strength gain over time and the role of plug formation in closed-end pipe piles.
Forensic Report Active Litigation Reliance State
State in which a completed forensic engineering report has been submitted to a retaining attorney and is actively being relied upon in ongoing settlement negotiations or litigation proceedings — such that the report's conclusions have become embedded in the adversarial process and any correction or retraction would materially affect the proceeding's trajectory, creating heightened obligations on the engineer to ensure the report's accuracy and to promptly communicate any discovered deficiencies.
Forensic Report Alteration Victim Third-Party Direct Notification Obligation
Later Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected and noted in his signed and sealed report to be damaged by hurricanes.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed forensic or assessment reports have been altered without authorization and used to deny legitimate claims of third-party property owners or claimants to directly notify those affected third parties of the alteration, the engineer's original findings, and the basis for those findings — so that the third parties can pursue correction of the record, reinstatement of their claims, and any available legal remedies — recognizing that the property owners are the ultimate victims of the unauthorized alteration and have a direct interest in the engineer's original professional conclusions.
Forensic Report Error Discovering Engineer
Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, having completed a forensic investigation and submitted a written report to a retaining attorney during active litigation or settlement proceedings, subsequently discovers that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate, bearing obligations to promptly notify the retaining attorney of the error, correct the report, and ensure that inaccurate conclusions are not used to the detriment of any party or the integrity of the legal process — even when disclosure may be adverse to the retaining client's litigation position.
Forensic Report Integrity in Active Litigation Context
Engineer A is retained by Attorney X to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who provide forensic reports in litigation or settlement contexts to ensure the ongoing accuracy and integrity of those reports throughout the period in which they remain operative — including the obligation to disclose discovered inaccuracies to the retaining attorney and advocate for correction even when doing so may disadvantage the retaining party's litigation position, because the engineer's duty to truthful professional reporting is not subordinated by the adversarial interests of the retaining party.
Forensic Scope-Exceeding Structural Safety Discovery State
Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire
State in which an engineer engaged for a limited forensic purpose (e.g., fire origin and cause investigation) incidentally discovers a structural safety deficiency that falls outside the contracted scope of work, triggering broader public safety obligations that compete with the bounded client engagement.
Forensic Scope Boundary Non-Exculpation for Structural Safety Defect Constraint
Engineer A writes his report and identifies the design defect, and expresses his larger concern regarding the possibility that an inadequate structural member was used in other houses in the subdivision.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained for a specific forensic purpose (such as post-arson fire damage assessment) cannot invoke the contractual scope boundary as justification for omitting from the written report a structural safety defect independently discovered during the engagement — requiring that the engineer document and disclose the defect to the retaining client even when the defect falls outside the original scope of investigation, on the grounds that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety supersedes the contractual scope limitation.
[Case 132] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer retained for a specific forensic purpose (such as post-fire damage assessment) cannot invoke the contractual scope boundary as justification for omitting from the written report a structural safety defect independently discovered during the engagement — requiring that the engineer document and disclose the defect to the retaining client even when the defect falls outside the original scope of investigation, on the grounds that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety supersedes the contractual scope limitation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from invoking a contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting material evidence from a professional report or technical evaluation — establishing that when an engineer becomes aware of material facts bearing on the conclusions of a report, the contractual scope does not excuse the omission of those facts, and that the engineer's obligation to produce complete and non-misleading reports supersedes the contractual scope limitation.
Forensic Testing Methodological Consistency and Equipment Failure Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who supervises or reports on comparative forensic testing — intended to replicate or evaluate conditions from an original construction program — to use methods, equipment, and procedures that faithfully replicate the original conditions being evaluated, including use of the same hammer type, penetration depth requirements, and blow-count recording protocols; and to disclose in the resulting report any material deviations from original conditions (such as use of a vibratory hammer not used in original driving, pre-record hammer drops that break pile bond, and failure of dynamic test equipment) that would affect the validity or interpretation of the test results.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who designs or supervises a comparative testing program — intended to replicate or evaluate conditions from an original construction program — to use methods, equipment, and procedures that faithfully replicate the original conditions being evaluated, including use of the same hammer type, penetration depth requirements, and blow-count recording protocols, so that the test results are valid comparators; and to disclose in the resulting report any material deviations from original conditions that would affect the validity or interpretation of the test results.
Forensic Testing Methodological Replication Fidelity Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who designs or supervises comparative forensic testing — intended to replicate original construction conditions to evaluate pile adequacy or other engineering performance — to identify and replicate all material methodological parameters of the original work, including equipment type (hammer type), penetration depth requirements, and procedural sequence (avoiding pre-record hammer drops that break pile bond), and to recognize that deviations from original conditions invalidate comparative validity and must be disclosed in the concluding report.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who designs or supervises a comparative testing program — intended to replicate or evaluate original construction conditions — to identify and replicate all material methodological parameters of the original work, including equipment type, penetration depth requirements, and procedural sequence, and to recognize that deviations from original conditions (such as substituting a vibratory hammer for the original hammer type, failing to achieve the same penetration depth, or breaking pile bond before recording blow counts) invalidate the comparative validity of the test results and must be disclosed.
Foreseeable Illegal Third-Party Conduct Design Parameter Incorporation Constraint
It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation
Safety and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has personally observed that a legal restriction on infrastructure use is routinely violated by third parties — creating a foreseeable collision or impact hazard to workers on a structure the engineer is designing — must incorporate the foreseeable illegal use as a design parameter rather than designing solely to the legal restriction, prohibiting the engineer from treating the posted restriction as a complete safety basis for the design when actual observed conditions demonstrate that the restriction is not enforced and that commercial or prohibited vehicles regularly traverse the restricted route.
Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase State
It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
State in which a proposed engineering design — specifically an increase in hydraulic capacity of a tidal or fluvial crossing — is identified by the responsible engineer as likely to accelerate or exacerbate flood damage to upstream or downstream third-party properties under projected future conditions (including sea level rise and intensified storm events), where the harm is foreseeable based on professional hydraulic evaluation but has not yet been confirmed through specialized analysis, and where the affected third parties are identifiable residential property owners who have not been informed of the risk.
Formal Channel Requirement for Information Sharing in Public Procurement
Engineer D can advise that as-built drawings are available, but D should direct subcontractors to request them as part of the standard project process.
Professional principle requiring engineers employed by public agencies to share project-relevant information — including as-built drawings, site conditions, and technical data — only through formal, institutionally sanctioned processes rather than informal personal initiative, so that all prospective contractors receive equal access and no appearance of favoritism or impropriety is created
Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Obligation
if project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who believes that a project — defined in terms of its public safety objective rather than its technical completion — will not succeed in protecting the public from danger, to formally advise the client of that belief in writing, so that the client has clear notice that the engineer's professional judgment is that the project as currently planned will not achieve its safety purpose, and so that the engineer's faithful agent obligation is fully discharged through formal rather than informal communication.
Formal Credential Compliance Without Substantive Domain Competence State
local county ordinance requires that the position of county surveyor be filled by a P.E.
State in which a professional satisfies the literal credential requirement of a statute, ordinance, or regulation (e.g., holding a PE license) for a position or engagement, but lacks the domain-specific knowledge and experience that the credential requirement was intended to ensure. The formal compliance creates an appearance of qualification that masks a substantive competence gap, generating ethical tension between legal permissibility and professional ethical obligations regarding competence.
Formal Escalation Obligation Pending Presentation Failure State
However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.
State in which professional engineers have completed or are completing formal presentations of safety findings to a client and regulatory authority, but the governing body has not yet changed its plans, creating an anticipatory obligation to pursue further escalation beyond the formal presentations if those presentations fail to produce corrective action — given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety.
Formal Presentation Requirement for Safety Escalation
it appears that the state regulatory agency has been contacted; however, there should be a formal presentation of the facts, findings, and recommendations.
Professional principle requiring that when engineers escalate public health or safety concerns to regulatory authorities or clients after their engineering judgment has been overruled, such escalation must take the form of a formal, structured presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations — rather than informal or verbal communication — to ensure the record is clear, unambiguous, and actionable
[Case 137] Professional principle requiring that when engineers escalate public health or safety concerns to regulatory authorities or governing bodies after their engineering judgment has been overruled, such escalation must take the form of a formal, structured presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations — rather than informal or verbal communication — to ensure the record is clear, unambiguous, and actionable.
State in which a professional engineer who has transitioned to employment with an opposing party in an active proceeding has been formally isolated or recused from that specific case by their current employer, such that the structural conflict of interest is partially mitigated by organizational separation, though residual ethical obligations and knowledge-based concerns persist.
Formal Regulatory Presentation Supplementation of Informal Contact Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has made informal contact with a state regulatory agency regarding a public health or safety concern to supplement that informal contact with a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the regulatory authority, recognizing that informal contact alone is insufficient to discharge the professional obligation to report safety concerns to appropriate authorities and to satisfy the requirements of NSPE Code Section II.1.a.
Formal Reporting Obligation Discharge Sufficiency Recognition Obligation
If Engineer B has clearly communicated the public health and safety risks both to the client and the regulatory agency, the BER concludes that Engineer B has fulfilled the Code's ethical and professional obligations since Engineer B and ABC Engineers are no longer representing the MWC.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of the profession collectively — to recognize that clear, complete, and technically unambiguous notification of public health and safety risks to appropriate authorities constitutes full discharge of the engineer's formal professional ethical obligations, and that any subsequent advocacy steps beyond that threshold are a matter of personal choice rather than professional requirement, so that engineers are not held to an unlimited escalation duty that would extend professional obligations indefinitely beyond the formal reporting threshold.
Formal State and Federal Transportation Safety Presentation Capability
Several departments in the state and federal transportation departments needed to complete their reviews and tasks before the funds could be used.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to supplement informal contacts with state and federal transportation departments regarding bridge safety concerns with a formal, structured presentation of facts, findings, and safety recommendations — including requesting formal hearings or meetings and ensuring the regulatory record reflects the full scope of the safety concern — so that the professional reporting obligation is fully discharged and the regulatory record supports enforcement action.
Formal Written Project Failure Risk Advisory Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to formally advise a client in writing that, in the engineer's professional judgment, proceeding with a project without a recommended safety analysis or evaluation creates a material risk that the project will fail — including regulatory rejection, liability exposure, or inability to obtain permits — and to communicate this advisory with sufficient specificity and professional authority to enable the client to make a genuinely informed decision about whether to authorize the recommended work, distinct from the general risk communication obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who recommends a specialized safety analysis or risk evaluation to communicate to the client not only the public welfare rationale for the recommended analysis but also the specific professional, legal, regulatory, and project-outcome risks that the client assumes by refusing to authorize the recommended analysis — including risks of regulatory rejection, project failure, liability exposure, and reputational harm — so that the client can make a genuinely informed decision about whether to authorize the recommended work.
Formative Mentorship Ethical Integrity Obligation
Duty of a senior licensed professional engineer who supervises engineer interns or early-career engineers to recognize the heightened ethical responsibility that attaches to the supervisory relationship — specifically the duty to model ethical conduct, to refrain from directing subordinates to participate in policy-violating or ethically compromised work, and to avoid teaching, by example or instruction, that covert policy circumvention, indirect deceptive communication, or misuse of public funds are acceptable professional practices — recognizing that the lessons imparted during formative professional development have lasting effects on the subordinate's professional character and on the integrity of the profession.
Formative Mentorship Ethical Modeling Capability
Capability of a senior licensed professional engineer who supervises engineer interns or early-career engineers to recognize the formative professional impact of their own conduct on the ethical development of subordinates — including understanding that modeling policy circumvention, indirect directive communication, or benevolent rationalization of violations teaches those patterns to interns at the outset of their careers — and to conduct themselves in a manner that models ethical professional practice rather than rationalizing violations, regardless of the sympathetic circumstances.
Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation
Professional virtue principle recognizing that senior engineers who supervise engineer interns bear a heightened ethical responsibility to model ethical conduct, because the professional lessons imparted during formative early-career experiences shape the intern's professional character and future conduct — requiring senior engineers to recognize that directing interns to engage in or cooperate with unethical conduct causes compounded harm by corrupting professional formation in addition to the immediate ethical violation
Former-Client Solicitation Without Active-Contract Supplanting Permissibility Principle
Firm B promptly contacted the former clients of Firm A, including some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer or engineering firm that solicits former clients of a prior employer does not commit the ethical violation of 'supplanting' when those former clients have no active, executed contract with the prior employer — distinguishing between clients with whom specific selection or negotiation has not yet taken place (permissible solicitation target) and clients under active contractual engagement (impermissible supplanting target); the principle recognizes that free and open competition permits solicitation of uncontracted former clients while prohibiting displacement of engineers already formally engaged
Former Client Adversarial Participation Prohibition
Relational principle prohibiting engineers from participating in or representing an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer, without the consent of all interested parties — establishing that confidential specialized knowledge acquired in a prior professional relationship creates a bar to adverse participation even after the relationship ends
Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Constraint
Engineer A cannot disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and also the client.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from disclosing confidential information, participating in, or representing an adversarial interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer — unless and until the engineer first obtains the permission and consent of all interested parties, including the former employer and the former client, establishing that the absence of such consent operates as an absolute bar to participation regardless of the engineer's current employment obligations, as established by NSPE Code Section III.4 and the principle that specialized knowledge acquired in a prior engagement creates a residual duty of non-adversarial use.
Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer to refrain from participating in or representing an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding involving that knowledge unless and until the engineer has obtained the informed consent of all interested parties — including the former employer and the former client — recognizing that the confidential and trust-based nature of the prior engagement creates a continuing prohibition on adverse participation that can only be lifted by affirmative consent from those whose interests would be compromised.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a private firm to a public agency to honor ongoing loyalty obligations to their former private employer and clients — including refraining from disclosing confidential information, participating in adverse proceedings, or representing the public agency's interests against the former employer — unless the former employer and client have provided informed consent, particularly when the transition occurs during or shortly after active project work.
A stakeholder role borne by a former client of an engineer who becomes an adverse party in subsequent litigation or professional engagement, where the engineer is retained by an opposing party. The former client bears no current contractual relationship with the engineer but retains a residual interest in the engineer's professional independence and potential conflicts of interest arising from prior confidential work.
Former Client Competitor Engagement Awareness State
State in which an engineer becomes aware that a competitor firm has been retained by the engineer's former client for services in the engineer's jurisdiction, creating a condition where the aware engineer holds residual professional knowledge of the client's context and may have ethical interests (reporting obligations, competitive concerns, or professional courtesy duties) that intersect with the competitor's engagement.
Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Obligation
it must be recognized that, while an engineer may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, the engineer still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has terminated a professional relationship with a client or employer to continue protecting confidential information, documents, and facts obtained during that relationship — recognizing that the termination of the professional relationship does not extinguish the engineer's ongoing duty of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality toward the former client, and that the engineer cannot treat the end of the relationship as a license to use or disclose previously accessed confidential information.
Former Client Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional duties of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality to a former client persist after termination of the professional relationship — including the ability to assess how long those duties endure, to recognize that the duration question is fact-specific and not categorically resolved, and to apply a conservative standard that treats residual loyalty obligations as ongoing until clearly extinguished, consistent with BER Case 85-4 and the principle that termination of a relationship does not automatically terminate all ethical obligations arising from it.
Former Client No-Active-Contract Solicitation Permissibility Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer and forms a competing firm to recognize that soliciting former clients of the prior employer — where no active contract or specific selection/negotiation is underway — is ethically permissible under the free enterprise principle, and that such solicitation does not constitute improper supplanting of another engineer; the engineer must not be deterred from this permissible competitive activity by unfounded ethical objections from the former employer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has departed from an employer and established an independent competing firm to recognize that solicitation of the former employer's clients — including clients with whom the engineer had a strong working relationship during employment — is ethically permissible after a reasonable period, provided no no-compete agreement exists, no confidential information is exploited, and solicitation is conducted honestly and without disparagement of the former employer; the engineer must not treat the absence of a no-compete agreement as license to engage in deceptive or unfair competitive practices.
Former Client Now Retaining Competitor Stakeholder
A client stakeholder who previously retained one engineering firm and has since engaged a competing engineering firm for a new project, generating awareness of potential unlicensed practice and creating context for competitor reporting obligations.
Former Client Solicitation Target Stakeholder
the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A
A client who previously retained an engineering firm or engineer and who, following the departure of key engineers from that firm, is actively solicited by both the original firm and the newly formed competing firm, bearing no professional obligations but serving as the focal point of competing solicitation efforts and potentially receiving disparaging statements about one or both engineering parties.
Former Employer Capacity Predictive Disparagement Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has departed from a former employer from making predictive representations to the former employer's clients that the former employer will be unable to perform successfully on its existing projects — particularly when such predictions are based on staffing changes the departing engineer themselves caused or has knowledge of through insider access — establishing that predictive capacity disparagement constitutes an attempt to injure the professional reputation, prospects, and practice of the former employer through false or misleading forward-looking statements, and that such conduct violates NSPE Code Section III.7 prohibiting engineers from maliciously or falsely injuring the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers, regardless of whether the prediction is framed as a factual observation rather than an evaluative judgment.
Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement State
State in which a former employee actively solicits a former employer's clients by making false or misleading representations about the former employer's capacity to perform — specifically leveraging knowledge of internal personnel changes (e.g., a departing employee) to create doubt about the former employer's ability to deliver services, thereby combining competitive solicitation with reputational harm through misrepresentation.
Former Employer Confidentiality Obligated State Engineer
Engineer A clearly has an ongoing duty to honor his obligations both to his former employer and the private client
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer employed by a public agency is ethically required to remain isolated from agency proceedings that involve a former private employer or former private client, due to confidential knowledge and specialized information gained during prior private employment, bearing obligations to refrain from disclosure, participation, or representation of the state's adversarial interest without consent of all affected former parties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer transitions from private employment to a public agency position where the agency is an adversarial party to matters the engineer worked on in private practice, generating ongoing obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to the former private employer and client, and requiring isolation from related public agency proceedings.
Former Employer Employee Solicitation State
Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees, Engineer C, and offered her a position with Firm Y
State in which a former employee of a firm actively recruits current employees of that former employer to join a competing enterprise, creating a condition where the former employer's workforce stability and client service capacity are threatened by the departing professional's use of insider relationships and knowledge of personnel to build a competing practice.
Former Employer Loyalty Boundary in Public Role Obligation
Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a private firm to a public agency to honor ongoing loyalty obligations to their former private employer and clients — including refraining from disclosing confidential information, participating in adverse proceedings, or representing the public agency's interests against the former employer — unless the former employer and client have provided informed consent, particularly when the transition occurs during or shortly after active project work.
Former Employer Ongoing Duty Recognition Capability
The BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client.
Capability to recognize and honor ongoing professional loyalty and confidentiality duties owed to a former private employer and its clients after transitioning to a public agency role — including understanding that these duties may persist even after employment ends, that they may prohibit participation in proceedings adverse to the former employer without consent, and that they must be balanced against new public role obligations, drawing on BER Case 14-8 precedent.
Former Employer Part-Time Re-Engagement Solicitation State
State in which a current government employee is approached by a former private-sector employer to perform part-time consulting work in a domain adjacent to but structurally separate from their current public role, creating potential conflicts of interest arising from shared stakeholder relationships (e.g., municipalities) even when the specific subject-matter domains do not directly overlap.
Former Employer Proprietary Report Content Non-Exploitation in Independent Practice Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, during prior employment, developed proprietary reports, analyses, or technical work product for a client on behalf of the employer, to refrain from exploiting the specific content, data, methodologies, or client-specific information contained in that work product when subsequently competing for related contracts as an independent practitioner — recognizing that while the engineer's general professional knowledge and skills are freely portable, the specific confidential and proprietary content of employer-developed work product remains protected after departure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has terminated a professional relationship with a client or employer to continue protecting confidential information, documents, and facts obtained during that relationship — recognizing that the termination of the professional relationship does not extinguish the engineer's ongoing duty of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality toward the former client, and that the engineer cannot treat the end of the relationship as a license to use or disclose previously accessed confidential information.
Former Employer Proprietary Report Non-Exploitation in Competitive Solicitation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, during prior employment, developed proprietary reports, analyses, or technical work product for a client on behalf of the employer, to recognize that the specific confidential content, client-specific data, and proprietary methodologies contained in those reports may not be exploited as a competitive tool when independently soliciting the same client — including the ability to distinguish between general professional experience legitimately carried forward and specific proprietary report content that belongs to the former employer, and to conduct competitive solicitation without leveraging confidential employer work product.
Former Employer Re-Engagement Government Position Faithful Agent Non-Compromise Constraint
Engineer A is approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer currently employed by a governmental agency from accepting re-engagement with a former private-sector employer in a capacity that would compromise the engineer's faithful agent obligations to the current governmental employer — establishing that the prior employment relationship with the soliciting firm does not create an entitlement to accept the re-engagement, and that the engineer must evaluate the solicitation against the full scope of governmental duties, including grant administration, procurement oversight, and regulatory guideline dissemination, before concluding that acceptance is ethically permissible, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.2 and BER Cases 97-1 and 02-8.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint prohibiting or limiting a licensed professional engineer who previously held a public agency role with procurement or contract authority from immediately joining or representing private firms that conducted substantial business with that agency during their tenure, arising from the spirit of ethics codes requiring purity of enterprise and avoidance of dishonor to the profession, even in the absence of explicit contractual revolving door provisions.
Former Employer Soliciting Part-Time Airport Consultant
A private consulting engineering firm that previously employed a state DOT engineer and now solicits that engineer to perform part-time airport design consulting work for municipalities, where those municipalities interact with the engineer's current public employer through grant agreements, generating obligations related to conflict of interest, improper solicitation, and leveraging of governmental relationships.
Former Regulatory Access Adversarial Non-Participation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, during government agency employment, gained access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by a private company for regulatory approval, to refrain from participating — in any capacity — in activities at a subsequent private employer that are adverse to that submitting company's interests and that would exploit or be informed by the confidential information accessed during public service, recognizing that the prohibition on adverse participation extends beyond formal legal proceedings to include competitive engineering work that leverages regulatory submission knowledge.
Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Capability
The board may choose to rebuild/refurbish the fossil-fueled generator because it provides function and reliability at a lower cost than a solar production system with storage.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing an advisory report on energy system replacement to recognize and present the option of rebuilding, refurbishing, or retaining an existing fossil-fueled generation facility as a legitimate engineering alternative — including articulating its reliability advantages, cost profile, and public welfare implications — rather than treating the fossil fuel option as foreclosed by sustainability preferences, and to ensure that decision-makers have a complete comparative picture that includes this option alongside renewable alternatives.
Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer preparing an advisory report on an energy system replacement decision must present the option of retaining, rebuilding, or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled generation system as a legitimate and complete alternative — including its reliability advantages and cost profile — prohibiting the omission or dismissal of the fossil fuel retention option on the basis of sustainability preferences or stakeholder pressure, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to present all material alternatives extends to options that may be disfavored by stakeholders but that offer superior reliability or public welfare characteristics.
Fossil Fuel Reliability Retention Legitimate Option Presentation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing an advisory report on an energy system replacement decision to present the option of rebuilding or refurbishing the existing fossil-fueled generator as a legitimate and potentially welfare-consistent choice — not merely as a default or environmentally undesirable fallback — when the engineer's analysis has determined that the fossil-fueled system provides superior reliability at lower cost than the proposed renewable alternative with storage, and when that reliability differential has material public welfare implications, so that the board can make a genuinely informed choice among all viable options rather than being steered toward the renewable option by selective framing.
Fossil Fuel Reliability vs. Environmental Benefit Trade-Off Disclosure Obligation
Some may argue that continuing to operate a fossil-fueled generator is inconsistent with public health, safety, and welfare, while others will point to the increased reliability of the fossil-fueled generator as a demonstration of greater concern for public welfare
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers evaluating energy system replacement decisions to explicitly disclose the trade-off between the reliability advantages of fossil-fueled on-demand generation and the environmental benefits of renewable alternatives without storage, recognizing that both represent legitimate public welfare values — grid reliability (protecting vulnerable populations during extreme weather) and carbon footprint reduction (environmental stewardship) — and that the engineer must present both dimensions fully rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who identify a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability and grid reliability — to present both goods and their trade-offs fully and objectively to decision-makers, rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally in favor of one value, so that informed policy and project decisions can be made by the appropriate authority
Fraud and Misrepresentation Prohibition in Professional Justification
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer may not justify delivery of incomplete or deficient professional work products by asserting that supplemental funding from an external source (such as a federal grant) will cover the cost of completing or remedying the deficiency — recognizing that such an assertion, when used to excuse non-performance of contractual and professional obligations, borders on fraud and misrepresentation because it shifts responsibility for the engineer's professional failure onto a funding mechanism that was not intended to remedy professional incompleteness
Fraudulent Firm Disengagement Capability
Supervisor B takes the reports and thereafter sends them to the client, the property insurance company.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their employing firm — through the actions of a non-engineer principal or other party — has engaged in fraudulent conduct including unauthorized alteration and transmission of the engineer's sealed professional reports, to recognize the professional obligation to disengage from professional association with that firm, including the ability to assess when continued employment constitutes complicity in ongoing fraud, to identify the appropriate timing and manner of disengagement, and to take affirmative steps to separate professional identity from the fraudulent enterprise.
Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Boundary Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of engineering firm principals to recognize that an engineer's decision to depart from an employer and establish a competing firm — even when announced during a notice period — is a legitimate exercise of free enterprise rights that is not ethically proscribed, and to correctly distinguish between the permissible act of departure and competition (which cannot be ethically prohibited) and the manner of departure (which is subject to ethical constraints including honesty, faithful agent obligations, and non-misrepresentation), thereby avoiding the error of treating competitive departure itself as an ethical violation.
Free Enterprise Departure Right Non-Ethical-Proscription Recognition Obligation
It is not unusual for engineers, employed by others, at some point, to break off from their employer and go into business for themselves. This is a fundamental principle of this nation's free enterprise system and generally should not be discouraged. As a general matter, this practice raises no ethical issues for the BER's consideration
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics evaluators, to recognize that an engineer's decision to depart from an employer and establish an independent competing firm is a fundamental expression of the free enterprise system and raises no general ethical proscription under the NSPE Code — and that any ethical constraints on such departure must be grounded in specific Code provisions addressing confidential information, adversarial conduct, or promotional activities, rather than in a general presumption against competitive departure; the engineer must not be deterred from exercising this fundamental right by unfounded ethical concerns, and evaluators must not impose ethical constraints beyond those specifically established by the Code.
Free Service Business Development Boundary Capability
not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work
Capability to recognize when providing free or donated professional advisory services — whether in response to an informal solicitation or as a goodwill gesture — crosses the boundary into an impermissible offer of valuable consideration to secure work, including the ability to identify ethically permissible alternatives (such as referral to publicly available resources or neutral compiled analyses) that respond to the solicitation without constituting a self-serving donation of engineering services, consistent with NSPE Code prohibitions on offering gifts or valuable consideration to secure work.
Free Services Non-Exploitation for Business Development Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who provides free or donated professional services — whether in response to an informal solicitation or as a goodwill gesture — to refrain from structuring those free services as a vehicle for business development by delivering partial, self-serving analyses that favor the engineer's commercial interests, recognizing that the provision of free services does not diminish the ethical obligations of completeness, objectivity, and non-self-dealing that attach to all professional engineering advisory work.
Free Services as Contract Inducement Prohibition Constraint
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from providing free or uncompensated professional services — including advisory analyses, evaluations, or recommendations — as an implicit inducement to secure a future contract award from the recipient of those services, arising from NSPE Code Section II.5.b and the principle that offering free services to influence contract awards constitutes an improper attempt to secure work through means other than merit-based competition, and establishing that the provision of free services is permissible only when genuinely disinterested and not structured to create an obligation or expectation of future contract award.
Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State
free and open competition is a basic rule that generally exists under local, state, and federal laws and regulations
State in which the governing legal and regulatory environment at local, state, and/or federal levels affirmatively mandates free and open competition among engineering firms, such that professional conduct must be evaluated against both ethical obligations and the legal requirement to preserve competitive fairness — including the recognition that formerly restrictive professional code provisions (e.g., prohibitions on advertising or competitive bidding) have been removed to align with this framework, and that engineering practice occurs within a competitive marketplace subject to antitrust and procurement law.
Free and Open Competition Regulatory Deference Constraint
Ethical and legal constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer competing in a public procurement process must act in conformance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations governing free and open competition, and that the Board of Ethical Review is not positioned to second-guess or override those laws and regulations when an engineer has acted consistently with them — prohibiting the engineer from treating regulatory compliance as insufficient and requiring that competitive conduct be evaluated first against the legal framework within which engineering competition occurs, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that free and open competition is a basic rule existing under local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition
The practice of engineering is a business as well as a profession.
Fundamental principle recognizing that free and open competition is a basic legal and ethical rule governing engineering practice, and that while certain competitive practices are clearly beyond legal and ethical bounds, engineers must operate within a framework that respects competitive market access — including the removal of formerly anti-competitive provisions from ethics codes — while still maintaining professional integrity obligations that constrain how competition is conducted
Freedom of Information Act Legal Framework
State and federal statutory provisions granting the public and private parties the right to request and obtain government-held records and documents, including submissions made to public agencies during procurement processes, and the legal obligations of agencies to disclose such records upon request.
Freeze Risk Fire Suppression System Technical Assessment Capability
Engineer A, who happens to have both structural and fire protection credentials
Technical capability in fire protection engineering to assess whether a wet-pipe sprinkler system installation routes piping through spaces exposed to freezing temperatures — including unheated garages, attics, crawl spaces, or exterior walls — in violation of applicable fire protection codes and standards (such as NFPA 13D), and to correctly identify such routing as creating a freeze risk that would render the sprinkler system inoperable during a fire event when temperatures drop below freezing, thereby defeating the life-safety purpose of the system.
Freeze Risk Sprinkler System Safety Escalation Obligation
City passes an ordinance requiring a sprinkler system in residences with less than eight feet between them and makes the ordinance effective as to all construction which has not yet received an occupancy permit.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer with fire protection credentials who observes that a retrofitted wet-pipe sprinkler system has been installed with piping routed through an unheated space — creating a foreseeable freeze risk that would render the system inoperable or cause pipe failure — to escalate that safety concern beyond the property owner to the local building authority or fire marshal when the deficiency is not promptly corrected, recognizing that a non-functional or burst sprinkler system poses imminent risk to life safety.
Friendship-Based Non-Reporting Rationalization State
State in which a licensed professional engineer who has discovered peer misconduct or impaired practice considers personal friendship with the violating engineer as a potential ethical justification for non-reporting or delayed reporting, creating tension between personal loyalty and the unambiguous professional obligation to report violations to appropriate authorities — while also raising the question of whether friendship-sensitive reporting pathways (e.g., private cooperative disclosure) can satisfy the reporting obligation without unnecessarily injuring the peer's professional standing.
Friendship-Constrained Reporting Pathway Navigation Capability
Capability to identify and navigate reporting pathways that simultaneously fulfill mandatory professional obligations to report ethical and legal violations to appropriate authorities and respect the professional reputation and personal relationship of the offending engineer — including the ability to identify cooperative, non-malicious reporting approaches such as private discussion with state board authorities with the offending engineer's knowledge and approval, and to distinguish between ethically permissible compassionate approaches and ethically impermissible concealment or blind-eye conduct.
Friendship Non-Justification for Non-Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has knowledge of another engineer's unethical or unlawful practice to report that practice to the appropriate professional body and public authorities, recognizing that personal friendship, compassion, or loyalty to the offending engineer does not constitute an ethical justification for failing to report — and that the obligation to report is not diminished by the closeness of the personal relationship, even when the reporting engineer may exercise discretion in how the report is made consistent with collegial respect.
Friendship Non-Reporting Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from substituting personal friendship, compassion, or private confrontation for the mandatory obligation to report a peer licensee's violations — including impaired practice, inadequate supervision, and public safety risks — to the State Board, establishing that the strength of personal relationship does not diminish the reporting obligation and that private disclosure to the offending licensee does not discharge the formal regulatory reporting duty.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has direct, personal knowledge that a peer licensee is practicing while medically impaired — and whose impaired practice has caused or is likely to cause harm to public safety — must report that licensee to the State Board of Engineering, prohibiting non-reporting rationalized by personal friendship, sympathy for the impaired licensee's financial circumstances, or private confrontation as a substitute for formal regulatory notification, as established by NSPE Code provisions and BER case precedent establishing that public safety obligations supersede personal loyalty.
Frightening Bridge Movement Immediate Written Safety Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who personally observes alarming behavioral indicators of structural distress in a reopened bridge — such as frightening deck movement under live traffic — to immediately document that observation in writing and escalate the written safety concern to supervisory and governing authorities, recognizing that personal observation of such movement constitutes a new and independent safety trigger requiring immediate written action beyond any prior verbal or informal notification.
Frightening Bridge Movement Immediate Written Safety Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who personally observes that a reopened bridge exhibits frightening movement under traffic loads — particularly when that bridge was previously condemned, remediated without licensed engineering inspection, and is subject to systematic weight-limit violations — to immediately document the observed movement in writing and escalate that written safety concern to supervisory authorities, the county commission, and state and federal transportation officials, rather than merely observing the ongoing risk.
Full-Service Contract Complete Design Delivery Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained under a full-service engineering design contract — as distinguished from design-build contracts, construction contracts with design delegation clauses, or contracts specifying partial design completion — to deliver a complete set of design drawings and specifications adequate for construction, recognizing that the full-service contract scope requires complete design delivery and that partial delivery without disclosure constitutes a breach of both contractual and professional ethical obligations regardless of schedule pressure, funding assumptions, or the engineer's expectation that others will complete the work.
Full Circumstance Disclosure Conditional Defense Activation Constraint
the Board would note that if Engineer A had fully disclosed the full circumstances relating to Engineer C, the Board's conclusion would have been different.
Defeasible ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who makes statements during a business negotiation that would otherwise be characterized as misleading or deceptive may avoid an adverse ethical finding if and only if the engineer fully discloses all material circumstances surrounding the subject matter of those statements — including the current and definitive status of any third parties referenced — establishing that full disclosure of all relevant circumstances operates as a conditional defense that can transform an otherwise misleading statement into a permissible one, and that the failure to make such full disclosure forecloses this defense and renders the misleading statement an ethical violation, as established by NSPE Board of Ethical Review analysis in the present case.
Full Circumstance Disclosure Conditional Defense Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that full and complete disclosure of all relevant circumstances — including facts that might undermine the engineer's negotiating position or business interests — would constitute a complete defense to an ethics violation charge, and to understand that the failure to make such full disclosure is precisely what transforms otherwise permissible negotiation conduct into an ethical violation, drawing on the BER's explicit statement that full disclosure of Engineer C's circumstances would have changed the Board's conclusion.
Full Circumstance Disclosure in Professional Negotiations Obligation
Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as a negotiator or representative in professional business transactions — including firm acquisitions, contract negotiations, or partnership arrangements — to disclose the full and accurate circumstances underlying any factual representation made to the counterparty, including the current status of any third-party interest, offer, or condition referenced in support of a negotiating position, so that the counterparty can make decisions based on complete and accurate information rather than on a misleading partial account.
Full Disclosure as Conditional Ethical Defense Principle
Professional ethics principle establishing that an engineer who makes a statement that would otherwise be misleading or ethically impermissible may avoid ethical censure if the engineer fully discloses all material circumstances surrounding the statement to the affected party at the time of the communication; the ethical violation is cured not by the literal accuracy of the statement but by the completeness of the surrounding disclosure that enables the recipient to form an accurate understanding of the true state of affairs; conversely, the failure to make such full disclosure when it was available and would have been material is itself an independent ethical deficiency
Full Professional Responsibility Assumption Upon Sealing Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents — whether personally prepared or prepared by supervised personnel using CADD or other systems — assumes full professional responsibility for the entire work product upon sealing, and cannot subsequently disclaim, limit, or transfer that responsibility on the basis that the documents were produced by a technological system or by supervised subordinates; the act of sealing is an unconditional acceptance of professional accountability for the technical integrity, accuracy, and completeness of the sealed work.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has affixed their seal to a technical document retains ongoing professional accountability for the technical integrity of that document — prohibiting the engineer from abandoning, disavowing, or refusing to stand behind the work product solely on the basis of subsequent employment changes, while simultaneously requiring that any support for the stamped work be rendered in a manner consistent with the engineer's conflict of interest obligations arising from the new employment context.
Full Responsibility Assumption Upon CADD Document Sealing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents produced using CADD systems — whether personally prepared or prepared by supervised personnel — to assume full professional responsibility for the entire work product upon affixing the seal, recognizing that the act of sealing constitutes an unqualified professional certification of the document's technical adequacy, accuracy, and compliance, and that the engineer cannot disclaim responsibility for any portion of the sealed work on the grounds that it was generated by a CADD system, prepared by subordinate personnel, or produced through automated processes.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has affixed their seal to a technical document — such as a water-rights analysis — to maintain ongoing professional accountability for the technical integrity of that work product even after departing the firm that produced it, recognizing that the professional seal creates a continuing bond of responsibility that does not terminate upon resignation or change of employment, and that the engineer may be called upon to stand behind, explain, or defend the technical content of the sealed work in subsequent legal or regulatory proceedings.
Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Pressure-Abrogation Recognition and Resistance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that bowing to public pressure (community petitions, rallies, political advocacy) or employment situations (supervisory override, job loss risk) when the engineer believes great dangers to public health and safety are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility and obligation, and to actively resist such abrogation by maintaining the safety determination and pursuing all available escalation pathways.
Fundamental Redesign Full Design Accountability Assumption Capability
We are troubled by Engineer B's failure to acknowledge responsibility for the full design by notations on the drawings.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who makes fundamental changes to core elements of another engineer's design to recognize that such fundamental modifications create professional accountability for the entire integrated design — not merely for the discrete changes made — because modifications to core design elements may have cascading impacts on the efficacy and integrity of the whole project, and that limiting accountability only to the specific changes made while leaving the original engineer's seal intact on the remainder constitutes a failure to acknowledge the full scope of professional responsibility assumed through fundamental redesign.
Fundamental Redesign Full Design Accountability Assumption Obligation
we are troubled by Engineer B's failure to acknowledge responsibility for the full design by notations on the drawings. (See Section III.9.)
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who makes fundamental changes to core elements of another engineer's design — such as grading plans, housing pad elevations, street routing, storm drain systems, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities — to acknowledge and assume professional accountability for the entire integrated design, not merely for the discrete modifications made, recognizing that fundamental changes to core design elements have cascading impacts on the efficacy and integrity of the whole project, and that an engineer who makes such changes cannot ethically limit their professional responsibility to only the specific items they altered while leaving the original engineer's seal to certify the remainder, because the integrated design is no longer the original engineer's work.
Fundamental Redesign Whole-Project Accountability Assumption Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who makes fundamental changes to core elements of a predecessor engineer's design — changes that have an overall impact upon the efficacy and integrity of the entire project — must acknowledge and assume professional accountability for the entire integrated design, not merely for the discrete modifications made; prohibiting the successor engineer from taking the position that responsibility is limited only to the specific changes made while leaving the predecessor's seal and the predecessor's design elements unaccounted for, because fundamental redesign creates interdependencies that make partial responsibility claims professionally and ethically insufficient under NSPE Code Section III.9.
Funding Agency Regulatory Constraint Knowledge Capability
Capability to identify, understand, and accurately represent all regulatory constraints imposed by a specific funding agency on project delivery method selection — including constraints on which delivery methods are approved, conditions attached to specific methods (such as the requirement that CM-at-Risk and Engineer of Record be distinct entities), and any other funding-source-specific requirements — and to incorporate this complete regulatory picture into advisory analyses provided to clients who are subject to those constraints.
Funding Source Non-Determinative of Ethical Obligation
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's ethical obligations — including the duty to deliver complete, accurate, and buildable design documents — are not diminished or modified by the engineer's belief or assumption that cost overruns or deficiencies will be covered by a particular funding source (e.g., federal grants rather than local funds), because the source of remediation funding is irrelevant to the engineer's duty to deliver competent and complete professional work
Funding Source Non-Excuse for Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the principle that a belief or assumption that a particular funding source (such as federal grant funds) will absorb any cost overruns or remediation costs resulting from incomplete or deficient design documents does not constitute an ethical justification for delivering those documents without disclosing their incompleteness — and to refrain from rationalizing non-disclosure on the grounds that downstream financial consequences will fall on a non-local or non-client funding party rather than on the immediate client.
Funding Source Rationalization Non-Excuse Deliverable Completeness Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that an assumption or belief that a particular funding source (e.g., federal grants) will absorb cost overruns resulting from incomplete or inadequate design documents does not constitute a valid professional justification for delivering those documents without disclosing their incompleteness to the client, and to correctly apply the principle that professional disclosure obligations are independent of anticipated cost-recovery mechanisms.
Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable Energy System Deployment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified unresolved public safety concerns about a proposed energy system — specifically, that the system lacks storage capacity, cannot guarantee continuous supply during grid stress events, and may increase rolling blackout probability — to recommend that further study be conducted before the system is deployed, by analogy to the BER 16-5 autonomous vehicle precedent, and to communicate this recommendation clearly and unambiguously to decision-makers as a professional obligation rather than a discretionary suggestion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a team developing an autonomous vehicle operating system to fully and actively participate in the engineering risk management process for harm minimization — including clearly and unambiguously expressing concerns regarding the safety of the operating system, contributing to the deliberation about harm minimization outcomes in unavoidable crash scenarios, and recommending further study before the operating system is deployed when safety concerns remain unresolved.
Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable Energy System Deployment Obligation
The conclusions in Case 16-5 suggest the engineer fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team and express clearly and unambiguously concerns regarding safety of the operating system.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified unresolved public safety concerns about a proposed energy system replacement — specifically that the system without storage will decrease grid reliability and increase rolling blackout probability — to recommend, as part of the board report and advisory process, that further study be conducted before the solar-without-storage system is deployed, by analogy to the BER 16-5 obligation of an autonomous vehicle engineer to recommend further study before an operating system with unresolved safety concerns is utilized, so that the board can make a fully informed decision with the benefit of additional technical analysis rather than proceeding on incomplete safety data.
Further Study Recommendation Before Unreliable System Deployment Constraint
The BER also suggested that, if necessary, the engineer recommend further study before the operating system is utilized
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified unresolved public safety concerns about a proposed system — including concerns about reliability gaps, systemic grid stress, or harm to vulnerable populations — must recommend further study before the system is deployed or approved for deployment, prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about the need for additional analysis when identified safety concerns have not been adequately resolved, as established by BER Case 16-5 (autonomous vehicle operating system) and BER Case 20-4 (municipal water system), and the principle that engineers must hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare.
General-Only Competitor Response Boundary Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has been solicited by a client or procurement authority to evaluate or comment on a competitor's work — and who cannot fully decline without creating a client relationship problem — must strictly limit any response to general engineering principles, general observations about the type of work involved, or general professional standards, and must affirmatively refrain from offering specific critical opinions about the incumbent engineer's particular decisions, methods, or professional judgment, prohibiting the use of general response permission as a license to provide substantive specific critique under the guise of general commentary.
General-Only Response Limitation When Solicited as Competitor Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been solicited by a client or administrator to evaluate or comment on another engineer's work — when the solicited engineer is a competitor for future work with that client and lacks full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances — to limit any response to general observations only, refraining from specific critical opinions about the incumbent's decisions, methods, or professional judgment, so as to avoid improper competitive advantage and potential injury to the incumbent's professional reputation.
General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Sealing Authorization Constraint
By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses.
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's practice of providing general direction — including establishing design concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing progress elements, and answering technical questions — does not satisfy the direction-and-control standard required for responsible charge and does not authorize the engineer to affix their professional seal to plans prepared by others under such general direction; responsible charge requires a level of involvement beyond conceptual and consultative engagement, demanding substantive technical review of the work product itself.
General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Sealing Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the distinction between general direction and supervision — defined as involvement in establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing elements of design, and answering technical questions — and the responsible charge standard required as a prerequisite for sealing engineering documents — defined as direct control and personal supervision including detailed review of the work product — and to refrain from sealing documents on the basis of general direction alone, without the additional detailed review that elevates general supervision to responsible charge.
General Direction vs Responsible Charge Substantive Distinction Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who serves as chief engineer or senior supervisor to correctly distinguish between 'general direction and supervision' — which involves establishing concepts, setting design requirements, and reviewing design progress at a high level — and the substantive 'responsible charge' standard required before affixing a professional seal, which demands a detailed review and check of the actual plans; including the ability to recognize that the former does not satisfy the latter and that sealing plans based solely on general direction constitutes a violation of professional engineering ethics and law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents prepared by other personnel using a CADD system to correctly calibrate what level of direction, control, and review satisfies the responsible charge standard — recognizing that the engineer need not personally prepare every document, but must check and review the work in some detail, establish design concepts and requirements, respond to technical questions, and monitor design progress — and to distinguish this workable standard from both the overly strict requirement of personal preparation and the insufficiently rigorous standard of mere general supervision without detailed review.
General PE Licensure Universal Practice Non-Authorization Constraint
NSPE has been supportive of the concept that a qualified individual engineer, regardless of his or her particular area of technical discipline, should be licensed as a 'professional engineer'.
Foundational ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a professional engineer's general PE license — regardless of the discipline in which it was obtained — does not authorize unrestricted practice in all areas within the broad practice of engineering, requiring instead that engineers exercise careful professional judgment and practice solely within their demonstrated area(s) of competency, and prohibiting engineers from interpreting general licensure as a blanket authorization to offer or perform services in technical domains where they lack substantive education and experience, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and the Board's longstanding interpretation across BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 94-8.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint established by ethics code provisions limiting the scope of engineering practice to those holding appropriate licensure and qualifications, prohibiting unlicensed individuals from performing acts constituting the practice of engineering regardless of institutional title or authority.
General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review State
Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design
State in which a licensed engineer in responsible charge provides only high-level conceptual direction and consultative input — establishing design concepts, reviewing progress elements, and answering technical questions — without conducting a sufficiently detailed check or review of the actual design work being sealed. The engineer relies on confidence in subordinates' abilities rather than personal verification of design adequacy.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer has affixed their seal or signature to plans or documents without having maintained responsible charge as defined by licensure law — specifically, without being actively engaged in the engineering process from conception to completion, without providing supervisory direction and control over the design development process, and without conducting an experience-based quality assurance review — resulting in a violation of professional licensure obligations.
Genuine Competence Minimum Threshold Permissible Emphasis Constraint
In this case, however, Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical area of the employment, even though he strongly emphasized its extent and level.
Defeasible ethical constraint establishing that selective emphasis of a particular area of professional experience on a resume or employment application is permissible only if the engineer possesses at least some genuine, truthfully demonstrable competence in the area being emphasized — prohibiting emphasis that is entirely disconnected from any actual experience or competence, while permitting strong emphasis of minor but real qualifications; establishing that the minimum threshold for permissible emphasis is the ability to 'truthfully show some degree of competence' in the emphasized area, even if the extent and level of that competence is strongly emphasized beyond its actual proportion; distinguishing this minimum-competence threshold from the higher standard of proportional accuracy required to avoid misrepresentation of experience balance.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Defeasible ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who rewrites or restructures a resume to emphasize certain experience and de-emphasize other experience does not violate the duty of non-deception provided the emphasis does not cross into exaggeration or misrepresentation — permitting selective emphasis as an accepted form of professional self-presentation analogous to sales technique, but prohibiting any framing that would deceive a prospective employer about the engineer's actual competence to perform the responsibilities being sought, as established by NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness and non-deception and BER Case No. 72-11, which held that the purpose of the non-deception provision in the resume context is to protect prospective employers from being deceived about an applicant's competence for important engineering decisions.
Genuine Competence Prerequisite for Permissible Resume Emphasis Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who emphasizes a particular area of experience or competence on a resume to ensure that the emphasized competence is genuinely possessed to at least some degree — recognizing that selective emphasis of real, if minor, qualifications falls within the permissible zone of professional self-presentation, while emphasis of competence the engineer does not actually possess in any meaningful degree crosses into prohibited misrepresentation. The obligation requires that before strongly emphasizing a qualification area on a resume, the engineer must be able to truthfully assert some actual experience or competence in that area, even if the experience is limited relative to other areas of the engineer's background. Emphasis without any genuine underlying competence constitutes fabrication rather than permissible emphasis.
Genuine Project Withdrawal Non-Substitution by Responsibility Disclaimer Obligation
Nor do we believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who determines that a public safety danger exists and that the client or employer refuses to take corrective action, to effect a genuine withdrawal from further service on the project — meaning cessation of all professional involvement — rather than merely disclaiming or 'assuming no responsibility' for a particular component while continuing to serve in a related capacity; recognizing that a unilateral internal declaration of non-responsibility does not constitute the ethical withdrawal required by the NSPE Code when public safety is endangered.
Genuine Underlying Competence Condoning Condition Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has selectively emphasized a particular area of experience on a resume to assess whether the condoning condition for permissible emphasis is satisfied — specifically, whether the engineer can truthfully demonstrate some genuine, if limited, degree of competence in the emphasized area, such that the emphasis does not constitute a complete fabrication but rather an amplification of real, existing qualifications; and to recognize that the absence of any genuine underlying competence in the emphasized area would transform permissible emphasis into impermissible exaggeration or deliberate untruth, thereby crossing the ethical threshold established by the code.
Genuine Withdrawal vs Responsibility Disclaimer Distinction Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who determines that a public safety danger exists and that the client or employer will not act on it to correctly distinguish between (a) a genuine withdrawal from further service on the project — which satisfies the ethical obligation to disengage from a dangerous situation — and (b) a mere declaration that the engineer assumes no responsibility for the project, which does not constitute genuine withdrawal and does not discharge the professional obligation, leaving the engineer still ethically implicated in the ongoing dangerous situation.
Gift-Conditioning Contract Award Government Official
Roe is advised by a high-ranking government official of that country that it is established practice for those awarded contracts to make personal gifts to the governmental officials who are authorized to award the contracts
A non-engineer governmental authority role borne by a high-ranking public official in a foreign country who conditions the award of engineering contracts and ongoing cooperation on the receipt of personal gifts from the contracting firm, where such practice is locally legal but raises professional ethics concerns for the engineer under codes such as NSPE.
Gift-Conditioning Foreign Government Contract Authority
there is here no pretense about the intention of the foreign government officials
A non-engineer governmental authority role borne by a foreign government official who conditions the award of engineering or construction contracts on the receipt of personal gifts or payments from the contracting firm, where such practice is legally permitted and culturally accepted in the host country but constitutes an ethical violation for the engineer under NSPE Code Section 11b.
Gift-Offering Foreign Contract Seeking Engineer
the gifts are a direct consideration for securing the work
A professional engineering role borne by a US-based engineer or engineering firm that is pursuing contract work in a foreign country where local laws and customs permit or expect the giving of gifts or payments to government officials as a condition of securing contracts. This role generates a direct ethical conflict between local legal permissibility and the NSPE prohibition on offering gifts or commissions to secure work, regardless of jurisdiction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or engineering firm provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments across international jurisdictions, bearing obligations under their professional code of ethics (e.g., NSPE) that may conflict with the laws or business practices of their home country or the host country, including prohibitions on improper payments or inducements to public officials regardless of local legal permissibility.
Gift-as-Contract-Inducement Confirmed State
there is no question under the factual situation that the gifts are a direct consideration for securing the work
State in which the transactional nature of a gift or payment to a government official is unambiguous — the gift is explicitly and directly conditioned on securing professional work, with no pretense of social custom or friendship. This state activates the clearest tier of gift-prohibition obligations because intent to influence is not merely inferred but openly acknowledged by the parties involved. It eliminates the 'good taste' ambiguity test applicable to token gifts and triggers an absolute prohibition under professional ethics codes.
Gift Ambiguity Threshold Determination State
the question of when a gift is intended to or becomes an inducement to influence one's impartial decision, as distinguished from an expression of friendship or a social custom, has remained a perplexing one over the years
State in which the ethical permissibility of a gift or benefit is uncertain because it falls in the ambiguous zone between token social custom and impermissible inducement. This state requires application of a 'reasonable person' good-taste criterion to assess whether the gift raises suspicion of favoritism or places the recipient in a position of obligation. The state is characterized by the need for case-by-case judgment calibrated to gift size, relationship context, and social norms, and is distinct from the confirmed-inducement state where no ambiguity exists.
Gift Inducement Contextual Threshold Calibration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to apply a contextual 'reasonable men' standard to assess whether a proposed gift crosses the threshold from a socially acceptable token of appreciation into an improper inducement intended to influence independent professional judgment — including the ability to weigh gift size relative to circumstances, distinguish token gifts (desk calendars, cigars, occasional meals) from substantial cash payments or expensive property, and apply the principle that the giving or acceptance of a benefit must be a matter of 'good taste' such that reasonable men would not infer favoritism or ulterior motive.
Gift Inducement Reasonable-Men Contextual Threshold Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics review bodies — to apply a contextual 'reasonable men' standard when assessing whether a gift or benefit constitutes a prohibited inducement to influence impartial professional judgment, evaluating the size of the gift relative to circumstances, the relationship between donor and donee, and whether the gift would raise suspicions of favoritism among reasonable persons, rather than applying a blanket rule that either prohibits all gifts or permits all gifts regardless of context.
Gift Inducement Reasonable-Men Contextual Threshold Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the permissibility of a gift or benefit in a professional engineering context must be assessed against a 'reasonable men' contextual standard — asking whether, from the circumstances, reasonable persons might infer that the gift is intended to or will influence the recipient's independent professional judgment, and whether the giving or acceptance of the benefit is a matter of 'good taste' such that it does not raise suspicions of favoritism — prohibiting gifts that, by their size, nature, or transactional context, would lead reasonable observers to infer an ulterior motive, as established by BER Case 60-9 and reaffirmed in the present case, and establishing that token gifts (desk calendars, cigars, occasional business meals) may be permissible while cash payments and expensive gifts to those in a position to influence decisions are categorically impermissible.
Gift Inducement Threshold Contextual Assessment Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that whether a gift or benefit constitutes a prohibited inducement to influence professional judgment — as opposed to a permissible social courtesy — must be assessed contextually using a 'reasonable men' standard that considers the size of the gift relative to circumstances, the relationship between donor and donee, the timing and purpose of the gift, and whether the gift raises a reasonable suspicion of favoritism or obligation, because no blanket rule can mechanically resolve all cases and the operative criterion is whether the gift is of a nature that reasonable persons would regard as placing the recipient in a position of obligation or creating an appearance of improper influence
Global Engineering Ethics Uniform Standard Institutional Advocacy Capability
the BER firmly believes that it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members (See Code Section III.8.a.).
Capability of a professional engineering society, ethics board, or individual engineer to recognize and articulate the institutional imperative of applying uniform ethics standards to all members regardless of national origin, residency, or practice jurisdiction — including the ability to identify the reputational, professional, and public welfare consequences of applying differential ethics standards to different member classes, and to advocate for the position that uniform high standards are necessary for the NSPE Code of Ethics to gain increased meaning and application in the period of heightened global engineering practice.
Going-Along Prohibition After Client Safety Refusal Obligation
The Board noted that the engineer acceded to the client's wishes and proceeded with the work despite the fact that the engineer believed that to proceed without an on-site project representative would be potentially dangerous. The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a genuine public safety concern and whose client has refused to take remedial action to refrain from 'going along' — proceeding with the professional engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation — recognizing that silent continuation of work after a client's safety refusal constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from any failure to report, because the engineer's paramount public welfare obligation requires active insistence and, if necessary, project withdrawal rather than passive acquiescence that implicitly endorses the client's unsafe decision.
Going-Along Prohibition When Safety Concerns Are Real
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer has identified a genuine public safety concern and that concern has been rejected or ignored by the client or employer, the engineer is ethically prohibited from simply 'going along' — proceeding with the work without dissent, insistence, or escalation — because passive continuation in the face of known safety risk constitutes independent ethical non-compliance, regardless of whether the engineer verbally noted the concern.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle establishing that an engineer who discovers safety violations or hazardous conditions, informs the client, and then proceeds passively without insisting on remedial action or withdrawing from the project commits an independent ethical violation — distinct from any failure to notify — because the ethics code's use of the term 'paramount' to describe the public safety obligation requires active insistence, not mere mention, and passive acquiescence after notification is itself a form of ethical non-compliance.
Going-Along Without Dissent Independent Ethical Violation Self-Recognition Capability
the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a genuine public safety concern — and whose client has refused to take corrective action — to recognize that proceeding with the professional engagement without dissent, comment, or escalation constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from and in addition to any failure to report to public authorities, and to correctly understand that 'going along' by continuing to work on the project after the client's safety refusal is itself a violation of the NSPE Code, not merely a missed opportunity to do more.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified safety code violations or hazardous conditions to recognize that going along without dissent or comment — including making only a brief mention in a confidential report — does not satisfy the professional ethical obligation, and that passive acquiescence to a known safety violation constitutes an independent ethical failure separate from and in addition to any failure to report to public authorities, requiring the engineer to affirmatively insist on corrective action or withdraw from the engagement.
Going-Along Without Dissent Safety Violation Independent Ethical Prohibition Constraint
The engineer did not force the issue or insist that a project representative be hired. Instead, the engineer 'went along' without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine public safety concern — and whose client refuses to take corrective action — commits an independent ethical violation by 'going along' with the client's refusal without dissent, comment, insistence, or withdrawal; prohibiting the engineer from treating silent continuation of professional services as an ethically neutral response to a client's rejection of a safety-protective measure, and establishing that the engineer must either insist that the client take corrective action or refuse to continue work on the project — with passive non-objection constituting an independent ethical failure distinct from any failure to report to external authorities, as established by BER Case 84-5 and applied by analogy in the present case.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of safety code violations or hazardous conditions during professional services commits an independent ethical violation by passively acquiescing — going along without dissent or comment — rather than actively insisting that the client take appropriate corrective action or refusing to continue work on the project, establishing that passive non-objection in the face of known safety violations is itself an ethical failure distinct from and in addition to any failure to report to external authorities, and that the engineer's ethical obligation requires active insistence rather than silent compliance.
Good-Faith Transparency Motive Confidentiality Violation State
we read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive
State in which an engineer commits a confidentiality violation against a client's proprietary interest not from self-interest, malice, or deliberate wrongdoing, but from a sincere professional belief that all interested parties should have equal access to factual findings — reflecting the engineering profession's general ethos of openness and transparency — creating a mitigating ethical context in which the violation is still found to be incorrect but the engineer is substantially exonerated of deliberate or substantial wrongdoing, with the ethical analysis distinguishing motive from outcome.
Good Faith General Safety Concern Public Hearing Participation Obligation
If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who holds a good faith belief — even without confirmed incidents, specific demonstrable defects, or completed quantitative analysis — that a product or system raises unique public safety concerns not captured by existing standards, to bring those concerns to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, including by participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing, provided the engineer: (1) possesses technical competence in the relevant area; (2) testifies objectively and truthfully; and (3) does not disclose confidential or proprietary employer information.
Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Principle
Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that for purposes of evaluating whether an engineer's public welfare advocacy activities are ethically sanctioned by the code, it is sufficient that the engineer sincerely believes those activities serve the public interest and acts in good faith — the ethics analysis does not require adjudication of whether the engineer's technical opinions or advocacy positions are objectively correct, because the professional obligation to seek constructive service in civic affairs is triggered by sincere public welfare motivation, not by verified technical accuracy of the advocacy position.
Good Faith Safety Concern Objective Testimony Constraint
Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who participates as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing — based on a good faith belief that a product raises safety concerns — must testify in an objective and truthful manner, prohibiting advocacy, overstatement of certainty, or presentation of unconfirmed concerns as established findings, and establishing that the engineer's testimony must be grounded in technical competence and honest professional judgment rather than adversarial positioning against the former employer.
Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's obligation to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmental authorities is triggered by a good faith belief — grounded in professional judgment — that a product or system raises genuine public safety concerns, even in the absence of confirmed incidents, demonstrated failures, or applicable regulatory standards, and that such good faith belief is sufficient to justify and require reporting to governmental authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
[Case 137] Professional principle establishing that an engineer's obligation to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmental authorities is triggered by a good faith belief — grounded in professional judgment — that a structure or system raises genuine public safety concerns, even in the absence of confirmed incidents or regulatory standards requiring reporting.
[Case 150] Professional principle establishing that an engineer's obligation to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmental authorities is triggered by a good faith belief — grounded in professional judgment — that a product or system raises genuine public safety concerns, even in the absence of confirmed incidents, demonstrated failures, or applicable regulatory standards, and that such good faith belief is sufficient to justify and require reporting to governmental authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis.
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who holds a sincere, good-faith belief that a product raises safety concerns — but where standard safety testing has been completed and demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters, and no applicable governmental or industry standards specifically address the product — is constrained in the scope and form of external escalation permissible, requiring that the engineer distinguish between a confirmed safety violation (which triggers mandatory external reporting) and a good-faith professional concern without demonstrable violation (which permits but does not mandate external testimony), and prohibiting the engineer from overstating the certainty or severity of unconfirmed concerns in public testimony.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer's assessment of a material risk to public welfare is based on preliminary professional judgment — grounded in conference procedures or analogous technical guidance rather than completed specialized analysis — establishing that the engineer must disclose the risk but must simultaneously qualify that disclosure as preliminary and unconfirmed, prohibiting both silence about the identified risk and overstatement of the risk's certainty, and requiring that the engineer communicate the basis and limitations of the preliminary judgment alongside the risk disclosure.
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation State
Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
State in which a professional engineer holds a sincere, good-faith belief that a product or system raises public safety concerns — based on observed performance inconsistencies and professional judgment — but cannot point to a clear, demonstrable, or confirmed safety violation, specific incident, or applicable regulatory standard that has been breached, creating a context in which the engineer's reporting and escalation obligations are attenuated relative to confirmed-violation scenarios, while still permitting and encouraging voluntary participation in public safety standards processes.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional has identified a potential concern or suspicion about risk or harm but has not yet developed sufficient technical evidence or analysis to elevate that concern to the level of established fact, limiting disclosure obligations while still warranting prudential communication.
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when evaluating whether a licensed professional engineer's civic advocacy activities are ethically permissible, the correctness or ultimate validity of the engineer's opinions is not germane — it is sufficient that the engineer was sincere in those opinions and believed they were serving the public interest, prohibiting ethics bodies, employers, and supervisors from conditioning the permissibility of civic advocacy on the engineer's ability to prove the substantive correctness of the positions advocated, and establishing that good-faith sincerity in service of public welfare is the operative ethical standard for civic advocacy permissibility.
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Evaluation Capability
Capability of a professional ethics reviewing body or licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that, when evaluating whether an engineer's extra-employment civic advocacy is ethically permissible, it is sufficient to assume that the engineer was sincere in their opinions and believed they were serving the public interest — without requiring proof that the engineer's opinions were objectively correct or that the advocacy was factually justified — and to correctly apply this good-faith sincerity standard as the operative threshold for ethical permissibility of civic advocacy activities grounded in public welfare concerns.
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Evaluation Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies and reviewing authorities to recognize that, when evaluating whether an engineer's civic advocacy activities — including organizing citizen committees, making public statements, and testifying before legislative bodies on matters of public welfare — are ethically permissible, it is sufficient to establish that the engineer was sincere in the belief that the advocacy served the public interest; the engineer need not be proven technically correct in the underlying opinions, and the correctness of those opinions is not germane to the ethical evaluation of the advocacy conduct.
Good Intent Does Not Cure Procedural Impropriety
Engineer D seems to be acting without what was termed in case 82-2, an ulterior motive - D's desire is to make information available to improve designs. Even so, informally sharing as-built information is troubling.
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's benign or constructive motivation for taking an action that violates proper professional procedure does not render that action ethically permissible — procedural integrity in public procurement and information management must be maintained regardless of the engineer's subjective intent
Good Intent Non-Justification for Procedural Impropriety Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that benign or constructive motivation — such as a desire to improve design quality or project outcomes — does not render procedurally improper information sharing or procurement conduct ethical, and to refrain from using good intent as a justification for bypassing formal institutional processes, recognizing that the appearance of impropriety and the structural harm to procurement integrity are independent of the engineer's subjective motivation.
Good Intent Non-Justification for Procedural Impropriety Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that benign motivation — such as a genuine desire to improve design quality or project outcomes — does not render procedurally improper conduct ethically permissible, including understanding that the appearance of impropriety and the risk of competitive unfairness arise independently of the engineer's intent, and that good intentions must be channeled through proper institutional processes rather than informal personal action.
Good Intention Non-Exculpation for Confidentiality Breach Constraint
Engineer D seems to be acting without what was termed in case 82-2, an ulterior motive - D's desire is to make information available to improve designs.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's good intentions — including the desire to improve design quality or help contractors — do not exculpate or mitigate an ethical violation arising from unauthorized sharing of employer or client confidential information, as established by BER Case 82-2, which found that an engineer acting without ulterior motive nonetheless acted unethically by sharing client information without authorization, prohibiting engineers from treating benevolent motivation as a defense to confidentiality or procurement integrity obligations.
Governing Authority Technical Safety Briefing Under Public Pressure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to prepare and deliver a complete, accurate, and technically grounded safety briefing to a governing authority — such as a county commission — that clearly explains the extent of structural damages, the professional basis for the safety determination, and the efforts underway to address the situation, in the face of organized public pressure such as petitions and community rallies seeking reversal of the safety determination.
Governing Body Override Engineering Standard Non-Acquiescence Constraint
the city council voted to proceed with the proposed change to the ordinance
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from acquiescing to a governing body's decision to proceed with infrastructure changes that are contrary to established engineering standards, applicable state law prerequisites, and professional safety determinations — establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety supersedes deference to elected governing body authority, and requiring the engineer to escalate concerns to appropriate authorities rather than passively accepting the governing body's override as a final discharge of professional safety obligations.
[Case 112] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from acquiescing to a governing body's decision to proceed with infrastructure changes that are contrary to established engineering standards, applicable state law prerequisites, and professional safety determinations — establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety supersedes deference to elected governing body authority.
Governing Body Override of Engineering Safety Standard State
State in which a legislative or governing body (such as a city council) has voted to proceed with a proposed ordinance change or infrastructure decision that is contrary to established engineering standards, current best practices, and applicable state law requiring an engineering study — despite formal legal advisement of those deficiencies — thereby placing the engineer in direct tension between the governing body's political authority and the professional obligation to protect public safety and welfare.
Government-Branded Material Private Consulting Non-Use Capability
Engineer A's use of the same PowerPoint presentation illustrates one of the problems in attempting to draw a line between Engineer A's activities as a government employee and a private consultant.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds governmental employment and performs private consulting work to recognize that presentation materials, documents, reports, or other resources bearing governmental agency identification, branding, or institutional affiliation must not be used in the performance of private consulting activities — including the ability to identify when use of such materials would blur the line between governmental and private roles, create false impressions of official governmental endorsement, or constitute misuse of public resources — and to maintain strict separation between government-produced materials and private consulting deliverables.
Government-Branded Presentation Material Private Testimony Non-Use Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds governmental employment and performs private consulting to refrain from using presentation materials bearing governmental agency identification, branding, or institutional markings when testifying or presenting in a private consulting capacity — recognizing that use of government-branded materials in private testimony creates a false impression of official governmental endorsement, blurs the line between public and private roles, and constitutes either negligent or intentional misrepresentation of the capacity in which the engineer is acting, regardless of whether the misuse was inadvertent.
Government-Designed Project Private Execution Transition State
Several engineers in the employ of the U.S. Agency responsible for the basic plans negotiated with at least two engineering firms
State in which engineers who were responsible for preparing the foundational plans of a project in their public-sector capacity subsequently resign and immediately contract with the project owner to execute the very same project in a private capacity — creating a structural conflict between their prior public duty to produce impartial government work product and their new private financial interest in the project's execution.
Government-Retained Forensic Engineer Adverse Contractor Engagement Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by the U.S. government (or any governmental client) to forensically investigate the causes of a dam failure — and who, in that capacity, gained access to confidential investigative findings, methodologies, and strategic analysis belonging to the government — to refrain from subsequently accepting retention by a contractor who has filed a claim against that same government arising from the same dam project, recognizing that the engineer's prior access to the government's confidential forensic work product creates an irremediable conflict that cannot be cured by a pledge of independence or by the termination of the prior engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation — and who, in the course of that engagement, gained access to confidential information, documents, and strategic analysis belonging to that party — to refrain from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same matter, even after termination of the first engagement, recognizing that the engineer cannot credibly provide an independent analysis for the opposing party when the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information and documents cannot be erased from professional judgment.
Government Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony Capability
Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who holds a governmental employment position to recognize when displaying or invoking that governmental affiliation during private consulting testimony — particularly in a regulatory hearing — creates a false impression of official governmental endorsement, and to refrain from using governmental job titles, credentials, or affiliations in ways that imply the testimony carries official governmental authority when it is in fact offered in a private consulting capacity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing expert testimony at a regulatory hearing or legal proceeding to accurately and transparently present all relevant credentials, affiliations, and the capacity in which testimony is being offered — including clearly distinguishing between governmental employment credentials and private consulting credentials, disclosing the identity of the party retaining and compensating the witness, and refraining from presenting governmental affiliation in a manner that implies official governmental endorsement of testimony that is in fact offered in a private consulting capacity.
Government Affiliation Presentation Accuracy in Private Consulting Testimony
Professional principle requiring engineers who simultaneously hold government employment and perform private consulting to ensure that any materials, presentations, or credentials displayed during private consulting activities accurately reflect the capacity in which they are acting — prohibiting the use of government employer branding, titles, or institutional identification in private consulting contexts, whether through negligence or intent, because such conflation misleads recipients about the source, authority, and independence of the professional opinion
Government Agency Confidential Information Access Policy
Policies and professional norms governing the access to, use of, and obligations regarding confidential and proprietary information obtained by engineers during their tenure with a government regulatory or approval agency, including post-employment restrictions on use of such information for competitive advantage
Government Credential Conflation in Private Retained Testimony Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is retained and compensated by a private client to testify at a regulatory hearing from displaying or invoking government employer credentials, titles, or affiliations in testimony materials in a manner that creates the misleading impression that the engineer is testifying in an official government capacity or with government endorsement, rather than as a privately retained consultant — establishing that the use of government-branded presentation materials while concealing the private retainer constitutes a form of deception that violates the engineer's duty of non-deception and faithful agency to both the public and the regulatory body.
Government Credential Conflation in Private Testimony State
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the US DOE
State in which a professional engineer who holds both a government employment position and a private consulting role presents testimony, reports, or professional opinions in a private or adversarial capacity while simultaneously displaying, invoking, or allowing inference of their government employer's credentials, title, or institutional authority — creating a misleading impression about the official or unofficial nature of the testimony and the source of the engineer's authority, and constituting a breach of honesty and faithful agency obligations to both the government employer and the retaining private client.
Government Employer Credential Conflation in Retained Testimony State
Engineer A's PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE
State in which a professional engineer, while testifying at a regulatory hearing on behalf of a private retaining client, prominently displays or invokes their government employer's title and affiliation in presentation materials and introduction — without disclosing the private consulting relationship — thereby creating a false impression that the testimony carries the authority, objectivity, or institutional backing of the government employer rather than representing the interests of the private client.
Government Employer Resource Non-Use in Private Consulting Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds governmental employment and performs private consulting work from using government-owned, government-developed, or government-branded resources — including presentation materials, data, documents, analytical tools, or institutional branding — in the performance of private consulting work, arising from the faithful agent obligation and the principle that public resources must not be deployed for private commercial benefit, as established by BER Case 02-8's caution to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work and BER Case 07-12's finding that Engineer A's use of a DOE-branded PowerPoint in private testimony was entirely inappropriate.
Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Private Testimony
Professional principle prohibiting engineers who are simultaneously employed by a governmental agency and engaged in private consulting from exploiting their governmental affiliation — through title display, institutional identification, or ambiguous self-characterization — to lend unwarranted governmental authority or objectivity to testimony or opinions that are in fact rendered in a private consulting capacity, even when the engineer technically discloses that the testimony is personal rather than organizational
Government Employment Affiliation Non-Exploitation in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is simultaneously employed by a governmental agency and engaged in private consulting to refrain from displaying or invoking governmental employer credentials — including job titles, agency affiliations, and institutional designations — in a manner that creates a false impression of official governmental endorsement of testimony delivered in a private consulting capacity, and to affirmatively clarify the private capacity in which the testimony is being offered whenever governmental credentials are displayed or referenced.
Government Employment Credential Non-Conflation in Private Testimony Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who holds both a governmental employment position and a private consulting role from presenting credentials, job titles, or institutional affiliations in expert testimony or professional submissions in a manner that conflates the governmental role with the private consulting engagement — including through use of governmental employer job titles in presentation materials when testifying as a privately retained expert — prohibiting conduct that creates a misleading impression that the engineer is testifying in an official governmental capacity when in fact testifying as a private consultant, as established by BER Case 07-12 and the principle that engineers must be truthful and honest in professional reports regardless of their role.
Government Engineer Transitioning to Private Sector
engineers negotiated with at least two AE firms with the intent of taking part in the design and supervision of the work
A licensed professional engineering role held by a government engineer who, while still employed in a public position, begins negotiating or organizing private employment or business arrangements related to projects for which they have insider knowledge, generating obligations to avoid unfair use of privileged contacts, associations, and technical knowledge acquired during public service.
Government Forensic Investigation Confidential Findings Non-Disclosure to Adverse Contractor Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by the U.S. government to forensically investigate a dam failure — and who, in that capacity, developed or received access to confidential investigative findings, technical conclusions, and strategic analysis — to refrain from disclosing, using, or allowing those confidential government forensic findings to inform or benefit a contractor who has filed a claim against the government arising from the same dam project, recognizing that the confidentiality obligation created during the government engagement persists after termination of that engagement and cannot be waived by the engineer's acceptance of a new retainer from the adverse party.
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Private Consulting Solicitation Prohibition Obligation
The State DOT contracts directly with municipalities by means of a grant agreement to fund improvements to municipal airports.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency that administers grant funding to municipalities to refrain from accepting private consulting engagements solicited by or on behalf of those same grant-recipient municipalities, recognizing that the governmental employer's grant authority over those municipalities creates a structural power asymmetry that could be — or appear to be — exploited to obtain private consulting work, and that such dual engagement compromises the engineer's objectivity in administering the grant program and the municipality's freedom to select consultants without governmental influence.
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation Private Consulting Solicitation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency that administers grant funding to municipalities to recognize that accepting private consulting work solicited through a former employer for those same grant-recipient municipalities constitutes exploitation of the governmental grant authority relationship — including the ability to identify the structural conflict created when the engineer's public role involves funding decisions affecting the same entities the engineer would privately serve, and to correctly determine that such private consulting is ethically impermissible regardless of whether the engineer directly controls grant awards.
Government Grant Authority Non-Exploitation in Private Consulting Solicitation
Domain-specific principle prohibiting engineers employed by a government agency that administers grant funding to municipalities from simultaneously performing private consulting work for those same grant-recipient municipalities, because the government's grant authority over the municipality creates a structural power relationship that the engineer's private consulting role could exploit — whether by implying favorable grant treatment, leveraging insider knowledge of grant requirements, or creating the appearance that private consulting engagement is linked to favorable grant administration
Government Procurement Contact List Integrity Standard
Professional norms and procedural rules governing the integrity of government agency solicitation lists in engineering procurement, including the conditions under which an agency may ethically contact firms or individuals not on the original solicitation list, and the obligations of engineers who are contacted outside the original process.
Government Regulatory Access Competitor Employment Scope Limitation Constraint
Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y, provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A's employment with the government agency.
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer who, during government agency employment, received access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by private companies seeking regulatory approval, subsequently accepts employment with a private firm that is a direct competitor of those submitting companies — establishing that while the engineer is free to accept such competitive employment, the scope of permissible work at the new employer is constrained by the prohibition on disclosing or using the confidential and proprietary design information accessed in the regulatory role, and requiring that the engineer's participation at the new employer be structured to avoid any work that would exploit or be adverse to the interests of the companies whose confidential information the engineer accessed, as established by BER Case No. 82-6 and NSPE Code Section III.4.
Government Role Self-Approval of Private Work State
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board
State in which a professional engineer, acting in an official government capacity, is positioned to review, recommend, approve, or vote on work that they themselves prepared or submitted in a private consulting capacity — creating a direct self-review conflict where the engineer exercises governmental authority over their own private professional output.
Governmental Appointing Authority Domain Competence Verification Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a governmental appointing authority (e.g., county commissioners) that is empowered to fill a public technical position must verify not only that a candidate satisfies the literal credential requirement of the governing ordinance or statute (e.g., PE licensure) but also that the candidate possesses substantive domain competence — grounded in education and experience — in the specific technical disciplines required by the position's actual duties, prohibiting appointment of a formally credentialed but domain-incompetent engineer to a public technical role on the basis of credential compliance alone, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and the principle that public appointments carry heightened accountability to the communities served.
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency to refrain from accepting private consulting engagements in the same substantive domain as their governmental employment — or in domains sufficiently interrelated that decisions in one sphere could compromise objectivity in the other — recognizing that such dual engagement breaches the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for the governmental employer and creates conflicts of interest that cannot be adequately managed through disclosure alone.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role with contracting authority to refrain from negotiating or accepting private employment with any firm over which the engineer currently exercises or recently exercised contracting authority, while still holding that public position, and to disclose any such employment discussions to the public employer immediately upon their initiation so that appropriate recusal or conflict management measures can be implemented.
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Domain Overlap Conflict Recognition Capability
Engineer A was approached by his former consulting engineering firm to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency to recognize when a proposed private consulting engagement — even in a domain that appears distinct from the engineer's governmental responsibilities — creates a foreseeable conflict of interest due to interrelated subject matter, shared municipal relationships, or overlapping spheres of influence, and to correctly decline such engagements on ethical grounds, including the ability to identify indirect linkages between governmental and private domains that create appearance concerns even when direct subject matter overlap is absent.
Governmental Employee Private Consulting Same-Domain Prohibition Constraint
As an employee of the US Department of Energy, working in its coal bed methane division, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency in a specific technical domain from simultaneously providing private consulting services for private clients in that same technical domain — establishing that the identity of subject matter between the governmental role and the private consulting engagement creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that breaches the basic trust as an honest and faithful agent for the governmental employer, regardless of whether the governmental agency and the private firm are both aware of the dual employment, as established by BER Case 07-12 and the principle that an employee of the US Department of Energy working in its coal bed methane division cannot work as a part-time consultant in the same area for private clients.
Governmental Procedure and Policy Compliance in Dual-Role Employment Obligation
The Board also cautioned Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures and policies and liability concerns and to avoid the use of public resources in the performance of private work.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds governmental employment and performs private consulting work to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and regulations governing dual employment — including conflict-of-interest statutes, ethics regulations, and agency-specific policies — recognizing that compliance with governmental procedural requirements is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical conduct, and that the engineer bears personal responsibility for identifying and adhering to all applicable governmental constraints on outside employment.
[proethica-intermediate] Obligations arising from legal requirements and regulations
Governmental Procedure and Policy Dual Employment Compliance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds governmental employment and performs private consulting work to identify, understand, and comply with all applicable governmental procedures, policies, ethics regulations, and liability frameworks governing dual employment — including the ability to proactively research applicable rules before undertaking private consulting, obtain required authorizations, avoid use of public resources in private work, and recognize that failure to follow governmental procedures compounds the ethical violations arising from the dual-role conflict itself.
Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material public health, safety, or welfare risk that a client is unwilling to address to pursue a graduated sequence of engagement steps before withdrawing from the project — including first engaging the client in substantive discussion about the need for evaluation and disclosure, then proposing intermediate steps such as submitting a concern report to regulatory agencies, and only withdrawing after both intermediate options have been refused — recognizing that withdrawal is a last resort after good-faith escalation efforts have been exhausted.
Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material public health, safety, or welfare risk that a client is unwilling to address must pursue a graduated sequence of engagement steps — first discussing the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure with the client, then proposing to include the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration — before withdrawing from the project, prohibiting both premature withdrawal that bypasses available intermediate engagement steps and indefinite continuation without escalation when the client refuses all intermediate steps.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a lead engineer who identifies ethical violations by a subconsultant follow a graduated escalation sequence — first conferring directly with the subconsultant, then escalating to the client with the subconsultant's knowledge and potential presence, and only thereafter considering reporting to the licensure board — prohibiting both premature external escalation that bypasses internal resolution opportunities and indefinite deferral of escalation when lower-level resolution fails.
Graduated Danger Severity Calibration State
the limited nature of the danger does not appear to require this level of response
State in which a professional engineer has identified a public safety risk whose severity, imminence, and breadth are intermediate — neither imminently catastrophic and widespread (requiring a full-bore multi-authority campaign) nor negligible (requiring only minimal notification) — and must calibrate the intensity and scope of their escalation response proportionately to the actual danger level, distinguishing between situations requiring immediate multi-authority engagement and those permitting a more measured, sequential escalation beginning with immediate supervisors and proceeding outward only if initial steps prove ineffective.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer has identified a public safety risk of intermediate severity — neither imminently catastrophic nor negligible — and must determine the appropriate level of escalation response proportionate to the danger, navigating between the 'full-bore' multi-authority campaign required for imminent widespread danger and the minimal written notification sufficient for limited, non-imminent risks. The state activates an obligation to calibrate escalation intensity to the scope, imminence, and breadth of the identified hazard, including consideration of affected third parties beyond the immediate client.
Graduated Deadline-Conditioned Escalation Constraint
Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns, while continuing to monitor the situation.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing a graduated escalation pathway for a licensed professional engineer who has notified a local official of a structural safety concern and received no adequate response — requiring the engineer to: (1) follow up the verbal notification with written confirmation, (2) set a specific reasonable deadline for corrective action, (3) notify the official in writing that failure to act within the deadline will require escalation to higher authorities, and (4) escalate to county or state building officials if the deadline passes without adequate action — prohibiting both premature escalation that bypasses the deadline-setting step and indefinite deferral of escalation after the deadline has passed without adequate response.
Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material public health, safety, or welfare risk that a client refuses to address through recommended analysis or disclosure to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps — first engaging the client in substantive discussion about the need for evaluation and disclosure, then proposing to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration, and only withdrawing from the project if the client refuses both courses of action — recognizing that withdrawal is the last resort after good-faith escalation efforts have been exhausted, not the first response to client disagreement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a legal or ethical violation and reported it internally without corrective response to proceed through graduated internal escalation channels — including the City Manager, City Attorney, and other knowledgeable stakeholders — before or in conjunction with external escalation, acting advisedly, carefully, and sensitively while verifying all facts and respecting organizational authority structures.
Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Danger Imminence and Employment Context Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted in response to a public safety hazard to the imminence, severity, breadth, and employment context of the identified danger — establishing that imminent, widespread dangers involving critical public infrastructure require a full-bore multi-authority campaign, while dangers that are significant but less imminent and more localized require a proportionate graduated escalation beginning with immediate supervisor notification and proceeding through appropriate responsible parties — prohibiting both under-response (treating supervisor notification alone as a complete discharge) and over-response (treating every foreseeable hazard as requiring immediate simultaneous multi-authority mobilization), and establishing that the engineer's status as a public employee with specific custodial responsibility for the affected infrastructure amplifies the escalation obligation beyond that of a private engineer in an analogous situation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers a public safety risk calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified danger — establishing that imminent, widespread dangers (such as bridge collapse) require full-bore multi-authority campaigns, while non-imminent, localized risks (such as barn structural deficiency under severe snow loads) require proportionate graduated escalation — prohibiting both under-response that treats non-response as discharge and over-response that treats every structural concern as requiring immediate multi-authority mobilization, as established by the contrast between BER Case 00-5 and BER Case 07-10.
Graduated Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence and Employment Context Obligation
prudent action would involve Engineer A immediately notifying verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A's immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a foreseeable safety hazard to construction workers and the public — arising from illegal vehicle operation on a restricted roadway adjacent to proposed scaffolding — to calibrate the scope and urgency of escalation to the nature of the risk, beginning with immediate verbal and written notification to the immediate supervisor, and proceeding to state DOT officials and law enforcement only if the supervisor fails to act, recognizing that the limited imminence and breadth of the danger does not require a full-bore multi-authority campaign but does require prompt, documented escalation through appropriate channels.
Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, while simultaneously promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible.
Capability to recognize when internal reporting of a confirmed legal or ethical violation has been dismissed or ignored, and to systematically navigate escalation pathways — from immediate supervisors to higher organizational authority (City Manager, City Attorney), and ultimately to external regulatory bodies (state licensure board) — in a careful, sensitive, and legally compliant manner that respects institutional channels while fulfilling professional obligations to address non-compliance.
[Case 56] Capability to recognize when internal reporting of a confirmed legal or ethical violation has been dismissed or ignored, and to systematically navigate escalation pathways — from immediate supervisors to higher organizational authority, and ultimately to external regulatory bodies (state licensure board) — in a careful, sensitive, and legally compliant manner that respects institutional channels while fulfilling professional obligations to address non-compliance, including in the context of systemic unlicensed practice by a state agency.
Graduated Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Danger Severity State
The facts and circumstances in the present case fall somewhere between those outlined in BER Cases 00-5 and 07-10
State in which a professional engineer has identified a public safety risk of intermediate severity — neither imminently catastrophic nor negligible — and must determine the appropriate level of escalation response proportionate to the danger, navigating between the 'full-bore' multi-authority campaign required for imminent widespread danger and the minimal written notification sufficient for limited, non-imminent risks. The state activates an obligation to calibrate escalation intensity to the scope, imminence, and breadth of the identified hazard, including consideration of affected third parties beyond the immediate client.
Graduated Escalation to Client After Subcontractor Non-Compliance Obligation
Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved.
Duty of a lead engineer of record who has identified ethical violations in a subcontractor's deliverables and has been unable to obtain correction from the subcontractor to escalate the matter to the client — with the knowledge and potential presence of the subcontractor — and to present the ethical obligations of all parties, before proceeding to external regulatory reporting.
Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
the Board decided that Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns
Professional principle requiring engineers who identify safety concerns in an employer's product or process to exhaust available internal escalation mechanisms — including inquiry into ongoing corrective actions, engagement with internal design teams, and pursuit of internal recourse channels — before threatening or initiating external regulatory reporting, recognizing that premature external escalation threats may undermine cooperative internal resolution while preserving the engineer's ultimate obligation to report externally if internal mechanisms fail
[Case 150] Professional principle requiring engineers who identify safety concerns in an employer's product or process to exhaust available internal escalation mechanisms — including inquiry into ongoing corrective actions, engagement with internal design teams, and pursuit of internal recourse channels — before threatening or initiating external regulatory reporting, recognizing that premature external escalation threats may undermine cooperative internal resolution while preserving the engineer's ultimate obligation to report externally if internal mechanisms fail.
[Case 157] Professional principle requiring engineers who identify safety concerns in an employer's product or process to exhaust available internal escalation mechanisms — including inquiry into ongoing corrective actions, engagement with internal design teams, and pursuit of internal recourse channels — before threatening or initiating external regulatory reporting, recognizing that premature external escalation threats may undermine cooperative internal resolution while preserving the engineer's ultimate obligation to report externally if internal mechanisms fail.
Graduated Internal Escalation Exhaustion Before External Reporting Threat Constraint
the Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety concern in an employer's product from threatening external regulatory reporting to management as a coercive tactic before exhausting all available internal escalation pathways — including determining what internal steps are being taken, exploring internal mechanisms for further recourse, and confirming that no meaningful action is being taken — establishing that external reporting threats are premature and ethically impermissible when internal escalation pathways remain available and unexplored.
Graduated Internal Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a legal or ethical violation and reported it internally without corrective response to proceed through graduated internal escalation channels — including the City Manager, City Attorney, and other knowledgeable stakeholders — before or in conjunction with external escalation, acting advisedly, carefully, and sensitively while verifying all facts and respecting organizational authority structures.
Graduated Internal Memoranda Escalation Before Ethics Review Request Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies subcontractor specification deficiencies on a defense project to pursue graduated internal escalation through written memoranda to management superiors — documenting concerns, seeking management response, and continuing the internal dialogue — before seeking an external ethics review or public disclosure, recognizing that exhaustion of internal channels through documented written escalation is a prerequisite to external escalation when the concern involves public expenditure rather than an immediate public safety danger.
Graduated Internal Written Memoranda Escalation Sequencing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who identifies subcontractor specification deficiencies on a defense or public-works project to pursue graduated internal escalation through a sequence of written memoranda to management superiors — documenting concerns, seeking resolution at each level, and building a formal record — before requesting an external ethics review or escalating beyond the employing organization, recognizing that internal escalation through documented channels is the appropriate first step.
Graduated Subconsultant Escalation Procedural Constraint
As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA.
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a lead engineer who identifies ethical violations by a subconsultant follow a graduated escalation sequence — first conferring directly with the subconsultant, then escalating to the client with the subconsultant's knowledge and potential presence, and only thereafter considering reporting to the licensure board — prohibiting both premature external escalation that bypasses internal resolution opportunities and indefinite deferral of escalation when lower-level resolution fails.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer identifies a compliance concern or violation, the engineer should first attempt to resolve the matter at the lowest possible organizational level before escalating to higher authorities, requiring that internal resolution pathways be genuinely pursued before external reporting, while not permitting indefinite deferral of escalation when internal resolution fails.
the chairman seeks Engineer A's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements and not the newer, more rigid requirements now in effect
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conditions under which an engineer in a public regulatory role may ethically concur with or support the exemption of construction projects from current, more protective code requirements, including the duty to assess whether such exemptions compromise public health and safety and whether concurrence constitutes an improper trade-off of public safety for administrative or political benefit.
Grant-Administering Government Engineer Private Consulting Municipal Client Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency that administers grant funding to municipalities from simultaneously providing private consulting services to those same grant-recipient municipalities — establishing that the governmental engineer's role in grant administration creates a structural conflict of interest that cannot be resolved by employer awareness or consent alone, because the engineer's private financial interest in obtaining consulting contracts from municipalities is directly adverse to the impartial exercise of the governmental grant administration function, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.2 and the principle that engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their regular work or that may impair their independent judgment.
Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment equipment upgrades
A professional engineering role in which an engineer or engineering firm is retained on a speculative basis to assist a public client in preparing and submitting a federal grant application for infrastructure improvements, bearing obligations of competent technical support, honest representation of qualifications, and avoidance of improper inducements or quid pro quo arrangements arising from the grant-assistance relationship.
Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint
That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer's assessment of a material public health, safety, or welfare risk falls within a professional 'gray area' — where the potential impact is reasonably foreseeable but not yet confirmed by specialized analysis — establishing that the engineer must disclose the identified risk while simultaneously qualifying that disclosure as based on preliminary professional judgment requiring more detailed evaluation to confirm, and prohibiting both silence about the gray area risk and overstatement of its certainty as an established finding, as established by the principle that gray area judgments require disclosure with appropriate epistemic qualification.
Gray Area Public Welfare Judgment Documentation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who encounters a 'gray area' situation — where the potential impact on public health, safety, and welfare is reasonably likely and significant but not yet confirmed by detailed analysis — to document their professional judgment about whether the situation merits more detailed evaluation, including the basis for that judgment, so that the engineer's reasoning is transparent to clients, regulatory authorities, and the public, and so that the engineer can demonstrate compliance with the paramount public welfare obligation regardless of the ultimate outcome.
Gray Area Public Welfare Threshold Judgment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to exercise professional judgment in 'gray area' situations — where the potential impact on public health, safety, and welfare is uncertain, preliminary, or not clearly required by law or regulation — to determine whether identified issues merit more detailed evaluation, specialized analysis, or disclosure, including the ability to calibrate the threshold for escalation based on the likelihood and magnitude of potential public welfare impacts, and to document that judgment with sufficient rigor to demonstrate professional accountability.
Greatest Good Balancing Non-Absolute Condemnation Preference Constraint
it is the Board of Ethical Review's position that Engineer A has an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that while the 'greatest good for the greatest number' principle generally favors condemnation proceedings when a historic property blocks the most efficient public infrastructure route, this preference is not absolute — requiring the engineer to first explore and present creative alternative solutions (such as physical relocation of the historic structure) before recommending condemnation, prohibiting the engineer from treating the greatest-good calculus as a mechanical override of the obligation to seek amicable resolution through creative engineering alternatives.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a binary choice between two design approaches — each with significant drawbacks — must explore and present to the client whether hybrid or combined design solutions exist that could mitigate the respective disadvantages before accepting the binary framing as definitive, prohibiting premature closure on an either/or design decision when creative engineering synthesis may reduce harm.
Greatest Good Balancing Principle in Public Infrastructure Decisions
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when engineers advise public clients on infrastructure decisions affecting competing private and public interests, the general rule favoring the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail, while simultaneously requiring the engineer to identify and present creative alternative solutions that may achieve the public purpose with reduced harm to affected individuals or minority interests
Greatest Good Multi-Interest Balancing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to balance the competing interests of all relevant parties — including the public agency client, affected communities, and individual property owners — by applying the principle of greatest good for the greatest number while simultaneously identifying creative alternative solutions that may reduce harm to minority interests, and to present this balanced analysis to decision-makers in a manner that is honest, objective, and complete.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to receive, analyze, and synthesize input from stakeholder groups with genuinely competing preferences — including cost-preference community members, environmental advocates, and underserved community representatives — and to present a balanced, objective synthesis of those competing perspectives to decision-makers in a manner that accurately represents the full range of stakeholder positions without privileging any single group's preferences, consistent with professional obligations of objective and truthful reporting.
Greatest Good Multi-Interest Balancing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to balance the competing interests of all relevant and affected parties — including the state client, the traveling public, and private property owners whose historically significant property lies in the path of a proposed public infrastructure route — by applying the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number standard while simultaneously identifying creative alternative solutions that may resolve or mitigate the tension between competing interests, so that the client's decision is informed by a complete multi-interest analysis rather than a single-interest optimization.
One approach might be 'green' options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management.
Professional norms, technical benchmarks, and emerging standards governing the incorporation of sustainable water management approaches — including rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, stormwater reuse, and natural resource conservation — as alternatives to conventional infrastructure systems in engineering design, representing the application of sustainability principles to specific technical design choices.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms, technical benchmarks, and emerging standards governing the incorporation of green infrastructure, low-carbon design, and long-term sustainability into engineering projects, including wetland restoration and biodynamic control systems
Grid Interconnection Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer A also realizes that a move to solar production without storage may stress the local utility generation mix even more, increasing the likelihood of rolling blackouts.
Technical capability to assess how a proposed change in an organization's on-site energy generation — including transition from fossil-fueled co-generation to solar generation without storage — will affect the local electric utility grid's generation mix, reserve margins, and reliability, including the ability to identify when the proposed change will increase stress on the utility grid and elevate the probability of rolling blackouts or other grid reliability events.
Grid Reliability and Utility Resource Planning Report
the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line
Technical assessments and communications from electric utility resource planners regarding generation capacity, grid stability, and the likelihood of supply disruptions such as rolling outages during extreme weather events, used as evidentiary grounding for engineering decisions affecting grid load and renewable energy integration.
Gross Misrepresentation Severity Calibration Capability
The use of the term for high school graduates is a gross misrepresentation of the firms qualifications and essentially falsifying them.
Capability to assess the severity of engineering title misrepresentation on a spectrum and to correctly classify the use of engineering titles for personnel with no engineering degree — particularly high school graduates — as a gross misrepresentation that rises to the level of falsification of the firm's qualifications, thereby triggering heightened corrective obligations beyond those applicable to minor or ambiguous title inaccuracies.
Gross Negligence Indemnification Permissibility Boundary Constraint
Engineers may seek indemnification for professional services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected.
Ethical constraint establishing that even where the Section III.9 indemnification exception is validly invoked — because professional liability insurance is genuinely unavailable or unaffordable — the permissible scope of client indemnification is limited to professional services arising out of the engineer's practice for other than gross negligence, prohibiting the use of indemnification clauses that extend to gross negligence; and conversely, that once professional liability insurance becomes reasonably available and affordable, the permissible scope of indemnification is further narrowed to exclude ordinary negligence, such that the only remaining permissible indemnification scope under normal market conditions is for circumstances beyond ordinary negligence that insurance does not cover.
Groundwater Infrastructure Design Engineer
Engineer A was tasked to develop engineering design documents (plans and specifications) for modifications to groundwater infrastructure at the same site
A professional engineering role responsible for developing engineering design documents, plans, and specifications for modifications to groundwater infrastructure, with obligations to ensure designs meet regulatory safety standards and site-specific conditions.
Growing Circulation Proportional Urgency Calibration Capability
Hundreds of new respirators are now on the market, and Engineer A is concerned about the increasing likelihood of a tragic event
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the urgency of a safety escalation must be calibrated proportionally to the growing number of potentially defective products already in circulation among vulnerable end-users, and to communicate that proportional urgency to management — including the recognition that each additional unit distributed increases the probability of a harmful incident and therefore increases the professional obligation to act promptly.
Growing Vulnerable Population Circulation Proportional Urgency Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential safety defect in a product used by a vulnerable population (e.g., infants) to calibrate the urgency and scope of escalation in proportion to the growing number of potentially defective units in circulation — recognizing that as distribution expands and the probability of a harmful incident increases, the engineer's obligation to escalate urgently intensifies, and that the absence of reported incidents does not diminish this obligation when hundreds of units are already deployed.
Harmless Error Non-Exception in Public Procurement Compliance
while in this case there does not appear to be a nefarious cause for Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour, the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge
Domain-specific principle establishing that the apparent harmlessness of a procedural error in a public engineering procurement — such as delivery of a submittal to the wrong office within the same governmental entity — does not constitute a valid exception to published procurement requirements, because the systemic effects of tolerating harmless errors (erosion of process integrity, exposure to challenge, normalization of non-compliance) outweigh the individual equitable benefit of accepting the non-compliant submittal
Harmless Error Non-Exception in QBS Procurement Compliance Obligation
while Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error, any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
Duty of a licensed professional engineer administering a public QBS procurement process to recognize that the apparent harmlessness of a procedural error — such as delivery to the wrong office or arrival after the deadline — does not create an exception to strict compliance requirements, and to reject non-compliant submittals regardless of whether the error appears to have caused any actual harm to the procurement process or to other competing firms.
Hazardous Material Analysis Prerequisite Recommendation Capability
Engineer B's responsibility under the facts was to bring the matter of the drums possibly containing hazardous material to the attention of the client with a recommendation that the material be analyzed.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who encounters drums or containers of unknown or suspected hazardous material on a client's property to recognize that the professional obligation requires recommending formal laboratory analysis of the material before any removal, disposal, or other action is taken, and to communicate this recommendation clearly to the client along with the legal obligations that will arise if analysis confirms hazardous waste classification, rather than simply suggesting removal without analysis.
Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies or has strong reason to believe that a substance on a client's property may constitute hazardous waste must recommend that the substance be formally analyzed before any disposal action is taken — prohibiting the engineer from directing, suggesting, or acquiescing to disposal of potentially hazardous material without prior analysis to determine its legal classification and the applicable disposal requirements, and establishing that the engineer's obligation includes informing the client of the legal disposal obligations that would be triggered if analysis confirms hazardous waste classification.
Hazardous Material Analysis Recommendation Before Disposal Direction Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who encounters drums or containers of unknown material on a client's property — where field experience suggests the contents may be hazardous — to recommend that the material be formally analyzed before any disposal action is taken, rather than directing removal without analysis, so that the appropriate legal disposal pathway can be determined and applicable regulatory notification requirements can be triggered.
Hazardous Material Euphemistic Disclosure Standard
Engineer B informs the client of the presence of drums containing 'questionable material' and suggests that they be removed.
Professional norms and ethical obligations prohibiting engineers from characterizing identified or suspected hazardous materials using vague, minimizing, or euphemistic language (e.g., 'questionable material') when communicating with clients or the public, where such language obscures the legal and safety significance of the finding and enables avoidance of mandatory regulatory obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations prohibiting engineers from making false, misleading, or deceptive statements in the course of business negotiations or commercial dealings, including the duty not to misrepresent the status, interest, or position of third parties in order to gain a negotiating advantage
Hazardous Material Legal Disposal Obligation Notification to Client Obligation
If analysis demonstrates that the material is indeed hazardous, the client would have the obligation of disposing of the material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers or has reason to believe that materials on a client's property may constitute hazardous waste to inform the client that, if analysis confirms the hazardous classification, the client bears a legal obligation to dispose of the material in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws — including notifying proper authorities — so that the client can take legally compliant remedial action rather than proceeding in ignorance of or in violation of applicable environmental law.
Hazardous Material Legal Obligation Disclosure to Regulatory Authorities
If the material is hazardous waste, Technician A knows that certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who discover or assess conditions that likely constitute legally regulated hazardous waste to ensure that proper federal and state authorities are notified as required by law — not merely to inform the client obliquely — recognizing that the engineer's environmental stewardship and public safety obligations extend to ensuring regulatory compliance pathways are activated, and that vague client notification without regulatory disclosure is insufficient when legal reporting duties are triggered by the discovered conditions.
Hazardous Material Omitting Environmental Consulting Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer supervising environmental field work receives evidence of likely hazardous waste on a client's property but, motivated by business relationship preservation, communicates the finding to the client only obliquely and takes no further action — failing to recommend proper analysis, regulatory notification, or lawful disposal — thereby becoming an accomplice to potential environmental law violations and abdicating the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serving as a principal in an environmental engineering firm receives information from firm specialists (e.g., biologists) indicating that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' (though not 'endangered') by federal and state regulators, verbally mentions the concern to the client but deliberately omits that information from a written report submitted to a public authority, bearing obligations to include all relevant and pertinent environmental threat information in professional reports submitted to public authorities and to refrain from omitting material environmental findings even when the species does not meet the highest regulatory protection threshold.
Hazardous Material Presence Without Regulatory Notification State
State in which a professional engineer has identified or has strong reason to believe that hazardous materials are present on a client's property, triggering mandatory federal and state notification and disposal obligations, but where the engineer has communicated the hazard to the client only in vague or indirect terms rather than explicitly recommending analysis and proper regulatory reporting — making the engineer a de facto accomplice to potential environmental law violations.
Hazardous Material Vague Language Subterfuge Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has identified or has strong reason to believe that a substance constitutes hazardous waste from using deliberately vague, euphemistic, or ambiguous language — such as 'questionable material' — to describe that substance to a client, when such language is calculated to obscure the nature of the hazard, avoid triggering the engineer's or client's legal reporting and disposal obligations, and maintain client goodwill at the expense of accurate hazard communication — establishing that such subterfuge makes the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful conduct and is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Hazardous Waste Accomplice Liability Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer B will tell the client where the drums are located but do nothing else.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when their own professional conduct — including using vague or euphemistic language, passively documenting without recommending analysis, or suggesting removal without analysis — makes them an accomplice to potentially unlawful hazardous waste disposal, and to correctly identify that such complicity is wholly inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, triggering an affirmative obligation to act differently.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when their own professional conduct — including using vague or euphemistic language, passively documenting without recommending analysis, or complying with attorney-directed confidentiality over imminent safety findings — makes them an accomplice to potentially unlawful action, and to correctly identify that such complicity is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics, triggering an affirmative obligation to act differently.
Hazardous Waste Analysis Prerequisite Before Removal Recommendation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who encounters drums of unknown or suspected hazardous material to recognize that recommending removal without first recommending formal laboratory analysis is professionally impermissible, and to instead recommend formal analysis as a prerequisite to any removal or disposal action, communicating to the client the legal obligations that will arise if analysis confirms hazardous waste classification.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who encounters drums or containers of unknown or suspected hazardous material on a client's property to recognize that the professional obligation requires recommending formal laboratory analysis of the material before any removal, disposal, or other action is taken, and to communicate this recommendation clearly to the client along with the legal obligations that will arise if analysis confirms hazardous waste classification, rather than simply suggesting removal without analysis.
Hazardous Waste Client Legal Obligation Notification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has discovered or received credible evidence of likely hazardous waste on a client's property to clearly inform the client of the specific legal obligations that will arise upon confirmation of hazardous waste classification, including transport, disposal, and regulatory notification requirements, so that the client can make informed decisions and comply with applicable law.
Hazardous Waste Environmental Worker and Public Danger Affirmative Action Prohibition Obligation
Engineer B consciously and affirmatively took actions that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public, and also a violation of various environmental laws and regulations.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from consciously and affirmatively taking actions — including directing subordinates to merely document samples without analysis, communicating findings in deliberately vague terms, and failing to notify regulatory authorities — that could cause serious environmental danger to workers and the public and constitute violations of applicable environmental laws and regulations, recognizing that affirmative acts of suppression are ethically distinct from and more culpable than passive non-disclosure.
Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Characterization Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has received field evidence that drums on a client's property likely contain hazardous waste to refrain from characterizing those materials to the client using vague, euphemistic, or deliberately obscure language — such as 'questionable material' — when the engineer's professional assessment indicates the contents are likely hazardous waste, recognizing that such characterization is technically misleading, fails to convey the legal obligations triggered by hazardous waste discovery, and makes the engineer complicit in the client's potential regulatory non-compliance.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers or receives evidence that a client's property contains potentially hazardous materials to refrain from using vague, euphemistic, or deliberately obscure language — such as 'questionable material' — to describe what is in fact likely hazardous waste, recognizing that such subterfuge makes the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful action and is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires honesty and integrity in all professional communications.
Hazardous Waste Euphemistic Communication Prohibition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has received field evidence that drums on a client's property likely contain hazardous waste to recognize that describing such material using vague, euphemistic, or deliberately understated language — such as 'questionable material' — constitutes an artfully misleading communication that violates professional ethics, and to instead communicate the nature and severity of the potential hazard in clear, accurate, and professionally candid terms.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when vague, euphemistic, or deliberately understated language — such as describing drums likely containing hazardous waste as containing 'questionable material' — constitutes an artfully misleading communication that violates professional ethics obligations, and to instead communicate the nature and severity of potential hazards in clear, accurate, and professionally candid terms that enable the client to understand the legal obligations and risks involved.
Hazardous Waste Federal and State Authority Notification Execution Capability
certain steps would legally have to be taken to transport and properly dispose of the drum including notifying the proper federal and state authorities
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has received credible field evidence that drums or containers on a client's property likely contain hazardous waste to identify the correct federal and state regulatory authorities (e.g., EPA, state environmental agency), prepare and transmit the required notifications, and ensure that the notification is timely, complete, and sufficient to trigger the appropriate regulatory response, independent of client consent or business relationship considerations.
Hazardous Waste Federal and State Authority Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers or receives credible field evidence that drums or containers on a client's property likely contain hazardous waste to notify the proper federal and state regulatory authorities as legally required — not merely to inform the client obliquely — recognizing that the legal obligation to notify authorities is triggered by the engineer's professional assessment that the material is likely hazardous waste, and that reliance solely on client self-reporting after oblique notification is insufficient to discharge this duty.
Hazardous Waste Field Identification Capability
Based on Technician A's past experience, it is his opinion that analysis of the sample would most likely determine that the drum contents would be classified as hazardous waste.
Technical capability of an environmental field technician or engineer to assess, based on professional experience and field observation, whether drum contents or unknown materials are likely to be classified as hazardous waste under applicable federal and state regulations, and to communicate that professional assessment clearly to supervisors and decision-makers.
the client contacted another firm and had the material removed
A client stakeholder role in which a property owner whose land contains drums of potentially hazardous material receives oblique notification from a consulting engineer about 'questionable material,' independently contacts a separate firm to remove the drums, and bears legal obligations for proper hazardous waste disposal under applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws — obligations that the consulting engineer has a duty to communicate clearly and explicitly.
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Non-Deferral Constraint
Inviolable legal and ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from deferring, suppressing, or omitting mandatory notification to federal and state regulatory authorities upon receiving credible field evidence that drum contents or other materials on a client's property are likely classified as hazardous waste — establishing that the legal obligation to notify proper authorities is triggered by credible professional assessment of likely hazardous classification, not by formal laboratory confirmation, and that business relationship considerations, client preference, or supervisory direction cannot lawfully defer this notification obligation.
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Notification Standard
Federal and state legal requirements mandating that parties who identify or handle materials classified as hazardous waste must notify appropriate regulatory authorities and follow prescribed procedures for transport and disposal, including obligations triggered by professional identification of likely hazardous materials.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Local, state, or regional environmental regulations requiring protective measures for public water sources and natural resources affected by development activities
Hazardous Waste Regulatory Transport and Disposal Knowledge Capability
Capability of an environmental engineering professional to know and apply the specific federal and state regulatory requirements governing the transport, handling, notification, and disposal of confirmed hazardous waste materials, including the requirement to notify proper federal and state authorities prior to removal or disposal.
Hazardous Waste Sample Analysis Direction Obligation
Duty of a supervising licensed professional engineer who directs a subordinate to collect samples from drums of unknown material on a client's property — where field experience indicates the contents are likely hazardous waste — to direct that those samples be formally analyzed rather than merely documented, so that the hazardous classification can be confirmed or excluded and the legally required regulatory notification and disposal steps can be triggered. Mere documentation of sample existence, without analysis, constitutes a deliberate suppression of information necessary to fulfill legal and ethical obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who encounters drums or containers of unknown material on a client's property — where field experience suggests the contents may be hazardous — to recommend that the material be formally analyzed before any disposal action is taken, rather than directing removal without analysis, so that the appropriate legal disposal pathway can be determined and applicable regulatory notification requirements can be triggered.
Hazardous Waste Unanalyzed Sample Disposal Facilitation Prohibition Constraint
Inviolable ethical and legal constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from facilitating, suggesting, or acquiescing to the removal or disposal of drum contents or other materials that a field professional has assessed as likely hazardous waste, without first ensuring that formal analysis has been conducted to determine the legal classification of the material and that the applicable federal and state transport and disposal requirements have been identified and communicated to the client — establishing that suggesting removal without analysis makes the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful disposal and constitutes a violation of the engineer's paramount public safety obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies or has strong reason to believe that a substance on a client's property may constitute hazardous waste must recommend that the substance be formally analyzed before any disposal action is taken — prohibiting the engineer from directing, suggesting, or acquiescing to disposal of potentially hazardous material without prior analysis to determine its legal classification and the applicable disposal requirements, and establishing that the engineer's obligation includes informing the client of the legal disposal obligations that would be triggered if analysis confirms hazardous waste classification.
Healthcare Facility vs Upstream Community Competing Public Goods Recognition Capability
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and explicitly acknowledge when a proposed infrastructure project creates a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — specifically the public benefit of a healthcare facility serving a community's medical needs and the public welfare of upstream residential homeowners facing accelerated flood risk and potential uninhabitability — and to address this conflict explicitly in advisory reports, regulatory submissions, and professional communications rather than presenting a one-sided analysis favoring the client's preferred outcome.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed engineering decision creates a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — such as environmental sustainability (carbon footprint reduction) and public safety (grid reliability and rolling blackout prevention) — and to explicitly acknowledge, analyze, and address that conflict in professional advisory reports, ensuring that decision-makers understand the tradeoffs between competing public welfare objectives rather than receiving a one-sided presentation favoring one good over the other.
Higher-Intensity Landfill Design Adjacent Property Methane Risk Written Disclosure Constraint
Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contends that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who designs a higher-intensity landfill expansion — incorporating maximum allowable slopes and minimum setbacks — must proactively disclose in writing to the municipal client the specific foreseeable risk of methane gas migration to adjacent private properties, establishing that the engineer's obligation to inform the client of foreseeable third-party environmental harms arising from the design is not discharged by mere regulatory compliance, and prohibiting the engineer from proceeding to final design submission without documenting the methane migration risk and its potential consequences for adjacent landowners.
Higher-Intensity Landfill Design Groundwater Contamination Risk Written Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who designs a higher-intensity landfill expansion must proactively disclose in writing to the municipal client the specific foreseeable risk of groundwater contamination arising from the intensified design — including the potential for leachate migration to nearby groundwater sources — establishing that regulatory compliance with state environmental laws does not discharge the engineer's independent obligation to inform the client of residual groundwater contamination risks, and prohibiting the engineer from treating state law compliance as a complete substitute for professional disclosure of foreseeable environmental harm.
Highway Route Selection Public Authority Final Determination Constraint
This is not to say that the alternate route proposed by the consulting engineer was in fact superior to those suggested by the engineers of the highway department.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer publicly proposes an alternative infrastructure route or design option — including through press publications or civic commentary — the engineer's proposal constitutes professional input to the public decision-making process and does not constitute a claim of final authority over the infrastructure decision; prohibiting engineers from treating their publicly proposed alternative as the definitive resolution of the route selection question, and establishing that the determination of which route is superior is a question for resolution by the appropriate public authority after consideration of all professional input, not a question that the engineer's public advocacy can or should resolve unilaterally.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that engineering decisions made in the public policy arena — including decisions about infrastructure design that involve environmental trade-offs — are subject to open public debate and must ultimately be resolved by the appropriate public authority, prohibiting any single engineer or engineering firm from treating their professional judgment as the final and exclusive arbiter of public policy engineering decisions, and establishing that after due consideration of all views by the appropriate public authority, all engineers involved in the debate must accept that each engineer who acted in conformance with the code acted ethically, regardless of which position the public authority adopted, as established by BER Case No. 79-2.
Highway Work Zone Traffic Safety Standard
Engineer A is concerned that the safety of inspection and construction employees (as well as others) could be endangered if one of these commercial vehicles passes by the proposed inspection and construction scaffolding
Professional norms, regulatory requirements, and technical standards governing the protection of workers and the public in highway construction and inspection work zones, including requirements for traffic control, vehicle exclusion, clearance envelopes, and mitigation of risks from errant or unauthorized vehicles
Hindsight Alternative Design Voluntary Error Characterization Prohibition Constraint
Because there was no error, Engineer T was not ethically obligated to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from voluntarily characterizing a design as an 'error' — in post-accident professional discussions, depositions, or public statements — solely on the basis of hindsight recognition that alternative design approaches existed, when: (a) the original design met the applicable professional standard of care, (b) a supervising or peer-reviewing engineer has determined no error was made, and (c) the engineer's personal sense of responsibility arises from retrospective awareness rather than from a contemporaneous professional judgment that the design was deficient. This constraint operates alongside the affirmative obligation to honestly acknowledge, in hindsight, that alternative approaches existed and may have prevented harm.
Hiring Firm Broad-Scope Disciplinary Inquiry Due Diligence Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm administering employment applications to draft disciplinary history questions with sufficient breadth to capture all professional license actions — including contractor licenses, business licenses, and other non-engineering professional credentials — that are relevant to assessing a candidate's professional character and fitness for practice, rather than limiting the inquiry to engineering license discipline alone, thereby ensuring that the firm's hiring decision is based on complete and accurate information about the candidate's professional record.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineering firm that advertises a position with an explicit licensure requirement to be obtained within a defined post-hire period to conduct reasonable due diligence during the hiring process — including inquiring about prior examination attempts and any board-imposed restrictions — so that the firm's hiring decision is based on a realistic assessment of the candidate's ability to satisfy the licensure condition within the required timeframe, rather than on an unverified assumption of licensure trajectory.
Hiring Firm Broad Disciplinary Inquiry Drafting Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that an engineering firm drafting employment application disciplinary history questions use sufficiently broad language to capture all professional and occupational license discipline — including contractor licenses, surveying licenses, and other non-PE licenses — rather than limiting the question to 'engineering license' discipline alone, so as to elicit complete and material information about a candidate's professional character and fitness; prohibiting the firm from relying on narrowly worded questions that create exploitable gaps enabling candidates to omit material adjudicated findings.
Historic Property Cultural Significance Assessment Capability
the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to specify a public infrastructure route to recognize, assess, and communicate the cultural, historical, and community significance of properties that lie within a proposed route corridor — including multi-generational family farmhouses and other historically significant structures — and to incorporate that significance as a weighted factor in route alternative analysis and recommendation, ensuring that decision-makers understand the full human and cultural dimensions of displacement impacts.
Historic Property Displacement Harm Minimization Route Obligation
However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to specify a public infrastructure route to identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to historically significant private property — including multi-generational family farmhouses — before recommending a route that would require condemnation or displacement of such property, consistent with the Do No Harm principle and historic and cultural resource impact consideration obligations.
Historic Property Impact Assessment Standard
Professional norms, regulatory requirements, and technical standards governing the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to historically significant properties — including structures with long-standing cultural, familial, or community heritage value — in the context of infrastructure routing, site selection, and public works design, including obligations to consider alternative alignments that avoid or minimize adverse impacts.
the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years
A private property owner stakeholder role whose historically significant property (such as a multi-generational family farmhouse) lies within or adjacent to a proposed public infrastructure corridor, who has expressed explicit unwillingness to sell or transfer the property, and whose interests and stated preferences generate obligations for engineers to consider alternative alignments, advise the client of acquisition constraints, and weigh the social and historic significance of the property against engineering efficiency.
Historic Property Owner Unwillingness Non-Suppression Constraint
Engineer A visits the farmhouse's owner, who indicates that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has made direct personal contact with a property owner whose land lies in the path of a proposed public infrastructure route — and who has learned that the owner is unwilling to sell — must disclose that owner's unwillingness to the client decision-makers as a material fact bearing on route feasibility and the human consequences of the preferred alignment, prohibiting the engineer from suppressing or omitting the owner's expressed opposition from the route recommendation report on the grounds that eminent domain renders the owner's preference legally irrelevant, and establishing that the owner's unwillingness is a material human and social consequence that the client must weigh in its policy decision.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer present each identified design alternative completely and objectively — including all advantages, disadvantages, costs, risks, and long-term performance characteristics — prohibiting selective or incomplete presentation of alternatives that would deprive the client of the information necessary for informed decision-making, as established by NSPE Code Section II.3.a and BER Case 21-7 precedent.
Historic Property Owner Unwillingness Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has proactively visited a property owner whose land lies in the path of a proposed public infrastructure route — and who has learned that the owner is unwilling to sell — to disclose that unwillingness to the client state agency as a material fact bearing on route selection, so that the client can weigh the owner's position in deciding whether to pursue voluntary acquisition, eminent domain, or an alternative route.
Historic Resource Third-Party Impact State
historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route
State in which a proposed engineering design or route selection would require the destruction, condemnation, or material alteration of a historically or culturally significant privately owned structure — such as a family farmhouse of over 100 years — where the owner has expressed clear opposition to any transfer or alteration, triggering heightened obligations on the engineer to evaluate and disclose the historic resource impact, consider alternative designs that avoid or minimize the impact, and ensure the client is fully informed of the cultural and community significance of the affected property before proceeding.
Historical Liability Crisis Justification Temporal Boundary Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a professional practice or contractual arrangement originally adopted in response to a documented historical crisis — such as the 1980s professional liability insurance crisis — carries a temporal justification boundary, such that the practice remains ethically defensible only for as long as the crisis conditions persist, and becomes ethically impermissible once those conditions have materially resolved, requiring the engineer to reassess and discontinue the practice.
R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled
State in which a proposed construction site was previously filled with materials that would today be classified as illegal fill, but was not subject to regulation at the time of filling, creating ambiguity about current environmental risk, altered site hydrology, and the adequacy of applying present-day regulatory standards to a site whose physical characteristics were shaped by pre-regulatory activity.
Historically Underserved Community Impact State
State in which a public infrastructure project is sited in or routed through a community that is formally characterized as historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened, triggering heightened obligations of equitable engagement, environmental justice consideration, and protection against disproportionate adverse impacts on vulnerable populations.
Historically Underserved Community Stakeholder
A community stakeholder role representing residents of a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood who are directly affected by a proposed public infrastructure project, establishing heightened engineer obligations to ensure genuine, accessible, and equitable public engagement and faithful representation of community input.
Historic and Cultural Resource Impact Consideration in Infrastructure Engineering
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers designing or specifying routes for public infrastructure to identify, evaluate, and disclose foreseeable impacts on historically significant properties and cultural resources — including multi-generational family properties, historic structures, and culturally important sites — and to present route alternatives that minimize such impacts, recognizing that historic and cultural resources represent irreplaceable community assets whose loss constitutes a form of public harm beyond mere property displacement
Holistic Design Responsibility Upon Fundamental Modification Principle
Engineer B seems to have taken the position that he would only assume responsibility for those changes which he had made by virtue of his modifications, failing to recognize the fact that once he began to make fundamental changes to certain aspects of the design, his modifications might have an overall impact upon the entire design of the project.
Professional accountability principle establishing that when an engineer makes fundamental changes to core elements of another engineer's design — such as grading plans, housing pads, street routing, storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities — that engineer assumes professional responsibility for the entire integrated design, not merely for the discrete changes made, because fundamental modifications to interconnected design elements may have cascading impacts on the efficacy and integrity of the whole project; a successor engineer cannot ethically limit accountability only to the specific changes made while leaving the original engineer's seal and authorship implicitly responsible for the remainder.
Home-Country Ethics Code Extraterritorial Application Contested State
the basic issue remaining is whether the flat prohibition in Section 11b applies to work in a foreign country where the laws and customs permit the gifts to government officials
State in which the applicability of a professional's home-country ethics code to conduct performed in a foreign jurisdiction is actively contested, typically on the grounds that the foreign jurisdiction's laws and customs permit the conduct in question. This state requires the engineer to determine whether professional ethics obligations travel with the professional or are geographically bounded, and activates the obligation to assess whether local law and custom can override home-country code requirements. The state is distinct from mere awareness of local custom: it involves a formal or informal challenge to the code's jurisdictional reach.
Home-Country Law Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Compliance Capability
Capability of an NSPE member engineer — including an NSPE International Member practicing outside the United States — to recognize that the legality, permissibility, or tax-deductibility of a professional practice under the engineer's home-country law does not excuse, justify, or mitigate a violation of NSPE Code of Ethics provisions, and to correctly apply NSPE ethics standards as an independent normative layer that operates above and beyond home-country legal requirements.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare is not bounded by what is required by law or regulation, but is stated broadly — including the ability to identify situations where legal compliance is necessary but insufficient, and to act on professional ethical obligations that exceed legal minimums without waiting for regulatory requirements to be updated or enforced.
Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse for Ethics Violation Constraint
Under the laws of Engineer A's home country, it is not illegal for individuals and companies to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries
Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that the legality — and even tax-deductibility — of a professional practice under an engineer's home-country domestic law does not excuse, justify, or mitigate a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics, prohibiting the engineer from invoking domestic legal permissibility as a defense to an ethics charge and establishing that professional ethical obligations exist independently of and at a higher standard than domestic legal minima, as established by BER Cases 76-6, 96-5, and the categorical rejection of 'When in Rome' situational ethics adjustments.
Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Violation Obligation
Duty of an NSPE member engineer — including an NSPE International Member — to recognize that the legality of a professional act under the engineer's home-country law does not constitute an ethical justification or excuse for conduct that violates NSPE Code of Ethics provisions, and to conform conduct to the higher NSPE ethical standard even when home-country law permits or incentivizes the otherwise-prohibited conduct.
Home Inspection Confidentiality Violating Engineer
Engineer A offered home inspection services, whereby Engineer A undertook to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer offers residential home inspection services to prospective property purchasers, prepares a written inspection report for the client, and then discloses that report to a third party (such as the real estate firm representing the seller) without the client's prior consent — thereby violating the client's right of confidentiality and prejudicing the client's bargaining position, even in the absence of any ulterior motive.
Home Inspection Engagement Confidentiality Scope Self-Recognition Capability
Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who offers residential home inspection services to recognize that the written inspection report prepared for a fee-paying prospective purchaser client is confidential to that client — even in the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement, formal confidentiality clause, or client request for confidentiality — because the nature of the inspection engagement, the fee-for-service relationship, and the client's reasonable expectation of exclusive receipt of the report collectively trigger the NSPE Code Section III.4 confidentiality obligation, and to correctly apply this recognition before transmitting the report to any third party.
Home Inspection Report Confidentiality Scope Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer offering residential home inspection services to recognize that a written inspection report prepared for a fee-paying prospective purchaser client is confidential to that client — even in the absence of an express confidentiality agreement — because: (a) the report was commissioned by and paid for by the client; (b) the client's purpose in commissioning the report was to obtain information for their exclusive use in evaluating and negotiating the purchase; and (c) disclosure to any non-client party, particularly parties with adverse interests such as the seller or seller's agent, directly undermines the client's ability to use the report for its intended purpose.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation is fully engaged — and at its strongest — when the confidential information at issue was directly and voluntarily transmitted by the client to the engineer in the course of providing professional services, as distinguished from information the engineer independently discovered or observed, because the client's voluntary transmission creates a heightened expectation of confidentiality that must be weighed against, but does not override, the paramount public safety obligation.
Home Inspection Report Disclosure Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to protect client confidentiality when performing residential inspection services, including the prohibition on sharing inspection findings with third parties not party to the service agreement without explicit client consent, particularly when such disclosure may prejudice the client's negotiating position or interests.
Honest Competence Representation in Procurement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer responding to a public or private solicitation for engineering services to represent their firm's qualifications, experience, and competence honestly and accurately — including refraining from providing affirmative assurances of adequacy in technical domains where the firm lacks demonstrated experience — so that clients can make informed selection decisions based on truthful qualification information.
Honest Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability Ethics Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of professional ethics reviewing bodies to recognize that a licensed professional engineer's public disagreement with cost estimates prepared by other engineers — including government agency engineers — is not in itself objectionable from an ethical standpoint, that equally qualified engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of known facts, and that the existence of such disagreement does not imply ethical misconduct, malicious intent, or professional incompetence on the part of any engineer involved.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of professional ethics reviewing bodies, supervisory engineers, and peer engineers to recognize that when two qualified licensed professional engineers — such as a subordinate regulatory engineer and a superior — reach different technical conclusions about whether a proposed industrial process meets regulatory standards, based on the same set of facts, this constitutes an honest technical disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party, and that the existence of such disagreement does not imply misconduct, incompetence, or bad faith on the part of either engineer.
Honest Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Objectionability Recognition Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies and reviewing authorities to recognize that a licensed professional engineer's public disagreement with cost estimates prepared by other qualified engineers — including government engineers — is not objectionable from an ethical standpoint, because engineering problems do not always admit of only one correct answer, and honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts and the application of engineering data are a normal and legitimate feature of engineering practice, provided the disagreement is expressed honestly and in good faith.
Honest Cost Estimate Disagreement Public Expression Non-Prohibition Constraint
the fact that the consulting engineer's letter disagreed with the cost estimates of the highway department engineers is, in and of itself, not objectionable from an ethical standpoint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who publicly disagrees with cost estimates or technical conclusions prepared by other engineers — including government agency engineers — does not violate professional ethics solely by virtue of that disagreement, provided the disagreement is grounded in facts and honest professional judgment, prohibiting the characterization of good-faith public technical disagreement as an ethical violation merely because it contradicts official or agency-prepared estimates, and establishing that honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts are a recognized and legitimate feature of engineering practice.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that when two or more licensed professional engineers reach different technical or policy conclusions from the same set of facts in a public policy engineering context — such as competing highway route analyses or competing landfill design assessments — neither engineer's position is inherently unethical solely by virtue of the disagreement, prohibiting the characterization of one engineer's professionally grounded public policy position as an ethical violation merely because another equally qualified engineer reached a different conclusion, and establishing that honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts are a recognized and legitimate feature of engineering practice in public policy contexts, as established by BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, and 79-2.
Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle
Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.
Professional virtue principle establishing that it is ethically permissible — and professionally legitimate — for qualified engineers to reach different conclusions from the same set of technical facts, because many engineering problems do not admit of a single correct answer and honest differences of professional opinion based on the same physical facts are a normal feature of engineering practice, not an ethical violation.
[Case 175] Professional virtue principle establishing that it is ethically permissible for qualified engineers to reach different conclusions from the same set of technical facts, because many engineering problems do not admit of a single correct answer and honest differences of professional opinion are a normal feature of engineering practice, not an ethical violation.
Honest Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Non-Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who disagrees with the technical conclusions, cost estimates, or design choices of other qualified engineers — including government engineers or engineers retained by public bodies — to recognize that publicly expressing such disagreement, proposing alternative approaches, and contributing to open public debate on engineering matters affecting public policy is ethically permissible and consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, provided the engineer's statements are honest, grounded in professional judgment, and not motivated by improper competitive or personal interests; and conversely, the duty to refrain from treating honest professional disagreement among qualified engineers as an ethical violation.
Honest Inter-Engineer Cost Estimate Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's public disagreement with cost estimates prepared by other engineers — including government agency engineers — does not, in and of itself, constitute an ethical violation, provided the disagreement is grounded in facts and honest professional judgment; establishing that engineering problems do not always admit of only one correct answer, that honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts are a recognized and legitimate feature of engineering practice, and that engineers can and do arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of known facts; prohibiting ethics bodies from characterizing good-faith public technical disagreement as an ethical violation merely because it contradicts official or agency-prepared estimates.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who publicly disagrees with cost estimates or technical conclusions prepared by other engineers — including government agency engineers — does not violate professional ethics solely by virtue of that disagreement, provided the disagreement is grounded in facts and honest professional judgment, prohibiting the characterization of good-faith public technical disagreement as an ethical violation merely because it contradicts official or agency-prepared estimates, and establishing that honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts are a recognized and legitimate feature of engineering practice.
Honest Professional Disagreement Cost Estimate Non-Objectionability Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly disagrees with cost estimates or technical conclusions prepared by other qualified engineers — including government engineers — to recognize that such disagreement is not ethically objectionable in itself, provided the disagreement is grounded in honest professional judgment and not motivated by improper competitive, personal, or financial interests; and conversely, the duty of reviewing bodies and peers to refrain from treating honest cost-estimate disagreement as an ethical violation.
Honest Technical Disagreement Between Qualified Engineers Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Capability
His superior believes that plans which involve limestone mixed with coal in a fluidized boiler process would remove 90% of the sulphur dioxide will meet the regulatory requirements
Capability of professional ethics reviewing bodies, supervisory engineers, and peer engineers to recognize that when two qualified licensed professional engineers — such as a subordinate regulatory engineer and a superior — reach different technical conclusions about whether a proposed industrial process meets regulatory standards, based on the same set of facts, this constitutes an honest technical disagreement rather than an ethical violation by either party, and that the existence of such disagreement does not imply misconduct, incompetence, or bad faith on the part of either engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer — whether as a participant in a public policy debate, a reviewing ethics body, or an observer — to recognize that conflicting professional views between equally qualified engineers looking at the same set of facts are ethically permissible and not a matter of ethical concern, that such disagreements reflect the inherent subjectivity of complex engineering and environmental trade-offs, and that the existence of conflicting views does not imply that any of the engineers involved acted unethically or incompetently.
Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Obligation
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose prior work has been found deficient by another engineer through honest professional judgment to refrain from retaliating against the reviewing engineer through formal regulatory complaints, reputation-injury allegations, or characterizations of 'misconduct' when the reviewing engineer's adverse findings represent a legitimate technical disagreement rather than a fabricated, malicious, or false critique; recognizing that honest differences of professional opinion among qualified engineers are a normal feature of engineering practice and do not constitute grounds for regulatory complaint or collegial retaliation.
Honest Technical Disagreement Non-Ethical-Violation Recognition Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies and reviewing authorities to recognize that when two qualified engineers — such as a subordinate regulatory engineer and a supervising department official — reach different technical conclusions from the same set of facts (e.g., whether a fluidized boiler process adequately meets Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards), neither engineer's position is inherently unethical, because honest professional disagreement among qualified engineers is a normal and legitimate feature of engineering practice, and that the ethical question turns not on which engineer is technically correct but on whether each engineer acted with integrity, documented their position, and fulfilled their respective professional obligations.
Honest and Truthful Public Safety Reporting Integrity Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer reporting public health, safety, or welfare concerns to appropriate authorities to ensure that all reporting is honest, truthful, complete, and objective — presenting all relevant technical information including findings that may not be well-received by the public or public officials — and to maintain this reporting integrity regardless of political pressure, public sentiment, or institutional resistance, consistent with the professional obligation to be honest and truthful in all professional reports.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness to perform forensic investigation and prepare expert reports with honesty and integrity — being truthful and honest in professional reports regardless of the retaining party's interests — including the ability to maintain this standard whether performing work in the private sector or as a member of organizations with public roles such as professional or technical societies, and to recognize that the obligation to be truthful and honest in professional reports is not diminished by the adversarial context of litigation.
Engineer C could be truthful, as far as C is aware, in this conversation.
Principle established by ethics code provisions requiring engineers to be truthful and accurate in all professional representations and communications
[Case 94] Core professional virtue requiring engineers to be truthful, non-deceptive, and non-misleading in all professional communications, representations, and conduct.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to make only truthful and accurate representations of their qualifications, capabilities, and experience when seeking or accepting professional engagements, prohibiting false assurances of competence that mislead clients into awarding contracts the engineer cannot adequately perform
[Case 112] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to be honest and truthful in all professional reporting, communications, and representations — including reports to public authorities, civic groups, and other stakeholders — ensuring that all information conveyed is accurate, complete, and not misleading
[Case 58] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to make only truthful and accurate representations in their professional work and communications, prohibiting deceptive or misleading conduct — including indirect directives designed to achieve policy-circumventing outcomes while maintaining plausible deniability
Honorable Procurement Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer competing for a public or private engineering contract to recognize and fulfill the obligation to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all matters related to the procurement — including refraining from exploiting improper competitive intelligence opportunities, declining to participate in processes that disadvantage competitors through non-merit means, and ensuring that competitive conduct is consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of professional ethics codes governing procurement and collegial relations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when political lobbying, personal relationships, or non-technical influence efforts are being used — or are tempting to be used — as substitutes for genuine technical qualification in competing for a public engineering contract, and to refrain from such conduct, competing instead on the basis of demonstrated technical competence through proper qualification-based selection processes.
Honorable Professional Conduct in Procurement Obligation
This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement matters.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer involved in public procurement — whether as a public agency engineer, contractor, or competitor — to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement processes, consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of the ethics code.
Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation Constraint
it would not be much of a leap to suggest that engineers practicing in another country could engage in practices that could weaken the minimal protections afforded to the citizens of that country because engineers would only be bound by the requirements, however minimal that might exist in that country
Inviolable ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer practicing in a foreign country from engaging in practices that would weaken or undermine the minimal legal and regulatory protections afforded to the citizens of that host country — establishing that engineers are not permitted to exploit lower host-country standards as a license to act in ways that harm the public of that jurisdiction, and that the floor of ethical conduct is set by the engineer's professional code rather than by the minimum requirements of the host country, as established by the BER's categorical rejection of situational ethics and the reasoning that allowing 'When in Rome' conduct would permit engineers to erode citizen protections wherever local standards are lower.
Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, is employed by engineering firm XYZ Engineering
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a property insurance company (or its agent firm) to inspect and structurally assess residential properties damaged by a hurricane, determine the cause of damage (hurricane-related versus pre-existing structural condition), prepare signed and sealed reports of findings, and resist employer or client pressure to alter conclusions without factual or technical basis, bearing paramount obligations to report findings accurately, protect the interests of affected property owners and the public, and refuse to participate in fraudulent alteration of professional reports.
Hurricane Damage Forensic Assessment Technical Competence
Engineer A visits the residential properties and, following his inspection and structural assessment, prepares a series of reports for XYZ Engineering.
Domain-specific technical competence to conduct forensic engineering assessments of hurricane-damaged residential properties — including structural inspection, damage causation analysis, differentiation between hurricane-related damage and pre-existing structural conditions, and preparation of technically defensible sealed assessment reports — sufficient to render objective professional opinions on damage causation for insurance claim determination purposes.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a binary choice between two design approaches — each with significant drawbacks — must explore and present to the client whether hybrid or combined design solutions exist that could mitigate the respective disadvantages before accepting the binary framing as definitive, prohibiting premature closure on an either/or design decision when creative engineering synthesis may reduce harm.
Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer's proposed design increases the hydraulic capacity of a tidal or fluvial crossing in a manner that foreseeably accelerates flood damage or uninhabitability of upstream or downstream third-party residential properties — requiring the engineer to disclose that foreseeable third-party harm to the client, the applicable regulatory authority, and potentially the affected property owners, and prohibiting the engineer from proceeding with design and permitting without such disclosure even when the client has directed the engineer to forgo specialized analysis of the risk.
Hydrodynamic Modeling and Coastal Risk Assessment Competence
Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area.
Technical capability to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment — including application of newly released climate data, recently developed storm surge modeling algorithms, historic weather data integration, and sea level rise projections — sufficient to determine appropriate design elevations for coastal infrastructure and residential development projects, and to evaluate public safety risks at varying storm surge projection levels.
A scientific study or technical report assessing the hydrological and geological effects of proposed water usage or development activities on groundwater resources, including water table levels, aquifer depletion, and related environmental impacts, used as evidentiary grounding for professional ethical arguments about resource stewardship.
Hydrogeological Risk Escalation Beyond MEP Scope Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed engineer or engineer intern working within a defined mechanical, electrical, and plumbing scope of services identifies credible technical evidence — such as a hydrogeological study — indicating that a co-professional's specification will cause significant environmental harm beyond the MEP scope, requiring the engineer to escalate that risk to the supervising engineer and ultimately to the client, while simultaneously constraining the engineer from treating the out-of-scope risk as a basis for unilateral refusal to perform in-scope work, and from purporting to resolve the out-of-scope risk through personal design decisions that encroach on another professional's domain authority.
Hydrogeological Risk Identification Capability
Technical capability to identify, interpret, and apply hydrogeological study findings — including evidence of water table lowering, aquifer depletion, or groundwater stress — to evaluate the environmental risk posed by proposed engineering designs such as irrigation systems in semi-arid or water-stressed regions, and to correctly classify such findings as credible technical evidence warranting escalation or design reconsideration.
Hydrology Scarcity Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Proportionality Constraint
Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
Ethical constraint establishing that even where a departing engineer possesses specialized expertise (such as hydrology) that is scarce within the firm, if that specialty does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's overall work, the firm's continued listing of that engineer in promotional materials during the notice period is constrained to a proportionality assessment — prohibiting the firm from treating the scarcity of the expertise within the firm as automatically elevating the engineer to 'key employee' status for brochure-listing purposes when the specialty's contribution to firm revenue and client engagement is marginal, while requiring expeditious correction once the notice period ends.
Illegal Traffic Hazard Supervisor Notification Obligation
From his personal experience driving on the parkway to and from work, Engineer A has observed commercial vehicles illegally driving on the parkway.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has personally observed illegal vehicle operation on a restricted roadway — where that illegal operation creates a foreseeable safety risk to construction workers and the public at a worksite the engineer is designing — to promptly notify the responsible supervisor of the observed hazard in writing, so that the supervisor can take appropriate action to address the risk before scaffolding design is finalized and construction commences.
Illegal Vehicle Operation Foreseeable Risk Scaffolding Safety Assessment Capability
Commercial vehicles are not permitted on the parkway.
Technical and ethical capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess the foreseeable risk posed by illegally operating vehicles — including commercial vehicles on restricted roadways — to temporary construction structures and workers, including the ability to quantify or qualitatively estimate the probability and severity of harm, identify the causal pathway from illegal vehicle operation to scaffolding strike or worker injury, and incorporate this foreseeable risk into both design specifications and written safety notifications to supervisors.
Immediate Bridge Closure Upon Credible Safety Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who receives a credible safety notification from a qualified inspector — such as a telephone report that a bridge requires closure due to rotten pilings — to act immediately (within the hour) to erect barricades and close the infrastructure to public traffic, without waiting for a formal written report or supervisory approval, because the imminence and severity of the structural risk demands immediate protective action.
Immediate Post-Resignation Same-Project Private Contract Ethical Prohibition Constraint
At or about the time the negotiations with the foreign government were concluded, this group of engineers resigned their positions with the U.S. Agency and shortly thereafter entered into contract with the foreign government
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who resigns from a public agency and immediately — or nearly simultaneously — enters into a private contract for the same project on which the engineer held public responsibilities has failed to observe any meaningful cooling-off period, and that such immediate transition constitutes an ethical violation regardless of the technical legality of the resignation, because the absence of any temporal separation between public duties and private contracting demonstrates that the private arrangement was effectively concluded during the period of public employment, as derived from NSPE Code revolving door, faithful agent, and conflict of interest provisions.
Imminent Environmental Discharge Requiring Mandatory State Notification State
Under state law, this condition is required to be reported to the state water pollution control authority, the agency responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers
State in which an impending or ongoing release of waste or pollutants into a public waterway meets the statutory threshold for mandatory reporting to the state water pollution control authority, and the responsible engineer or official is aware of this legal obligation — creating a non-discretionary duty to notify the regulatory agency regardless of employer instructions, contractual constraints, or employment consequences.
Imminent Harm Threshold for Mandatory Peer-Review Safety Escalation
If Engineer A determines that there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety such as loss of life, serious risk of injury to persons or property, Engineer A must immediately take appropriate steps by notifying Engineer B.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that within a peer-review context the threshold for mandatory — rather than discretionary — escalation to authorities is an engineer's professional determination that there is an imminent risk of harm to public health and safety, such as loss of life or serious risk of injury to persons or property; below that threshold the engineer retains discretion calibrated to the facts and circumstances, but above it immediate action is required regardless of confidentiality obligations
Imminent Multi-Authority Bridge Safety Campaign Immediate Execution Capability
Engineer A should take immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who believes imminent and widespread danger from bridge collapse is present — particularly after non-engineer officials have overridden professional safety determinations and public pressure has been applied — to immediately execute a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting simultaneously the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation and highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities, recognizing that the imminence and breadth of the danger require simultaneous rather than sequential escalation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has overridden a professional engineering safety determination — such as a bridge closure — to immediately pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation and highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities, recognizing that the imminent and widespread nature of the danger requires simultaneous contact with all available authorities rather than a graduated sequential approach.
Imminent Versus Potential Risk Threshold Discrimination Capability
Were the circumstances only slightly different and Engineer A observed clearly hazardous conditions such as frayed, sparking wires or a displaced collar on a water heater that is almost certain to be releasing carbon monoxide, then public health, safety, and welfare would clearly be at risk.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who observes a safety-relevant condition to correctly distinguish between conditions posing an imminent, direct, and certain risk to public health, safety, and welfare — such as frayed sparking wires or carbon monoxide release — versus conditions posing a potential or indirect risk that may materialize under specific circumstances — such as frozen pipes that could render a sprinkler system inoperable — and to correctly calibrate the applicable reporting obligation and urgency to the nature and probability of the risk, recognizing that both categories may trigger reporting duties but through different normative pathways.
Imminent Widespread Bridge Collapse Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Obligation
Engineer A should have taken immediate steps to contact the county governing authority and county prosecutors, state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other authorities.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk that is both imminent and potentially widespread — such as a structurally compromised bridge carrying regular traffic — to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign, contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation and highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and all other appropriate authorities, rather than limiting escalation to a single supervisory channel.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk that is both imminent and potentially widespread — such as a structurally compromised bridge carrying regular traffic — to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign, contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation and highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and all other appropriate authorities, rather than limiting escalation to a single supervisory channel or treating any single authority's inaction as sufficient grounds to cease escalation.
Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Campaign Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk that is both imminent and potentially widespread — such as a structurally compromised bridge carrying regular traffic — to pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign, contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation and highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and all other appropriate authorities, rather than limiting escalation to a single supervisory channel or treating any single authority's inaction as sufficient grounds to cease escalation.
Imminent Widespread Danger Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk that is both imminent and potentially widespread — particularly one involving critical public infrastructure such as a bridge — must immediately pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting all relevant governmental, regulatory, and enforcement authorities, prohibiting passive reliance on a single notification or a single authority when the gravity and imminence of the danger demands simultaneous multi-channel escalation, as established by BER Case 00-5 and the principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present.
[Case 112] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk that is both significant and potentially widespread must pursue multi-authority escalation contacting all relevant governmental, regulatory, and enforcement authorities, prohibiting passive reliance on a single notification or a single authority when the gravity of the danger demands multi-channel escalation.
Imminent Widespread Infrastructure Collapse Full-Bore Campaign Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk that is both imminent and potentially widespread — particularly one involving critical public infrastructure such as a bridge with rotten pilings — must immediately pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting all relevant governmental, regulatory, and enforcement authorities simultaneously, prohibiting passive reliance on a single notification or graduated response when the gravity and imminence of the danger demands simultaneous multi-channel escalation, as established by BER Case 00-5 and the principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a public safety risk that is both imminent and potentially widespread — particularly one involving critical public infrastructure such as a bridge — must immediately pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting all relevant governmental, regulatory, and enforcement authorities, prohibiting passive reliance on a single notification or a single authority when the gravity and imminence of the danger demands simultaneous multi-channel escalation, as established by BER Case 00-5 and the principle that engineers must not bow to public pressure or employment situations when great dangers are present.
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
the Board distinguished BER Case 00-5 from BER Case 07-10, noting that the facts and circumstances of BER Case 07-10 were different in several respects from those in BER Case 00-5
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly distinguish between public safety risks that are imminent and widespread — requiring a 'full-bore' multi-authority campaign — versus risks that are real but not imminent — requiring proportionate, graduated escalation — and to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted accordingly, drawing on BER precedent distinguishing BER Case 00-5 (imminent bridge collapse) from BER Case 07-10 (non-imminent barn collapse risk).
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who observes a safety-relevant condition to correctly distinguish between conditions posing an imminent, direct, and certain risk to public health, safety, and welfare — such as frayed sparking wires or carbon monoxide release — versus conditions posing a potential or indirect risk that may materialize under specific circumstances — such as frozen pipes that could render a sprinkler system inoperable — and to correctly calibrate the applicable reporting obligation and urgency to the nature and probability of the risk, recognizing that both categories may trigger reporting duties but through different normative pathways.
Imminent vs Non-Imminent Structural Risk Escalation Calibration Capability
the Board distinguished BER Case 00-5 from BER Case 07-10, noting that the facts and circumstances of BER Case 07-10 were different in several respects from those in BER Case 00-5. First, the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly distinguish between structural safety risks that are imminent and potentially widespread — requiring a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign — versus risks that are real but not imminent or localized — requiring proportionate, graduated escalation — and to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted accordingly, drawing on BER precedent distinguishing BER Case 00-5 (imminent bridge collapse) from BER Case 07-10 (non-imminent barn collapse risk), and applying that calibration to determine the appropriate level of response in each structural safety case.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly distinguish between public safety risks that are imminent and widespread — requiring a 'full-bore' multi-authority campaign — versus risks that are real but not imminent — requiring proportionate, graduated escalation — and to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted accordingly, drawing on BER precedent distinguishing BER Case 00-5 (imminent bridge collapse) from BER Case 07-10 (non-imminent barn collapse risk).
Impaired Engineer Delegating Unsealed Work
A licensed professional engineer who, following a medical impairment that substantially diminishes cognitive or professional capacity, continues to operate a firm by delegating substantive engineering design work to an unlicensed or insufficiently supervised engineer intern, and signs and seals completed drawings with little to no personal review, thereby misrepresenting responsible charge and endangering public safety.
Impaired Engineer State Board Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has knowledge — whether as a client, peer, or independent reviewer — that another licensed engineer is practicing engineering while medically impaired in a manner that substantially diminishes their capacity to competently perform or supervise engineering work, to report that impaired practice to the State Engineering Licensure Board, so that the Board can take appropriate protective action to safeguard the public from incompetent engineering services.
Impaired Licensee Friendship Non-Reporting State
State in which a licensed professional engineer who has discovered that a peer licensee is practicing while medically impaired and producing defective work product — causing actual harm — elects not to report that licensee to the State Board, citing personal friendship and compassion for the impaired engineer's circumstances, thereby placing personal loyalty in direct conflict with the professional and ethical obligation to protect the public through regulatory reporting.
Impaired Licensee Practice Suspension Constraint
Ethical, regulatory, and legal constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has suffered a medical event — such as a stroke — that materially impairs cognitive or professional functioning must suspend practice, close their office, or otherwise cease sealing engineering documents until competence is restored, prohibiting continuation of professional practice under the fiction of responsible charge when the licensee lacks the cognitive capacity to exercise genuine review, direction, and control over work product bearing their seal.
Impaired Peer Reporting Obligation Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has direct, personal knowledge that a peer licensee is practicing while medically impaired — and whose impaired practice has caused or is likely to cause harm to public safety — must report that licensee to the State Board of Engineering, prohibiting non-reporting rationalized by personal friendship, sympathy for the impaired licensee's financial circumstances, or private confrontation as a substitute for formal regulatory notification, as established by NSPE Code provisions and BER case precedent establishing that public safety obligations supersede personal loyalty.
Engineer B suffered a stroke and was unable to adequately direct and review engineering designs and drawings being prepared under his signature and seal.
Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who suffer medical impairment — whether cognitive, physical, or psychological — that substantially diminishes their capacity to exercise professional judgment to cease or substantially curtail their practice until competence is restored, prohibiting the continuation of signing, sealing, or supervising engineering work that the impaired engineer cannot adequately direct, review, or control
[Case 16] Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who suffer medical impairment that substantially diminishes their capacity to exercise professional judgment to cease or substantially curtail their practice until competence is restored, prohibiting continuation of signing, sealing, or supervising engineering work that the impaired engineer cannot adequately direct, review, or control
[Case 16] Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who suffer medical impairment that substantially diminishes their capacity to exercise professional judgment to cease or substantially curtail their practice until competence is restored, prohibiting the continuation of signing, sealing, or supervising engineering work that the impaired engineer cannot adequately direct, review, or control
Impaired Practice Continuation Resistance Capability
Engineer B chose to sign and seal design drawings without proper review while impaired by this stroke was a problem
Capability to recognize when financial, personal, or institutional pressures are creating motivation to continue professional engineering practice despite medical impairment, cognitive diminishment, or other conditions that preclude adequate direction and control of engineering work, and to resist those pressures by ceasing practice, delegating to qualified personnel, or taking other appropriate remedial steps rather than signing and sealing documents without genuine responsible charge.
Impaired Practice Cooperative Reporting with Practice Alternative Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is obligated to report a colleague's impaired or unlawful engineering practice to the State Board to consider — where consistent with the colleague's knowledge and approval — cooperatively identifying a temporary or transitional practice management alternative (such as engaging a qualified temporary licensed engineer) that would enable the continued ethical and legal delivery of engineering services during the colleague's incapacitation, so that the reporting obligation is fulfilled without unnecessarily destroying the colleague's practice when a compliant alternative exists, and so that the Board may exercise appropriate discretion regarding formal sanction.
Impaired Supervision Recognition and Refusal Capability
Engineer Intern C (who was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition) would perform the structural design and develop the construction drawings, and Engineer B would sign and seal the drawings with little to no review
Capability of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer to recognize when the supervising licensed professional engineer is medically or cognitively impaired to a degree that renders their supervision inadequate — including situations where the supervisor signs and seals documents with little to no substantive review — and to refuse to perform licensed engineering work under such inadequate supervision, or to escalate the situation to appropriate authorities, rather than proceeding with work that will bear a seal the supervisor cannot legitimately certify.
Impartial Adjudication Collusion Allegation Avoidance State
State in which a professional engineer, by acting impartially as the contractually designated interpreter of contract documents in a dispute between a client-owner and a contractor, simultaneously fulfills the duty of objectivity and avoids the risk that the engineer's conduct could be characterized as collusion with the owner against the contractor — such that impartiality serves both the ethical obligation of objectivity and the practical obligation to protect all parties from the appearance of improper coordination.
Impartial Dispute Resolution Client Benefit Articulation Capability
Engineer A's action provided the Owner with a candid and straightforward interpretation of the issues involved in the claim, expedited the claim and avoided further delays and a potential for further misunderstandings between the parties.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and communicate to an owner-client the concrete practical benefits that flow from the engineer's impartial execution of a contractually designated dispute resolver role — including providing candid and straightforward interpretation of issues, expediting claims, avoiding further delays, preventing misunderstandings between parties, and protecting the owner from collusion charges — thereby demonstrating that impartial performance serves the owner's long-term interests better than partisan advocacy.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and correctly resolve the apparent paradox that a duty of loyalty to an owner-client does not require — and in fact prohibits — finding in the owner's favor when the engineer has been contractually designated as an impartial dispute resolver, and that acting impartially in such a role constitutes the highest fulfillment of the loyalty obligation by providing candid interpretation, expediting claims, and avoiding collusion charges.
Impartial Dispute Resolution Collusion Avoidance Constraint
Ethical and reputational constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer designated as the impartial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability must render determinations strictly on technical and contractual grounds — not only because impartiality is ethically required, but also because any departure from impartiality in favor of the owner-client creates a risk that the engineer and owner will be perceived as having colluded against the contractor, thereby exposing both parties to professional and legal jeopardy and undermining the integrity of the dispute resolution process, as established by BER Case 93-4.
Impartial Expert Referral Available for Inter-Firm Safety Dispute State
State in which two engineering firms hold an honest, good-faith disagreement about the safety adequacy of a design, and an appropriate resolution pathway exists through referral to an impartial body of technical experts — such as a relevant technical engineering society — for independent determination. This state activates when internal and inter-firm escalation has failed to resolve a genuine technical safety dispute and an independent expert adjudication mechanism is available and appropriate.
Impartial Safety Dispute Arbitration Body
it would be appropriate for the question to be referred to an impartial body of experts, such as a technical engineering society in the particular field of practice, for an independent determination
A role borne by an independent technical engineering society or expert panel that is called upon to adjudicate honest professional disagreements between engineering firms regarding the safety adequacy of plans and specifications, bearing obligations of objectivity, technical competence, and independence from the commercial interests of either disputing party, and whose determination is intended to resolve whether production or construction may ethically proceed.
Impartial Technical Arbitration Referral Obligation for Irreconcilable Cross-Firm Safety Disputes
Duty of parties to an irreconcilable technical safety dispute between engineers of a designing firm and engineers of a production firm — where the designing firm asserts adequacy and the production firm's engineers assert miscalculations and life-endangering deficiencies — to refer the dispute to an impartial technical body (such as an independent engineering society in the relevant field) for objective resolution, rather than allowing the designing firm's unilateral assertion of adequacy to govern production decisions that affect public safety.
Impartiality in Contractually Designated Dispute Resolution Role
Professional principle requiring engineers who are contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability to render impartial, objective determinations based solely on the technical and contractual merits — prohibiting the engineer from allowing client loyalty or employer pressure to skew findings in favor of the retaining party, and recognizing that faithful execution of an impartial adjudicatory role itself constitutes fulfillment of the loyalty obligation to the client
Implication-as-Misrepresentation in Professional Qualification Documents
we interpret the term 'misrepresentation' in Section II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter
Professional virtue principle establishing that the ethical prohibition on misrepresentation in professional qualification documents extends beyond affirmative false statements to encompass implications — including strategic omissions, framing choices, and structural presentation decisions — that are intended to obscure the truth and create a materially false impression in the mind of a prospective employer or client; an engineer violates this principle when the overall portrait conveyed by a resume or qualification document implies a role, level of responsibility, or individual achievement that does not correspond to the engineer's actual contribution, even if no individual sentence is literally false
Implicit Engineering Title Invocation Prohibition
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from using credentials, certifications, or designations that implicitly incorporate the title 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' in jurisdictions where they are not licensed, even when they have deliberately omitted an explicit 'PE' designation, on the grounds that the implicit invocation of an engineering title is ethically and legally equivalent to explicit use of the title and brings the engineer under the jurisdiction's licensure law
Implied Sole Credit Misrepresentation State
Engineer A submits his resume to Employer Y and on it implies that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through a joint effort of the members of the team
State in which a professional includes in a resume or qualifications document descriptions of work products — such as patented designs — that were produced through joint team effort, and frames those descriptions in a manner that implies personal sole responsibility without explicitly stating it, thereby creating a misleading impression of individual accomplishment intended to obscure the collaborative nature of the work from a prospective employer or client.
Impossible Standard Non-Imposition Recognition Capability
The Code must not impose an impossible or idealistic standard upon engineers, but rather must establish a bench mark of reasonable and rational methods of practice for it to maintain its credibility and adherence.
Capability of a professional ethics body or licensed professional engineer to recognize when a code provision or prior ethical ruling imposes a standard that is impossible or impractical to satisfy under customary and generally prevailing professional practice — and to apply a modified, workable interpretation that preserves the underlying ethical purpose (ensuring quality and accountability) without demanding performance that is structurally infeasible — including the ability to distinguish between a reversal of an ethical principle and a clarification that aligns the standard with actual practice.
Impressive Marketing Non-Excuse for Deliverable Adequacy Constraint
Engineer A's firm's impressive brochure and personal interview results in the award of a contract for the design, drawings, and specifications.
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer's or engineering firm's success in winning a contract through impressive marketing materials and interview performance does not relax or excuse the engineer's subsequent obligation to deliver technically complete, adequate, and professionally competent work product — prohibiting the engineer from treating contract award based on marketing representations as a substitute for substantive technical performance, and establishing that the representations made in marketing materials create a heightened obligation to deliver work product consistent with the qualifications and capabilities represented.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that an engineering firm's marketing brochure must not create a false impression in the mind of a reasonable reader — who would assume that any individual listed with the title 'engineer' or 'design engineer' holds an engineering degree or professional registration — prohibiting the use of engineering-implying titles for personnel who lack those qualifications on the grounds that such usage constitutes a gross misrepresentation of the firm's qualifications and effectively falsifies them, regardless of whether the firm intends to deceive.
Improper Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
The potential benefit of stretching ethical bounds to achieve a competitive edge may seem to merit consideration.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a situation — including a client solicitation to evaluate a competitor's work — creates an opportunity for improper competitive advantage, and to identify that exploiting such an opportunity constitutes conduct that is 'improper or questionable' under professional ethics codes prohibiting advancement through improper methods, even when the engineer's statements are subjectively believed to be truthful.
[Case 141] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a situation creates an opportunity for improper competitive advantage — including when a legally available mechanism such as a FOIA request is used to access a competitor's proprietary qualification materials before submitting one's own — and to identify that exploiting such an opportunity constitutes conduct that is improper or questionable under professional ethics codes prohibiting advancement through improper methods.
Improper Competitive Method Prohibition Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.6 states that Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from attempting to obtain employment, advancement, or professional engagements through improper or questionable methods — including exploiting informal client relationships to critique a competitor's work in a manner that creates competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit — establishing that conduct which appears improper or questionable in a competitive context violates professional ethics regardless of whether the engineer's subjective intent was malicious, as established by NSPE Code Section III.6 and BER Case 01-1 precedent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer competing for a public or private contract conduct all competitive activities honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting the use of informal client relationships, unsolicited critique of competitors, or exploitation of procurement-influencing authority contacts to gain competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit, qualifications, and legitimate competitive conduct, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.5, III.6, and III.7 and the principle that engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers or by improper or questionable methods.
Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct
Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.
Professional principle prohibiting a licensed engineer from initiating a formal licensure board complaint against another engineer when the complained-of conduct does not rise to the level of an actual ethics or licensure violation — recognizing that filing a baseless or disproportionate complaint itself constitutes an ethics violation by weaponizing the professional regulatory system against a colleague for conduct that is technically permissible.
Improper Licensure Complaint Filing Engineer
the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board
A licensed professional engineer who files or initiates a complaint with a state engineering licensure board against another engineer based on conduct that does not constitute a genuine violation of licensure laws or ethical standards, thereby exercising poor professional judgment and discretion in invoking regulatory mechanisms inappropriately.
Improper Method Procurement Non-Engagement Obligation
Section 11 of the code also states a principle which applies to Firms A, B, and C, namely that engineers shall not attempt to obtain professional engagements by 'improper or questionable methods.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm seeking public engineering contracts to refrain from attempting to obtain professional engagements through improper or questionable methods — including submitting fee proposals that are so artificially low as to constitute a deceptive or bait-and-switch tactic — recognizing that the prohibition on improper procurement methods applies regardless of whether competitive bidding is formally at issue, and that a fee proposal that cannot realistically fund competent and safe engineering performance constitutes an improper method of obtaining an engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer involved in public procurement — whether as a public agency engineer, contractor, or competitor — to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all procurement-related matters so as to maintain the public's trust in professional procurement processes, consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of the ethics code.
Inaction-Perpetuating Firm Principal Engineer
after a period of six months during which the error was not corrected, Engineer A should raise the issue with a principal in the firm
A principal or senior leader of an engineering firm who, upon being informed (or who should be informed) of inaccurate or misleading information in the firm's marketing materials, fails to take expeditious corrective action within a reasonable period, thereby perpetuating a misrepresentation of the firm's personnel or qualifications to prospective clients. This role is the escalation target for staff engineers who have already notified lower-level managers without result, and bears obligations of truthfulness, accuracy in firm representations, and timely correction of known misrepresentations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineer who owns or leads an engineering firm and distributes promotional materials (e.g., brochures, resumes) that misrepresent the firm's personnel or qualifications — either by listing departed employees as current staff or by implying expertise the firm no longer possesses — bearing obligations of truthfulness, avoidance of deceptive acts, and faithful agency toward prospective clients.
Inaction-as-Accessory-to-Ongoing-Violation Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role to recognize that sustained inaction — after multiple failed internal escalation attempts and in the face of a known pattern of ongoing legal disregard by superiors — transforms the engineer from a passive bystander into an effective accessory to the continuing violation, and to correctly identify that this accessory status is ethically impermissible and triggers an affirmative obligation to escalate to external authorities regardless of employment consequences.
Inaction Accessory Liability Proper Authority Non-Identification Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by immediate supervisors and governing officials — and who has made several attempts to modify the views of superiors without success — must recognize that the 'proper authorities' for escalation are not the already-non-compliant local officials but rather higher-level state or regulatory authorities, prohibiting the engineer from treating repeated unsuccessful internal escalation to non-compliant local officials as a discharge of the obligation to report to proper authorities, and establishing that continued inaction after recognizing that local officials are themselves the source of the violation makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing legal violation.
Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity Warning Ignored State
Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season
State in which a licensed professional engineer has formally notified the responsible administrative authority of a documented infrastructure capacity deficiency posing foreseeable public health risk, and that authority has explicitly declined to act — deferring response until the risk materializes — leaving the engineer in an ongoing condition where the known hazard is unaddressed and the engineer's professional obligation to protect public safety remains unresolved.
Inadequate Inspection Certification Obligation State
Engineer A is required to sign off on all final inspection reports
State in which a licensed engineer in a supervisory or director role is required by their position to sign off on or certify final inspection reports that they have reason to believe are substantively inadequate — due to resource constraints, excessive workload, or insufficient time — thereby creating direct tension between the formal certification obligation and the professional duty to ensure that only accurate, complete, and reliable reports bear their endorsement.
Inadequate Remediation Scope Non-Equivalence to Full Deficiency Correction Constraint
a detailed inspection report prepared by a consulting engineering firm, signed and sealed, indicated seven pilings required replacement
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer must not treat a partial or potentially inadequate structural remediation — such as installation of two crutch piles to address seven documented deficient pilings — as equivalent to full correction of the documented structural deficiency, prohibiting the engineer from acquiescing to reopening decisions premised on the assumption that partial remediation has resolved the full scope of the identified structural problem, and requiring the engineer to formally assess and document whether the remediation scope is proportionate to the documented deficiency.
Inadequate Structural Remediation Reopening State
State in which infrastructure with confirmed structural deficiency has been reopened following a remediation (e.g., crutch pile installation) that is insufficient to address the full scope of documented deficiencies, and where the adequacy of the remediation has not been verified by a licensed engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which infrastructure has been partially remediated and reopened but no follow-up engineering inspection protocol has been established or executed, leaving the adequacy of the remediation unverified and ongoing structural integrity unmonitored.
Inadvertent Brochure Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm and its principals to take expeditious corrective action to eliminate false impressions created by promotional materials — even where the inaccuracy arose from inadvertent oversight without malicious intent — recognizing that the absence of intent to deceive does not excuse continued distribution of materials that may mislead prospective clients. This obligation requires firms to employ available low-cost correction mechanisms (errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, reprints) within a reasonable period of time, particularly where the firm has reason to believe a misunderstanding might occur. The obligation is grounded in the distinction between reduced culpability for the original oversight and the independent duty to remedy the resulting false impression once it is known.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a marketing or business development role — or any firm representative with authority over promotional materials — who receives actual notice from a colleague or staff member that a firm brochure or marketing document contains an inaccuracy capable of misleading clients or prospective clients, to take expeditious corrective action within a reasonable period of time, employing low-cost mechanisms such as errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints as necessary, rather than allowing the known inaccuracy to persist uncorrected. This obligation arises at the moment of actual knowledge and is not excused by logistical difficulties, printing costs, or the inadvertent origin of the error; the marketing director's professional engineering license independently grounds this duty.
Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that a professional colleague — including a competitor — has committed what appears to be an inadvertent or unintentional violation of state engineering licensure laws or regulations (such as practicing without a required certificate of authority) to first communicate directly with that colleague to advise them of the potential violation, explain the reasons for the requirement and the consequences of non-compliance, and afford the colleague an opportunity to remedy the situation before filing a report with the licensing board or other authority, recognizing that inadvertent violations are not uncommon and that collegial counsel is both ethically appropriate and professionally reciprocal, provided there is no imminent public danger requiring immediate escalation.
Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Delivery Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that a professional colleague or competitor has committed what appears to be an inadvertent or unintentional violation of state engineering licensure laws — such as failing to obtain a required certificate of authority — to approach that colleague directly and collegially before filing any formal report, explain the nature of the violation, articulate the substantive reasons for the requirement, describe the practical consequences of non-compliance (e.g., inability to enforce contracts, seek court redress, or obtain payment), and provide the colleague with a meaningful opportunity to cure the violation — recognizing that inadvertent violations by otherwise competent professionals warrant collegial guidance as a first response rather than immediate formal reporting.
Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Priority Constraint
when an engineer becomes aware of a violation of the state engineering licensure law, the engineer's first ethical obligation may be to refrain from jumping to conclusions
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer discovers that a professional colleague or competitor has committed what appears to be an inadvertent or unintentional violation of state engineering licensure laws or regulations — particularly a technical administrative requirement such as a certificate of authority — the engineer's first obligation is to communicate directly with the potentially offending engineer to seek clarification and afford an opportunity for voluntary correction, prohibiting the engineer from immediately escalating to a formal regulatory board complaint without first attempting collegial resolution, while preserving the obligation to report if the colleague fails to remedy the violation after notification.
Inadvertent Marketing Inaccuracy Non-Condoning Expeditious Correction Constraint
While this Board has found that unethical conduct in the past occurred in the absence of intentional actions, we do not consider the facts of this case to be of a nature to make such a finding.
Ethical constraint establishing that even where an engineering firm's continued listing of a departed engineer in promotional materials is found to reflect inadvertent oversight without malicious intent — and therefore does not constitute a violation of the ethics code — the firm is nonetheless constrained to take expeditious corrective action to eliminate any false impressions that might exist, prohibiting the firm from treating a finding of non-violation as license to allow the inaccuracy to persist; establishing that non-condoning of inadvertent inaccuracy is a distinct ethical obligation from the violation-finding analysis, and that firms which fail to take expeditious corrective measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior even in the absence of initial intent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that the logistical difficulties inherent in distributing, correcting, and reprinting marketing brochures and other promotional materials do not excuse an engineering firm or its marketing personnel from the obligation to expeditiously correct known inaccuracies — prohibiting the use of printing costs, distribution complexity, or administrative burden as justifications for indefinite delay in correcting misrepresentations that could mislead clients or prospective clients, while acknowledging the realities of firm practice and permitting the use of proportionate correction mechanisms such as errata sheets.
Inadvertent Oversight vs. Intentional Misrepresentation Ethical Distinction Capability
Here the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, firm principal, or ethics reviewer to distinguish between (a) inadvertent oversight without malicious intent — where a firm fails to update marketing materials due to logistical inattention rather than purposeful deception — and (b) intentional misrepresentation with the deliberate purpose of enhancing firm qualifications, recognizing that while both may warrant corrective action, only the latter satisfies the dual-element test for an ethics code violation under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, and to calibrate the ethical finding and corrective obligation accordingly.
Inadvertent Peer Regulatory Violation Collegial Correction Priority State
State in which a professional engineer discovers that a peer or competitor engineer/firm has committed what appears to be an inadvertent or unintentional violation of a regulatory requirement — such as failure to obtain a required certificate of authority — where no imminent public danger is present, creating a condition in which the discovering engineer's ethical obligation is sequenced: collegial peer-to-peer communication and correction must be attempted first, with formal regulatory reporting deferred unless the collegial pathway fails to produce remediation. The state reflects the profession's recognition that inadvertent violations by otherwise competent colleagues warrant a cooperative correction approach before invoking formal enforcement mechanisms, distinguishing this from willful non-compliance requiring immediate reporting.
Inadvertent vs Willful Licensure Violation Distinction Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess and distinguish between inadvertent or unintentional violations of engineering licensure laws or regulations — such as a firm owner who was unaware of a state's certificate of authority requirement — and willful, knowing, or deliberate violations — and to correctly calibrate the appropriate professional response to each category, recognizing that inadvertent violations by otherwise competent professionals warrant collegial guidance and an opportunity to cure before formal reporting, while willful violations may require more immediate formal action.
Incidental Commute Observation Safety Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, through personal experience outside contracted work hours — such as daily commuting — observes conditions posing foreseeable safety risks to construction workers and the public at a worksite the engineer is actively designing for, to report those observations to the responsible supervisor and, if unaddressed, to escalate to appropriate authorities, so that the scaffolding or other temporary works design accounts for the identified hazard.
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
Professional principle requiring engineers who, while performing contracted work or otherwise lawfully present at a client's property, observe conditions outside their contracted scope that pose a material risk to public safety or property welfare, to disclose those observations to the client or appropriate parties, even though the engineer bears no contractual obligation to investigate or remedy those conditions
[Case 132] Professional principle requiring engineers who, while performing contracted work, observe conditions outside their contracted scope that pose a material risk to public safety, to disclose those observations to the client and appropriate parties even though the engineer bears no contractual obligation to investigate or remedy those conditions.
[Case 140] Professional principle requiring engineers who, while performing contracted work or otherwise lawfully present at a client's property or work environment, observe conditions outside their contracted scope that pose a material risk to public safety or property welfare, to disclose those observations to the client or appropriate parties, even though the engineer bears no contractual obligation to investigate or remedy those conditions
[Case 78] Professional principle requiring engineers who, while performing contracted work, observe conditions outside their contracted scope that pose a material risk to public safety or property welfare, to disclose those observations to the client or appropriate parties, even though the engineer bears no contractual obligation to investigate or remedy those conditions.
[Case 86] Professional principle requiring engineers who, while performing contracted work or otherwise lawfully present at or near a client's property, observe conditions outside their contracted scope that pose a material risk to public safety, environmental welfare, or legal compliance, to disclose those observations to the client or appropriate parties, even though the engineer bears no contractual obligation to investigate or remedy those conditions.
Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
Homeowner allowed Engineer A to store equipment in the integral garage
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is lawfully present at a client's property in connection with a contracted scope of work to recognize, upon incidental observation, that a condition observed outside that contracted scope constitutes a safety deficiency — including the ability to distinguish between conditions that are merely suboptimal and conditions that pose a genuine risk to public health, safety, or welfare — and to correctly classify the observed condition as triggering professional disclosure and notification obligations regardless of the absence of a contractual duty to inspect that condition.
Incidental Observation Safety Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while lawfully present at a client's property in connection with a contracted scope of work, incidentally observes a safety deficiency outside that contracted scope — particularly one the engineer is technically competent to recognize by virtue of credentials in the relevant domain — to disclose that observed safety risk in writing to the property owner or client, so that the client can take informed corrective action before harm occurs.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural or safety deficiency affecting a property owner or other third party — particularly a new owner who was not party to the original design — to notify that third party in writing about the perceived deficiency, in addition to any verbal notification given to public officials, so that the affected party has a documented record of the risk and can take informed protective action.
Incidental Observation Structural Safety Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing contracted work in one domain (e.g., fire investigation), incidentally observes a structural safety deficiency outside the contracted scope — and who holds credentials in the relevant domain — to disclose that observed safety risk in writing to the property owner, client, and appropriate public authorities, so that corrective action can be taken before harm occurs.
Incidental Out-of-Scope Code Violation Discovery in Occupied Building State
the client confided in the engineer that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems, which violated applicable codes and standards
State in which a professional engineer retained to assess one system of an occupied building (e.g., structural integrity) discovers, through client disclosure or incidental observation, code violations in a different system (e.g., electrical, mechanical) that fall outside the engineer's domain of expertise but that the engineer recognizes as posing injury risk to occupants — creating an obligation to notify the client and, if the client fails to act, to report to appropriate public authorities, even though the engineer lacks the specialized competence to fully evaluate the out-of-scope deficiencies.
Incidental Personal Observation Worksite Hazard Pre-Design Corrective Action Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has personally observed — through incidental experience outside contracted work hours, such as a daily commute — illegal third-party conduct that creates a foreseeable safety hazard to a worksite the engineer is designing must seek corrective action regarding that hazard before finalizing and implementing the design, prohibiting the engineer from proceeding with scaffolding or temporary structure design as if the observed hazard does not exist, and establishing that personal observation outside formal scope creates a professional obligation to address the hazard through supervisor notification and, if necessary, escalation.
Incidental Post-Contract Environmental Violation Escalation Obligation
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property and notices that the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has incidentally observed a client's unauthorized wetland fill post-contract, confronted the client, and been refused or ignored, to escalate the matter to appropriate federal and state environmental regulatory authorities — including the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and state environmental agencies — so that enforcement action can be taken to remediate the violation and restore the protected wetland, recognizing that client refusal does not extinguish the engineer's obligation to protect public environmental welfare.
State in which a licensed professional engineer, while performing services for a client in one domain, incidentally observes a safety deficiency in another domain of the same property or project — a deficiency not within the scope of their engagement but within their professional competence to recognize — creating tension between the limited scope of their retainer, their professional obligation to protect public safety, and the question of whether and how to communicate the observed hazard.
Incidental Structural Deficiency Discovery State
Forensic Engineer was concerned that the beam appeared to be too light for the loads it carried
State in which a licensed professional engineer, retained for a limited or specific purpose (such as post-arson evaluation or expert witness review), incidentally discovers a structural deficiency or safety hazard that is outside the scope of their engagement but within their professional competence to assess — triggering an obligation to report the deficiency to affected parties and public authorities beyond the retaining client, regardless of the limited scope of the original engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer, while investigating or evaluating a specific structure or project, discovers evidence that the same design defect or structural inadequacy is likely present in multiple other structures beyond the immediate project scope — such as identical tract homes in a subdivision — thereby expanding the engineer's safety reporting obligation beyond the retaining client to include building officials, individual affected owners, and community associations.
Inclusive Public Engagement Design Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers responsible for or overseeing mandatory public engagement processes on infrastructure projects to ensure that outreach sessions, notice methods, and comment submission mechanisms are genuinely accessible to the affected community — including consideration of work-hour scheduling, geographic proximity, transit accessibility, virtual participation options, and written comment channels — particularly when the affected community is historically underserved or overburdened
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Criticism State
Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
State in which a professional engineer offers or is solicited to offer critical opinions about another engineer's work decisions without having been involved in that engineer's decision-making process and without full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, or information under which those decisions were made — such that the criticism may be sincerely held but factually inaccurate, rendering it potentially improper or questionable under professional codes even if subjectively truthful.
Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from offering critical opinions about another engineer's professional decisions when the critiquing engineer lacks full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, client directives, technical context, and professional judgment factors that informed those decisions — establishing that criticism offered without complete contextual knowledge is inherently unreliable, potentially misleading, and constitutes a violation of the obligation to be objective and truthful, as established by NSPE Code Section III.7 and the principle that engineers may not maliciously or falsely injure the professional reputation of another engineer.
Incomplete Defect History Disclosure State
State in which a licensed or unlicensed professional who has discovered both a current defect and a multi-year pattern of unreported defects reports only the current defect to a supervising authority, deliberately or negligently omitting the historical pattern of non-reporting — thereby providing a materially incomplete account that prevents the supervisor from understanding the full scope of the inspection failure, the systemic risk, and the appropriate remedial response.
Incomplete Deliverable Concealing Design Engineer
Engineer A generally agrees with Hi-Lo's characterization, but in his defense responds that he felt pressured to deliver the drawings and specifications on a specified date, but did not inform anyone as to their incompleteness
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer prepares, signs, and seals design drawings and specifications that are knowingly incomplete or deficient, fails to disclose that incompleteness to the client or approving authority under schedule or deadline pressure, and proceeds on the assumption that contingency funding will absorb resulting cost overruns, bearing obligations of full disclosure of design status, honest representation of deliverable completeness, and refusal to seal documents that do not meet professional standards.
Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure to Client Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who delivers design drawings, specifications, or other contract deliverables that the engineer knows to be materially incomplete or inadequate for construction to affirmatively disclose that incompleteness to the client at or before the time of delivery, so that the client can make informed decisions about proceeding, seeking supplemental services, or adjusting the project timeline — and to refrain from delivering sealed documents while concealing known deficiencies, regardless of schedule pressure, funding assumptions, or confidence that downstream parties will remedy the gap.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who believes that a project — defined in terms of its public safety objective rather than its technical completion — will not succeed in protecting the public from danger, to formally advise the client of that belief in writing, so that the client has clear notice that the engineer's professional judgment is that the project as currently planned will not achieve its safety purpose, and so that the engineer's faithful agent obligation is fully discharged through formal rather than informal communication.
Incomplete Deliverable Self-Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when design drawings, specifications, or other contract deliverables are materially incomplete or inadequate, and to proactively disclose that incompleteness to the client at or before delivery — including when the engineer is aware of the deficiency but has not been asked — rather than delivering sealed documents without disclosure and relying on downstream parties to discover the deficiency. Encompasses the ability to identify the threshold of incompleteness that triggers disclosure, formulate a clear and honest disclosure statement, and deliver that disclosure in a timely and effective manner.
Incomplete Disclosure to Supervisor Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers and engineering interns to provide complete and material information when reporting safety concerns or deficiencies to supervising engineers, including the obligation not to omit facts that are material to the severity, duration, or systemic nature of the reported problem, and the ethical implications of selective disclosure that understates the scope of a public safety issue.
Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to evaluate or criticize another engineer's work to recognize when their own incomplete knowledge of the circumstances — including not having been involved in the other engineer's decision-making process, not knowing the constraints under which the other engineer operated, or lacking access to the full project record — renders any specific critical opinion potentially inaccurate, and to restrain from offering specific critical opinions on that basis, even when the engineer subjectively believes their critique to be truthful.
Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to evaluate or criticize another engineer's work — when the engineer lacks full knowledge of the circumstances, constraints, and decision-making context under which the other engineer performed that work — to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions about that work, recognizing that opinions formed without complete situational knowledge may be inaccurate even when subjectively believed to be truthful, and that such incomplete critique can unjustly injure the other engineer's professional reputation.
Engineer A only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options
State in which a professional engineer, tasked with advising a client on a set of formally approved or available options, presents only a subset of those options to the client — omitting one or more viable options without disclosure of the omission or the reason for it — thereby depriving the client of the information needed to make a fully informed decision.
In their communications about the suspension, Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting engineers from omitting known or suspected material risks from communications with clients, employers, or relevant stakeholders, particularly when those risks affect public welfare or the scope of professional engagement.
Incomplete Situational Knowledge Restraint in Competitor Critique
Engineer C voiced this criticism while Engineer B was still under contract with Client A, and Engineer C may not have known all the circumstances under which Engineer B performed his work as Engineer C was not involved in Engineer B's decision-making process
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who are asked to evaluate or criticize another engineer's work to refrain from rendering specific critical opinions when they lack full knowledge of the circumstances under which the other engineer made professional decisions, recognizing that opinions rendered without complete situational awareness may be inaccurate even if subjectively truthful, and that such inaccurate criticism can unjustly injure the other engineer's professional reputation
Incumbent Advantage Non-Exploitation Assessment Capability
AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
Capability of a private AE firm to assess whether recruiting a former senior public official creates an unfair incumbent advantage in future procurement competitions with the former official's agency — including evaluating the nature and extent of the official's prior contracting authority, the firm's existing contract history with the agency, and the competitive distortion that would result from exploiting the recruited official's relationships and insider knowledge — and to make an informed judgment about whether and how to proceed with the recruitment and subsequent procurement activities.
Incumbent Advantage Prohibition in Public Procurement
AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City.
Domain-specific principle requiring that private AE firms refrain from structuring their competitive positioning to exploit improper advantages derived from relationships with departing or recently departed public officials, including recruiting former officials specifically to leverage their insider knowledge, relationships, or influence over ongoing or future public contracts
Incumbent Consulting Engineer Under Contract
Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm is currently performing services under an active multi-year consulting contract with a public client, while simultaneously being subject to evaluation and potential replacement in an upcoming contract renewal competition, bearing obligations of continued competent performance and professional dignity, and generating protections against improper competitor interference during the active contract period.
Incumbent Engineer Active Contract Covert Review Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer in private practice from reviewing or evaluating the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, when the incumbent engineer's contract with the client has not been terminated — establishing that covert evaluation of an active incumbent's work, particularly when conducted by a competitor, violates both the peer review notification requirement and the prohibition on improper competitive conduct, and prohibiting the reviewing engineer from proceeding with substantive evaluation of incumbent work without first ensuring the incumbent engineer is aware of the review.
Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Competitive Scrutiny Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as an incumbent consulting engineer under an active contract to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in the client's best interest — even when the engineer's professional judgment is being repeatedly questioned by the client administrator, when a competitor is being improperly solicited to critique the engineer's work, and when the contract renewal is uncertain — refraining from retaliatory conduct, defensive withholding of services, or any diminishment of professional performance in response to the competitive pressure or unfair treatment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when a client or authorized decision-making body has made a legitimate, informed decision among fully presented alternatives, and to transition from independent professional advisor to faithful agent executing that decision — including suppressing personal professional preferences for alternative approaches, refraining from efforts to re-litigate or undermine the client's choice, and avoiding any conduct that could constitute improper influence over a public authority's award decision.
Incumbent Engineer Faithful Performance Under Contested Contract Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as an incumbent consulting engineer under an active multi-year contract — even when the engineer's professional judgment is being questioned by the client administrator and a contract renewal competition is underway — to continue performing all contracted services faithfully, competently, and in the client's best interests for the duration of the active contract, refraining from allowing the competitive uncertainty or the administrator's criticism to diminish the quality or completeness of services delivered.
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Peer Review Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from reviewing or evaluating the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, unless the incumbent engineer's connection with the work has been formally terminated — establishing that covert peer review conducted while the incumbent remains under active contract constitutes a violation of professional courtesy and the NSPE Code peer review provision, and prohibiting the reviewing engineer from proceeding with substantive evaluation of incumbent work without first ensuring the incumbent engineer is aware of the review.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a peer review from proceeding with that review without first notifying the engineer whose work is being reviewed, arising from NSPE Code Section III.7.a and professional courtesy norms establishing that an engineer may not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, and prohibiting client instructions that direct the reviewing engineer to conduct the review covertly.
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
Relational principle requiring that a competing engineer who is asked to review or evaluate the work of an incumbent engineer under an active contract must refrain from doing so unless the incumbent engineer has knowledge of the review, recognizing that covert competitive review of an incumbent's work violates both the incumbent's professional dignity and the integrity of the procurement process
[Case 169] Relational principle requiring that a competing engineer who is asked to review or evaluate the work of an incumbent engineer under an active contract must refrain from doing so unless the incumbent engineer has knowledge of the review, recognizing that covert competitive review of an incumbent's work violates both the incumbent's professional dignity and the integrity of the procurement process.
Incumbent Engineer Under Active Contract State
Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated
State in which a professional engineer is still actively under contract with a client at the time a competing engineer is informally solicited to evaluate or criticize that incumbent's work, such that the incumbent has neither knowledge of the evaluation nor has their contractual relationship been terminated — triggering heightened obligations on the competing engineer to refrain from substantive criticism and to avoid reviewing the work without the incumbent's knowledge.
Incumbent Firm Capacity Honest Reassurance Communication Capability
Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions and retained its capacity to provide proper services despite the departure of the four engineers.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is the principal of an established firm that has lost key staff to a competing firm to communicate honestly with former clients about the firm's continued capacity to provide quality services — accurately representing the firm's remaining capabilities without overstating them, refraining from disparaging the departing engineers or their new firm, and ensuring that reassurance communications are truthful and non-deceptive even when motivated by competitive self-interest in client retention.
Incumbent Firm Principal Defending Against Competitor Disparagement
Engineer A was also making contact with the former clients to indicate that his firm was still available for future commissions
A licensed professional engineer who is the principal or head of an established engineering firm that has lost key staff to a newly formed competing firm, and who actively contacts former clients to reassure them of the firm's continued capacity and quality, while also casting doubt on the qualifications of the competing firm, bearing obligations of truthfulness, fair competition, and avoidance of false or misleading statements about competitors.
Incumbent Firm Principal Discovering Competitor Misconduct
Engineer B, a principal in Firm X learns that Engineer A has contacted one of Firm X's employees
A licensed professional engineer who is a principal or senior member of an engineering firm and discovers that a former employee is engaging in deceptive or disparaging competitive practices targeting the firm's clients or staff, bearing obligations to protect the firm's legitimate business interests, to respond professionally, and potentially to report ethical violations through appropriate channels.
Incumbent Multi-Contract Firm City Engineer Self-Oversight Conflict Non-Acceptance Obligation
WXY currently has three contracts directly with the city for separate projects with City H
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm that currently holds multiple active design and service contracts with a municipality to refrain from accepting appointment as that municipality's city engineer — a role requiring independent, objective advisory judgment on behalf of the city — when the structural conflict created by simultaneously holding active contracts and serving as the oversight authority for those same contracts is irreconcilable through disclosure alone, recognizing that the firm would be placed in the position of reviewing and overseeing its own work, compromising the objectivity essential to the city engineer role.
Incumbent Multi-Contract Firm City Engineer Self-Oversight Structural Conflict Non-Acceptance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a private engineering firm that currently holds multiple active design and service contracts with a municipality is prohibited from accepting appointment as that municipality's city engineer when the city engineer role would require the firm to oversee, review, approve, or supervise the very work performed under its own active contracts — establishing that the structural self-oversight conflict created by simultaneously holding the role of designer/service provider and the role of reviewing city engineer is irresolvable through disclosure alone, and that the firm must decline the appointment or terminate its existing contracts before accepting the city engineer role.
Incumbent Multi-Contract Firm Prospective City Engineer
WXY has provided services directly to City H
A private consulting engineering firm that currently holds multiple active design and service contracts with a municipality and is simultaneously being considered for appointment as the municipality's city engineer (general consulting engineer), bearing heightened obligations to disclose existing contractual relationships, avoid conflicts of interest arising from self-review or divided loyalties, and ensure that the dual role does not compromise independent professional judgment on behalf of the public.
Incumbent Multi-Contract Firm Self-Oversight Conflict Non-Acceptance Capability
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm — and its principal — that currently holds multiple active design and service contracts with a municipal client to recognize that accepting appointment as that municipality's city engineer would create an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest, specifically because the firm would be placed in the position of overseeing and evaluating its own work performed under those existing contracts, and to correctly determine that this self-oversight conflict cannot be cured by disclosure alone and requires declining the appointment.
Incumbent Multi-Contract Firm Structural Conflict Proactive Disclosure Capability
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm's principal — when the firm holds multiple active contracts with a municipal client and is being considered for appointment as city engineer — to proactively disclose to municipal officials the full nature and extent of the structural conflict of interest arising from the concurrent contracts, including articulating specifically how the self-oversight problem arises, without waiting for officials to independently identify or raise the conflict.
Incumbent Multi-Contract Firm Structural Conflict Proactive Disclosure to Municipal Client Obligation
Engineer A is the president of WXY Engineers, an engineering firm
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm's principal — when the firm holds multiple active contracts with a municipality and is being considered for appointment as that municipality's city engineer — to proactively and affirmatively disclose to the municipal client the full nature and extent of the structural conflict of interest created by the simultaneous active contract relationships, including the specific projects under contract, the self-oversight implications, and the firm's assessment of whether the conflict is manageable, before the municipality makes its appointment decision, so that the municipal client can make a fully informed choice.
Incumbent Multi-Contract Self-Oversight Conflict Prohibition
Domain-specific principle establishing that a private consulting engineering firm that currently holds multiple active contracts with a municipality cannot ethically serve simultaneously as that municipality's city engineer, because the city engineer role carries supervisory, advisory, and oversight authority over the very contracts the firm is performing — creating an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest in which the firm would be, in effect, supervising and evaluating its own work on behalf of the public client, regardless of whether the firm also performs private work for third parties within the municipality
Independent Arrangement Relational Obligation Review Before Direct Engagement Acceptance
we might note, however, that Engineer X should consider carefully whether his accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement he might have had with Firms A or B.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who has made independent arrangements with multiple competing firms — such as agreeing to serve as sub-consultant to each — bears a prudential and ethical obligation to carefully review whether accepting a direct prime engagement from the client would violate any of those prior arrangements, even when the client's direct engagement is otherwise ethically permissible and no formal supplanting prohibition applies. The principle recognizes that pre-existing relational commitments to competing parties may generate independent obligations that constrain the engineer's freedom to accept a direct engagement, separate from the formal supplanting prohibition analysis.
Independent Departure Motivation Verification Capability
Engineer A's decision to depart from ABC and establish his own firm clearly appears to be motivated by factors independent from any relationship that Engineer A might be developing with Clover City.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer to establish a competing firm — particularly where a client has previously expressed interest in the engineer's independent services — to critically examine and verify that the decision to depart is independently motivated by legitimate professional and entrepreneurial factors rather than primarily driven by the client relationship or the prospect of capturing the client's business, and to ensure that the departure motivation can withstand ethical scrutiny as genuinely independent from any client-solicited departure dynamic.
Independent Departure Motivation Verification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer to establish an independent competing firm — particularly where the departure was preceded by a client solicitation — to ensure and be able to demonstrate that the departure decision was independently motivated by legitimate professional and personal factors rather than primarily driven by the client solicitation or by a pre-arranged plan to divert the employer's client relationships; this obligation requires the engineer to maintain a clear separation between the client's expression of interest and the engineer's independent decision to depart, and to refrain from treating the client solicitation as the operative cause of departure in a manner that would implicate the faithful agent duty.
City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
Professional norms and procedural standards governing the conduct of third-party independent engineering reviews, including the methodologies, scope, and reporting obligations for firms engaged to assess the adequacy of prior engineering work following complaints or failures
Independent Engineering Review as Client and Public Interest Instrument Principle
it is not the intent or purpose of 12(a) to prevent one engineer from reviewing the work of another engineer
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the ability of a property owner or client to retain an independent engineer to review original design work — including work by a prior engineer whose connection has ended — serves both the client's interest in resolving current facility problems and the broader public interest in engineering quality and accountability; restrictions on such review that protect prior engineers at the expense of clients and the public are contrary to the profession's foundational obligations.
Independent Geotechnical Litigation Observer
An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test
A licensed geotechnical engineering role in which an engineer is retained by one party in litigation to independently observe physical testing conducted by the opposing party's expert, evaluate test methodology and equipment performance, and provide testimony on observed deficiencies in test conditions and their effect on reported results.
Independent Geotechnical Observation Completeness Capability
Capability of an independent geotechnical engineer retained to observe a test program to provide complete and objective testimony about all material observations — including equipment failures, methodological deviations, and procedural anomalies — regardless of which party retained them, recognizing that the independent observer role requires comprehensive reporting of all material observations rather than selective reporting of observations favorable to the retaining party.
Independent Peer Judgment Chapter Member
it is basic to the professional concept of peer judgment that the other members of the profession would exercise independent judgment without regard to personal relations through membership in a professional organization
A professional engineering role borne by ordinary members of a local professional society chapter who are called upon to evaluate a technical position or endorse an engineering alternative presented by fellow chapter members who hold a client interest in the outcome, bearing obligations to exercise independent professional judgment based solely on technical merit, to resist undue influence arising from collegial relationships or shared chapter membership, and to preserve the integrity of the chapter's institutional voice on matters of local engineering concern.
Independent Report Framing Non-Cure of Same-Matter Conflict Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that an opposing party's characterization of a proposed forensic engagement as 'independent and separate' from a prior engagement in the same matter does not cure, mitigate, or override the irresolvable conflict of interest created by the engineer's prior confidential access to the original client's information — prohibiting the engineer from accepting the new engagement on the basis that the new report will be independently prepared, and establishing that the independence of the analytical process is irrelevant to the ethical bar created by the prior confidential access, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and NSPE Code Section II.4.b.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who was retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding — and who, in the course of that retention, gained cooperative access to confidential information, documents, and facts belonging to that party — from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same proceeding, establishing that the engineer's prior access to confidential information creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that cannot be cured by termination of the original engagement, by the engineer's good-faith belief in providing an independent report, or by the opposing party's framing of the new engagement as separate and independent — and prohibiting the engineer from treating the cessation of the prior relationship as a complete discharge of the duty of trust and loyalty owed to the original client, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and NSPE Code Section II.4.b.
Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure of Same-Matter Switching Sides Obligation
Nor is the fact that Engineer A has agreed to provide a 'separate and independent engineering and safety analysis report.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation and subsequently accepts retention by the opposing party in the same matter to recognize that a pledge or agreement to provide a 'separate and independent' engineering and safety analysis report does not cure the ethical conflict created by the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information, documents, and strategic case materials — because the engineer cannot credibly segregate prior knowledge from current analysis, and the opposing party's expectation of a favorable report is itself evidence that the pledge of independence is illusory.
Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure of Side-Switching Conflict Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation and subsequently terminated to recognize that a pledge or agreement to provide a 'separate and independent' engineering and safety analysis report for the opposing party does not cure the ethical conflict created by prior access to the original client's confidential information, documents, and case strategy — including the ability to understand that the promise of independence cannot overcome the cognitive impossibility of mentally segregating previously acquired confidential knowledge, that the opposing party's motivation for seeking the independent report pledge is itself ethically suspect, and that such a pledge therefore does not constitute an adequate ethical remedy for the side-switching prohibition, consistent with BER Case 85-4.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics reviewing bodies — to recognize that once an engineer has been exposed to confidential information, documents, and facts from one party in an adversarial proceeding, it is not realistically possible for the engineer to mentally segregate or 'blot out' that information when subsequently performing work for the opposing party — and to apply this recognition as a basis for declining side-switching engagements, consistent with BER Case 85-4's rejection of the proposition that an engineer can start from 'square one' after termination.
Independent Review Integrity and Non-Exploitation of Privileged Access
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers retained to conduct independent external reviews — including peer reviews, design audits, or technical assessments — to refrain from exploiting the privileged access to project information, design documents, and specifications obtained in that independent capacity for subsequent competitive commercial advantage, recognizing that the independence of the review role creates a fiduciary-like obligation to the procuring agency that survives the conclusion of the review engagement
Independent Reviewer Impaired Practice Reporting Obligation
Finally, what are Engineer R's ethical obligations? The facts reveal it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct an independent technical review — such as a structural failure investigation — who discovers evidence of incompetent, impaired, or unlawful engineering practice by another licensed engineer to report those findings to the appropriate professional body and public authorities, recognizing that the reporting obligation arises independently of the client's own reporting decisions, unless the client has already filed a report that encompasses the reviewer's findings, and that the reviewer may concur in the client's report rather than filing separately when the client takes the lead.
Independent Reviewer Reporting Obligation
Engineer R would be obligated to report Engineer B to the State Board (Section II.1.f).
Professional principle requiring engineers retained to conduct independent technical reviews — such as failure investigations or peer reviews — who discover evidence of incompetent, impaired, or unethical practice by another engineer to report those findings to appropriate professional authorities, not merely to the retaining client, recognizing that the independent reviewer's discovery creates a direct knowledge-based reporting obligation that runs to the profession and the public, not only to the client
Independent Reviewer Reporting Obligation Assessment Capability
Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
Capability of an independent reviewer retained to assess failed or deficient engineering work to recognize and fulfill the professional reporting obligations triggered by discovery of incompetent practice — including understanding that the obligation to report to the state licensure board arises independently of whether the commissioning client takes the lead in reporting, and that the reviewer's concurrence in a client-led report satisfies the obligation only if the report is actually made, otherwise requiring independent reporting action.
Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis Capability
Technical capability to conduct independent hydrological modeling and analysis of subdivision stormwater designs — including pre-development and post-development runoff calculations for specified recurrence interval storm events — using appropriate modeling tools and methodologies, sufficient to verify or refute compliance with regulatory peak flow requirements and to identify design deficiencies contributing to post-construction flooding.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical capability to assess, quantify, and qualitatively estimate risks of stormwater runoff impacts on receiving water bodies, including drinking water watersheds, using hydrological analysis and environmental standards
Engineer A retained a well-respected structural engineer, Engineer R, to perform an independent review of the structural drawings and the failed basement structure
A licensed structural engineering professional retained by a client following a structural failure to conduct an independent technical review of existing design documents and the failed structure, identify design errors and omissions, and subsequently redesign the structure, bearing obligations of technical rigor, objectivity, and complete reporting of all identified deficiencies.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a client to conduct an independent technical review of another engineer's design documents, bearing obligations of thoroughness, objectivity, notification of the original design engineer, and protection of public safety, while navigating potential conflicts between client instructions and professional ethics regarding the conduct of the review.
Independent Verification Before Error Acknowledgment Capability
After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
Capability to conduct an independent, rigorous review and verification of third-party analysis alleging errors in one's own prior engineering work — including checking the third-party's methodology, inputs, and conclusions against one's own original calculations — before formally acknowledging the error, so that acknowledgment is based on confirmed findings rather than unverified external assertions, consistent with professional accountability obligations under NSPE Code III.1.a and III.8.
Indeterminate Factor Engineering Estimate Reliance State
engineers must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment
State in which a professional engineer is required to form and express a professional opinion that necessarily rests on estimates of indeterminate or uncertain future factors — such as construction cost projections, population growth forecasts, economic development trends, or future equipment efficiency improvements — rather than on confirmed empirical data. In this state, the engineer's opinion is inherently probabilistic and judgment-based, and the ethical obligation is to express that opinion honestly as an informed professional estimate rather than as a confirmed finding, to disclose the indeterminate nature of the underlying factors, and to avoid overstating the certainty of conclusions derived from such estimates. The state recognizes that professional engineering judgment on indeterminate factors is a legitimate and necessary component of engineering practice, not a deficiency.
Indeterminate Factor Estimate-Based Opinion Epistemic Humility Constraint
Epistemic and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who forms and expresses a professional opinion necessarily resting on estimates of indeterminate factors — such as construction cost by one method or another, population growth, economic development trends, or future equipment efficiency — must acknowledge the estimate-based and judgment-dependent character of that opinion, prohibiting the presentation of such opinions as if they were mathematically certain or uniquely correct, and establishing that the expression of engineering judgment on indeterminate factors is a legitimate and expected feature of professional engineering practice before legislative and public bodies, as established by Canon 5 and Canon 7 and the BER's recognition that engineers 'must base their opinion on estimates of indeterminate factors.'
Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Detection Capability
Capability of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer to detect when a supervisor is communicating a directive indirectly — in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict the directive would create — and to recognize that the indirectness of the communication does not diminish the ethical significance of the directive or the subordinate's obligation to refuse and escalate it.
Indirect Directive Policy Evasion Recognition Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that an engineer intern or subordinate who receives an indirectly communicated directive from a supervising engineer — framed in a manner designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy violation it would require — must recognize the indirect communication as ethically equivalent to a direct policy-violating directive, and must respond with the same refusal and escalation obligations that would apply to an explicit directive, prohibiting the intern from treating the indirectness of the communication as reducing the ethical weight of the directive or as providing cover for compliance.
Indirect Policy-Violating Directive Escalation Obligation
Duty of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer who receives an indirect or ambiguously communicated directive from a supervising engineer to revise a design in a manner that would violate an explicit agency policy — particularly when the indirectness of the communication appears designed to avoid explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — to escalate the directive and the policy conflict to appropriate supervisory, legal, or administrative authorities within the agency before taking any action on the directive, so that the policy violation is surfaced through proper institutional channels rather than silently implemented.
Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Non-Subordination to Categorical Prohibition Obligation
To do so would undermine the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise
Duty of professional engineering ethics bodies and individual engineers to preserve and protect the individual judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise in making professional decisions — specifically, to refrain from imposing categorical prohibitions on classes of professional conduct (such as accepting engagements adverse to former clients in unrelated matters) that would undermine the engineer's capacity for individualized professional decision-making, recognizing that some engineers may choose more conservative approaches while others may legitimately accept such engagements, and that neither choice constitutes a code violation when the underlying facts do not establish an actual conflict.
Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation Against Categorical Prohibition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and professional ethics review bodies to recognize, protect, and exercise the individual professional judgment, independence, and discretion that each engineer must exercise when making decisions about accepting engagements — including the ability to resist categorical prohibitions that would eliminate individualized assessment in favor of bright-line rules, to recognize that imposing categorical prohibitions on adverse engagement against former clients in unrelated matters would undermine the autonomy and professional independence that define engineering practice, and to apply individualized multi-factor analysis rather than categorical rules when evaluating the permissibility of potentially conflicted engagements.
Industry-Retained Regulatory Hearing Witness Engineer
A licensed professional engineer retained and compensated by an industry client to testify at a governmental or regulatory administrative hearing on proposed rules or permits affecting that industry, bearing obligations to fully disclose the retaining party's identity and financial relationship, to accurately represent licensure status in the testifying jurisdiction, and to avoid creating false impressions of independence, governmental affiliation, or neutrality through selective disclosure of credentials or employer identity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides expert testimony at a regulatory or legal proceeding while presenting credentials, affiliations, or employment associations in a manner that creates a false or misleading impression of the basis or independence of the testimony — including using employer branding in presentations while testifying in a private consulting capacity, failing to disclose financial relationships with interested parties, and omitting material conflicts of interest — bearing obligations of complete transparency regarding the actual basis of testimony, the identity of the retaining party, and all relevant professional affiliations and financial relationships.
Industry-Wide Advocacy Distinguished from Employer-Specific Product Dissent State
What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision
State in which a professional ethics body has formally distinguished between (a) an engineer questioning or dissenting from a specific employer's product quality or business decision — which is governed by faithful-agent and internal-escalation obligations — and (b) an engineer engaging in industry-wide public advocacy to raise the quality standards of an entire product category or profession — which is governed by public welfare and civic service obligations. This state activates when a prior precedent limiting internal product dissent is cited as potentially constraining broader civic advocacy, and the ethics body clarifies that the two situations are governed by different code provisions and carry different obligations, with industry-wide advocacy being affirmatively permitted and encouraged under the public welfare mandate.
Industry-Wide Advocacy Internal Product Dissent BER Precedent Distinguishability Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that BER precedent holding that engineers assigned to design a lower-quality commercial product should not question the company's business decision (Case 61-10) does not apply to — and must be distinguished from — situations in which engineers engage in industry-wide civic advocacy for minimum quality standards across all products and companies, prohibiting the mechanical application of the internal-product-dissent precedent to industry-wide legislative advocacy scenarios, and establishing that the operative factual distinction is whether the engineer is questioning a specific employer's specific product decision (internal dissent, governed by faithful agent norms) versus advocating for universal minimum standards applicable to all industry participants (civic advocacy, governed by public welfare and civic service norms).
Industry-Wide Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Identification Employer Concurrence Non-Requirement Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who engages in civic advocacy for industry-wide public welfare standards — such as minimum product quality legislation — without identifying their employer or any specific company is not required to obtain employer concurrence before engaging in such advocacy, distinguishing this scenario from cases where the engineer's advocacy directly implicates the employer's specific products, clients, or business relationships; establishing that the employer concurrence requirement for citizen-role advocacy applies only where the advocacy could adversely affect the employer's significant and identifiable business interests, not where the advocacy is genuinely industry-wide and employer-anonymous.
Industry Consulting Relationship Affirmative Disclosure in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
Although Engineer A also provides consulting services, primarily for coal bed methane companies, Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who provides consulting services primarily for a regulated industry to affirmatively disclose those ongoing consulting relationships when testifying before a regulatory body on matters directly affecting that industry, regardless of whether the engineer is technically testifying 'on their own behalf,' so that the regulatory body and public record reflect the full scope of the engineer's financial entanglement with the regulated industry.
Industry Indiscriminate Title Use Non-Adoption Constraint
Although the industry and governmental agencies sometimes use the term indiscriminently, we in the profession must not.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that the widespread or indiscriminate use of the title 'engineer' by industry actors or governmental agencies does not relieve individual engineering firms or licensed professional engineers of their independent obligation to use the title accurately and in conformity with professional and statutory standards — prohibiting firms from adopting or perpetuating indiscriminate title usage on the grounds that such usage is common practice, and establishing that professional standards impose a higher duty than prevailing industry custom.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers that a public agency has systematically assigned engineering-implying titles to non-licensed, non-degreed personnel — thereby creating a misleading impression of engineering authority and enabling unlicensed practice — must raise that concern with appropriate agency leadership and, if unresolved, report the systemic practice to the relevant licensure authority or professional body, prohibiting passive acquiescence in institutional title misassignment that facilitates ongoing unlicensed engineering practice at a systemic level.
Engineer Doe was retained by an industry to evaluate whether a proposed change in their manufacturing process would result in meeting minimum water quality standards
A private industrial client role that retains an engineer to evaluate whether a proposed change in manufacturing process will meet minimum regulatory standards, bearing authority to sever the engineer's contract and suppress reporting, but subject to the engineer's overriding obligation to report public health and safety risks to appropriate regulatory authorities regardless of client instructions.
Industry Normalization Non-Excuse for Professional Title Misrepresentation
Professional virtue principle establishing that widespread misuse of the title 'Engineer' by industry actors or governmental agencies does not excuse or justify an engineering firm's own misuse of that title in its public-facing materials, because the engineering profession's self-regulatory obligation to accurate title use is independent of and not diminished by external normalization of the misuse — the profession must hold itself to a higher standard than the surrounding environment
State in which a public outreach process for a project affecting a specific community has been structured — through timing, location, accessibility, and format choices — in ways that systematically exclude or disadvantage the primary affected community from meaningful participation, while nominally satisfying procedural requirements, thereby distorting the representativeness of gathered public input.
Inescapable Ethical Violation Acceptance Prohibition Self-Application Capability
John Doe, a professional engineer, is a county engineer and a member of the county planning board.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when accepting a private commission creates a situation in which every available course of action — proceeding with the commission, recommending approval, voting on approval — results in an ethical violation, the only permissible response is to decline the commission at inception, and to correctly apply this principle by identifying the structural impossibility of ethical compliance before accepting the conflicted engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when acceptance of a position or assignment creates a situation in which every available course of action results in unethical conduct — because the engineer cannot personally perform the required duties competently and no organizational remedy is available — the only ethically permissible response is to decline or withdraw from the position; including the ability to articulate why the structural impossibility of compliance is itself a decisive ethical reason for declination, rather than an invitation to seek creative workarounds.
Inescapable Ethical Violation Acceptance Prohibition Upon Structurally Impossible Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when acceptance of a position or assignment creates a situation in which every available course of action — performing the work directly, delegating it, or relying on qualified subordinates — results in an ethical violation of the NSPE Code, the engineer must decline or withdraw from that position rather than proceeding on the theory that one of the ethically impermissible paths is 'least bad'; the inescapability of ethical violation upon acceptance is itself the signal that acceptance was impermissible, and the engineer's obligation is to avoid placing themselves in such a structurally impossible compliance scenario.
Inescapable Ethical Violation Recognition in Structurally Impossible Compliance Scenarios
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer's acceptance of a role or assignment creates a situation in which every available course of action would result in an ethical violation — because the role's requirements are structurally incompatible with the engineer's competence — the ethical conclusion is not that some creative interpretation of the code can rescue the situation, but rather that acceptance of the role was itself the ethical violation. The principle forecloses post-hoc rationalization through code provisions that might seem to offer an escape route (such as retaining specialists or limiting scope), when the structural impossibility of ethical compliance was foreseeable at the time of acceptance.
Informal-to-Formal Regulatory Contact Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has made informal contact with a state regulatory agency regarding a public health or safety concern to recognize that informal contact is insufficient to discharge the professional reporting obligation, and to escalate that contact into a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations to the regulatory authority — including preparing structured documentation, requesting a formal hearing or meeting, and ensuring the regulatory record reflects the full scope of the safety concern — consistent with NSPE Code Section II.1.a and II.1.c.
Informal-to-Formal Regulatory Escalation Formalization Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has made only informal or preliminary contact with a state regulatory agency regarding a public health or safety concern must supplement that informal contact with a formal presentation of facts, findings, and recommendations — prohibiting treatment of informal contact alone as a sufficient discharge of the engineer's regulatory escalation obligation when the gravity of the public safety risk warrants formal regulatory engagement, as established by NSPE Code Section II.1.a and BER Case precedents addressing the duty to report safety concerns to appropriate authorities.
Informal Advisory Referral Alternative Obligation
Engineer A could have referred City Administrator to resources (whether library, free, or subscription) that provided complete analyses of the various methodologies. That would be a completely ethical informal response to an informal solicitation, involving no provision of engineering services.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who receives an informal solicitation for advisory services — particularly from a non-engineer public official — to recognize and exercise the option of referring the soliciting party to complete, authoritative, and publicly available resources (library, free, or subscription-based) rather than providing a partial or self-serving professional analysis, when such referral would fully serve the client's informational needs without creating conflicts of interest or obligations of completeness that the engineer does not intend to fulfill.
Informal As-Built Sharing Without Formal Permission State
D should not share documents on their own initiative or without formal permission
State in which a public agency engineer shares or is positioned to share existing technical documents (such as as-built drawings) with contractors or subcontractors through informal mechanisms — without formal employer permission, without referencing those documents in bid solicitation materials, and outside of any standard project process — creating an appearance of impropriety or favoritism even when the engineer's motivation is to improve design quality rather than to advantage any particular party.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a public agency engineer shares or is positioned to share project-relevant technical documents (such as as-built drawings) with selected contractors before bid opening — outside of any formal procurement disclosure process — creating an appearance of favoritism, potential influence over contract award, and a violation of equitable procurement obligations, even when the sharing is motivated by a desire to improve design quality rather than by ulterior motive.
Informal Client Interest Non-Guarantee of Future Award Constraint
While Clover City may have expressed preliminary interest in Engineer A's future services, there was no formal agreement between Engineer A and the city and no guarantee that with the passage of the year, Engineer A's solicitations for work would be positively received by Clover City
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who, prior to departing from an employer, receives informal expressions of client interest in the engineer's future independent services — including preliminary signals of intent to award future contracts — must recognize that such informal interest does not constitute a guarantee of future award and does not create an entitlement to that work, establishing that the passage of time between the informal expression of interest and the engineer's eventual solicitation may substantially reduce or eliminate the client's interest, and prohibiting the engineer from treating informal pre-departure client interest as a secured competitive advantage or as a basis for claiming that post-departure solicitation is merely formalizing a pre-existing commitment.
Informal Document Sharing Without Employer Authorization Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a public agency engineer from sharing employer-owned technical documents — including as-built drawings — with external parties through personal initiative or informal channels without formal employer authorization, arising from the faithful agent obligation and the principle established in BER Case 82-2 that engineers must recognize the confidentiality of client and employer relationships even when acting without ulterior motive, and establishing that good intentions do not substitute for formal institutional authorization.
Informal Information Sharing Restraint Capability
Capability of a public agency engineer who possesses project-relevant technical information to recognize when sharing that information through informal, personal-initiative channels — rather than through formal institutional processes — creates an appearance of impropriety, favoritism, or selective advantage, and to restrain from such informal sharing by directing information requesters to formal institutional channels, even when the engineer's intent is benign and the information would improve project outcomes.
Informal Information Sharing Restraint Obligation
Duty of a public agency engineer who possesses project-relevant technical information — such as as-built drawings — to refrain from sharing that information with contractors or other parties through informal, ad hoc, or personally initiated channels, and instead to direct all requests through formal, agency-sanctioned processes, so that no party gains an informational advantage through personal relationships and the appearance of impropriety or favoritism is avoided.
Informal Mechanism Public Project Impropriety Appearance Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a public agency engineer from sharing project-relevant technical documents or information through informal, personally initiated mechanisms on public projects — even when acting without ulterior motive and with the genuine intent to improve design quality — when such informal sharing creates an appearance of impropriety or favoritism among competing contractors, establishing that the appearance of improper conduct is itself ethically impermissible regardless of the engineer's benign subjective intent, and requiring that all information sharing be channeled through formal, institutionally authorized processes that provide equal access to all prospective bidders.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public agency engineer avoid not only actual favoritism or impropriety in procurement-related conduct, but also the appearance of favoritism or impropriety — establishing that informal mechanisms on public projects, even when well-intentioned and without ulterior motive, are ethically impermissible when they create a reasonable appearance of preferential treatment among competing bidders, as established by BER Cases 82-2, 15-7, and 16-3.
Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment State
State in which a public official with procurement authority has made an informal, verbal, or otherwise non-binding promise to select a specific firm for a future public engineering contract, prior to any formal competitive or qualification-based selection process being initiated — creating a structural corruption of the anticipated procurement process and triggering obligations for both the promising official and the recipient firm to avoid acting on or perpetuating the commitment.
Informal Pre-Bid As-Built Request Pattern State
State in which contractors who have previously received as-built drawings from a public agency engineer after contract award begin systematically requesting those documents before bids are submitted on future projects — outside of any formal procurement disclosure process — creating a pattern of informal pre-bid information sharing that advantages contractors with prior project experience over those without it, and creating tension between the engineer's responsiveness to individual requests and the obligation to ensure equitable access to all prospective bidders.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which contractors or bidders, having learned through prior project experience that a public agency possesses existing technical documents relevant to accurate bid preparation, begin informally requesting those documents directly from agency staff before bids are submitted — outside of any formal procurement disclosure process — creating tension between the agency engineer's responsiveness to individual requests and the obligation to ensure equitable access to all prospective bidders.
State in which contractors or bidders, having learned through prior project experience that a public agency possesses existing technical documents relevant to accurate bid preparation, begin informally requesting those documents directly from agency staff before bids are submitted — outside of any formal procurement disclosure process — creating tension between the agency engineer's responsiveness to individual requests and the obligation to ensure equitable access to all prospective bidders.
Informal Regulatory Contact Requiring Formalization State
State in which a professional engineer has made informal or preliminary contact with a state regulatory agency regarding a public safety concern, but has not yet delivered a formal, documented presentation of findings, facts, and recommendations — creating an obligation to escalate the communication to a formal submission in order to properly discharge the duty to report and satisfy applicable code requirements.
Informal Selective Document Sharing Prohibition Constraint
After bids are opened and contracts are awarded, the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system. D provides the drawings.
Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a public agency engineer from sharing project-relevant technical documents — including as-built drawings — with individual contractors on an informal, request-driven basis when those documents are material to competitive bid preparation, when the sharing is not formalized through the agency's procurement process, and when the informal sharing pattern creates or perpetuates an information asymmetry among prospective bidders — establishing that the engineer's custodial role over agency documents does not authorize informal selective disclosure outside of formally equitable procurement channels.
Informal Solicitation with Formal Service Obligation State
City Administrator solicited services from Engineer A
State in which a professional engineer receives an informal request for technical guidance or evaluation from a client or public official, where the professional must determine whether the appropriate response is a referral to resources (requiring no engineering services), a complete and balanced analysis (permissible as non-engineering service), or a partial and self-serving recommendation (constituting both incomplete information and an implicit extension of free services for competitive advantage).
Informal Technical Communication Factual Grounding Constraint
When discussing the analysis of the electric load profile with a representative of the local electric utility, Engineer A learns that the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages to keep system generating facilities on-line.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who receives material technical information through informal professional communication — such as a conversation with a utility resource planner — must treat that information as factual grounding for professional disclosure obligations when the communicating party is a qualified technical authority, prohibiting the engineer from discounting or omitting the informally communicated risk on the grounds that it was not received through a formal written report, and establishing that the professional obligation to disclose known risks is triggered by the engineer's actual knowledge of the risk regardless of the formality of the communication channel through which that knowledge was acquired.
Information Conveyance Mode Confidentiality Weight Differentiation Capability
Presumably, the manner in which information is conveyed to an engineer will have some bearing on the client's expectation of the engineer's maintaining the confidentiality of the particular information.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the manner in which information comes to the engineer's attention — whether directly conveyed in confidence by a client versus independently discovered through the engineer's own professional inspection and observation — has material bearing on the weight of the client's confidentiality expectation and the engineer's corresponding confidentiality obligation, and to correctly apply a reduced confidentiality weight when the information was self-discovered through professional work rather than entrusted by the client.
Information Valence Non-Determinative Deception Standard Constraint
The Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
Ethical constraint establishing that the standard for evaluating whether a communication or omission constitutes a deceptive or misleading act is not determined by whether the information in question would reflect positively or negatively on the engineer or firm — but solely by whether the information communicated (or not communicated) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client; prohibiting engineers from reasoning that omission of negative information is ethically permissible because it would harm rather than enhance their reputation, and equally prohibiting the assumption that positive misrepresentations are more serious than negative omissions, as established by BER Case 97-11.
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
Engineer A is obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the board
Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare advisory reports for non-engineer decision-making bodies — such as organizational boards or public commissions — to include all information that is relevant and pertinent to the decision at hand, so that the decision-making authority can exercise genuinely informed judgment; the principle is violated when a report's omissions, however well-intentioned, would leave the decision-maker unable to evaluate material trade-offs
[Case 94] Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare advisory reports or presentations for non-engineer decision-making bodies — such as organizational boards or public commissions — to include all information that is relevant and pertinent to the decision at hand, so that the decision-making authority can exercise genuinely informed judgment; the principle is violated when a report's or presentation's omissions, however well-intentioned, would leave the decision-maker unable to evaluate material trade-offs.
Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
The discussion of this case noted the ethical objective of an informed policy and project decision making process; the engineer in BER Case 21-7 was obliged to include information about the potential for rolling blackouts if a reliable generation alternative was not selected.
Capability to structure and present professional analysis in a manner that facilitates an informed policy and project decision-making process by client or public authority decision-makers — including presenting complete comparative information about all alternatives, identifying non-obvious consequences of each option (such as reliability risks or capacity limitations), and ensuring that decision-makers have all material information needed to make a genuinely informed choice, consistent with the ethical objective of informed decision-making identified in BER precedent.
Informed Energy Policy Decision Process Enablement Obligation
The ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing an advisory report on an energy system replacement decision to structure the report so that the organizational board's decision-making process is genuinely informed — meaning the report presents all material technical findings (energy equivalence, cost, reliability differential, grid stress, rolling blackout risk, vulnerable population impact, and alternative options including storage) in a manner that enables the board to make a policy and capital investment decision based on complete and accurate information, recognizing that 'the ethical objective is an informed policy and project decision-making process' rather than advocacy for any particular outcome.
Informed Policy Decision Facilitation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who prepares an advisory report for a decision-making authority must structure and present that report in a manner that facilitates an informed policy and project decision-making process — including presenting all material technical findings, tradeoffs, and alternatives — prohibiting the presentation of a report that, while technically accurate in its individual findings, fails to provide the decision-making authority with the complete information necessary to make an informed policy choice, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions and the principle that the ethical objective of engineering advisory work is an informed decision-making process.
Infrastructure Lifecycle Risk Communication Capability
the floodwall system has a high carbon footprint, is prone to deterioration, and may require significant repairs or upgrades within 15 years
Capability to clearly communicate to clients and decision-makers the long-term lifecycle risks of infrastructure design alternatives — including deterioration timelines, repair and replacement cost trajectories, expandability limitations, and the consequences of capacity insufficiency — in a manner that enables informed decision-making about short-term versus long-term tradeoffs, and to ensure that lifecycle risk information is presented with sufficient specificity and completeness to satisfy professional obligations of objective and truthful reporting.
Infrastructure Project Engineer of Record
Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project
A licensed professional engineer serving as the primary engineer of record on a public infrastructure project who retains obligations to challenge fraudulent or dishonest subcontractor deliverables, advise clients of project risks, and report ethical violations to licensure boards when necessary to protect public welfare.
Infrastructure Route Alternative Analysis Standard
Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to systematically identify, evaluate, and present alternative route or alignment options for infrastructure projects — including options that avoid or minimize adverse social, cultural, or property impacts — rather than recommending only the geometrically optimal solution, ensuring that clients receive complete information about trade-offs between efficiency and impact.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms governing the obligation of engineers to explore and evaluate alternative design approaches, particularly when initial design choices may impose foreseeable risks or constraints on construction workers or other affected parties, establishing the scope of due diligence expected in the design process.
Insider-Advantage Joint Venture Non-Participation Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm to assess, before entering into a joint venture or cooperative arrangement with former government engineers, whether the arrangement is structured to exploit those engineers' insider knowledge, personal relationships with the project owner, and privileged access to publicly-funded technical documents — and to correctly determine that knowingly entering such an arrangement constitutes participation in an ethically impermissible scheme that provides an unfair competitive advantage over other firms who lack such insider access, regardless of the technical qualifications of the joint venture partners.
Insider-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Government Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which a federal or public agency engineer, while still employed, uses privileged insider knowledge, contacts, and technical work product from their government position to negotiate and secure private contracts for the very project they helped plan, then resigns to execute those contracts — generating obligations against self-dealing, misuse of public trust, unfair competitive advantage, and conflict of interest between public duties and private gain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role held by a government engineer who, while still employed in a public position, begins negotiating or organizing private employment or business arrangements related to projects for which they have insider knowledge, generating obligations to avoid unfair use of privileged contacts, associations, and technical knowledge acquired during public service.
Insider Advantage Unfair Use Epistemic Verification Constraint
It has not been established that any of these things occurred.
Ethical and epistemic constraint establishing that before a professional ethics board can find that an engineer's insider knowledge or competitive advantages were used unfairly in a procurement — through mechanisms such as withholding information from competitors, misrepresenting the importance of insider knowledge to the owner, or submitting an artificially low fee — the board must have established evidentiary confirmation that one or more of these specific unfair uses actually occurred, prohibiting findings of ethical violation based solely on the possibility or suspicion that advantages might have been exploited, while recognizing that the unresolved possibility itself raises a cloud of doubt sufficient to trigger Section 19 profession-protection concerns.
Insider Advantage Unfair Use Prohibition in Engineering Procurement
The crucial question is, therefore, 'Were these advantages used unfairly?'
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that while engineers have a legitimate right to deploy knowledge, relationships, and experience gained in prior engagements when competing for subsequent work, they must not use those advantages unfairly — including by withholding material information from competitors, misrepresenting to the owner the indispensability of their insider knowledge, or quoting artificially low fees that exploit insider access to undercut competitors who lack equivalent information; the principle recognizes a spectrum between permissible competitive advantage and impermissible exploitation, and holds that the mere possibility of unfair use raises a 'cloud of doubt' sufficient to implicate professional ethics even absent proof of specific misconduct.
Insider Competitive Advantage Unfair-Use Mechanism Identification Capability
This could have been accomplished by withholding certain information from the competitors, by misrepresentation to the owner of the importance of their inside information, or by quoting a price which was lower than could be considered proper for the securing of data for and the design of the project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics review bodies to identify the specific mechanisms through which insider knowledge gained from prior public agency work could be used unfairly in a subsequent competitive procurement — including the ability to recognize withholding of material information from competitors, misrepresentation to the project owner of the importance or uniqueness of insider knowledge, and submission of artificially low fees made possible only by privileged access to project data — and to assess whether any of these mechanisms were employed in a given competitive engagement.
The personal and intimate knowledge of the project which the employees gained from their work on the preliminary design of the project and the acquaintance they made with the representatives of the owner of the project gave them many distinct advantages over any other firms
State in which a professional possesses personal, intimate, or privileged knowledge of a project, client, or procurement process acquired through prior employment or official capacity, giving them a material competitive advantage over other firms or professionals, and raising ethical questions about whether that advantage is being used fairly.
Insider Knowledge Competitive Advantage Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A is assigned to serve as the lead engineer on the independent external review of the design of the major road transportation project prepared by the agency.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer or firm that has gained privileged, non-public technical knowledge about a project through a prior independent review engagement from leveraging that insider knowledge to obtain a competitive advantage in a subsequent procurement for the same project — establishing that the engineer's access to confidential design details, plans, and specifications through the review role creates an informational asymmetry that cannot ethically be exploited in competitive bidding, regardless of whether a formal confidentiality agreement was executed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned to employment with a party adverse to a former client from deploying specialized insider knowledge — including knowledge of the former client's technical vulnerabilities, analytical assumptions, data gaps, or strategic weaknesses — against that former client in an adversarial proceeding, arising from the principle that the engineer's prior access to confidential client information and work product creates a residual duty of non-adversarial use that survives employment termination, as established by NSPE Code conflict of interest and faithful agent provisions.
Insider Knowledge Non-Deployment Against Former Client Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned to employment with a party adverse to a former client from deploying specialized insider knowledge — including knowledge of the former client's technical vulnerabilities, analytical assumptions, data gaps, or strategic weaknesses — against that former client in an adversarial proceeding, arising from the principle that the engineer's prior access to confidential client information and work product creates a residual duty of non-adversarial use that survives employment termination, as established by NSPE Code conflict of interest and faithful agent provisions.
Insider Procurement Advantage Cloud-of-Doubt Appearance Avoidance Obligation
It seems axiomatic that the personal and intimate knowledge of the project which the employees gained from their work on the preliminary design of the project and the acquaintance they made with the representatives of the owner of the project gave them many distinct advantages over any other firms who may have considered the offering of their services to the owner.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who possesses personal and intimate knowledge of a project gained through prior public agency employment — including technical familiarity with preliminary design work and personal acquaintance with the project owner's representatives — to refrain from using those advantages in a manner that raises a cloud of doubt as to the purity of the competitive enterprise, even where specific improper acts (such as withholding information from competitors, misrepresenting the value of insider knowledge to the owner, or submitting an artificially low price) cannot be proven; the engineer must structure their competitive engagement so that the appearance of unfair advantage exploitation is avoided, recognizing that the mere possibility of such exploitation is sufficient to implicate professional ethics obligations under the engineering profession's collective reputation protection canon.
Insist-or-Withdraw Binary Safety Response Constraint
Engineer A should have insisted that the client hire the on-site project representative or refuse to continue to work on the project
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer has made a professionally grounded determination that a specific safety measure is necessary for a dangerous project, and the client refuses to implement that measure, the engineer faces a binary ethical choice — either insist that the client implement the safety measure or refuse to continue work on the project — prohibiting any intermediate response of silent continuation, passive acquiescence, or proceeding without dissent as ethically impermissible, and establishing that there is no ethically neutral middle ground between insistence and withdrawal when genuine public safety is at stake.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a client's cost-driven refusal to adopt a professionally required safety standard creates material public safety risk must withdraw from the project after exhausting persistent persuasion efforts — prohibiting the engineer from continuing to provide professional services that would facilitate construction to a standard the engineer has determined to be inadequate for public safety, and establishing that withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory once the client has definitively refused to adopt the engineer's professionally grounded safety recommendation.
Insistence on Client Remedial Action or Project Withdrawal Obligation
Professional principle establishing that when an engineer discovers safety violations or hazardous conditions during a professional engagement and informs the client, the engineer must not merely note the concern and proceed passively — the engineer must insist that the client take appropriate remedial action, and if the client refuses, the engineer must refuse to continue work on the project, recognizing that passive acquiescence after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure.
[Case 79] Professional principle establishing that when an engineer discovers safety violations or hazardous conditions during a professional engagement and informs the client, the engineer must not merely note the concern and proceed passively — the engineer must insist that the client take appropriate remedial action, and if the client refuses, the engineer must refuse to continue work on the project
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle establishing that when a client refuses to accept an engineer's professionally determined safety standard — particularly one grounded in current technical data and designed to protect future occupants and the public from foreseeable harm — the engineer's appropriate ethical recourse, after exhausting persuasion, is to withdraw from the project rather than proceed under a standard the engineer has determined to be inadequate, recognizing that the engineer cannot lend professional credibility to a design that the engineer believes places the public at material risk
Inspection-Discovered Information Reduced Confidentiality Expectation Constraint
First, it is clear that, unlike Case No. 89-7, which involved facts and circumstances that were openly conveyed directly to Engineer A from a client, in the present case, the circumstances bearing on the public safety were revealed to the engineer as part of the engineer's inspection and professional observations.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that information discovered by a licensed professional engineer through independent professional inspection and observation — rather than information affirmatively confided by the client — carries a materially reduced confidentiality expectation, prohibiting the client or public agency from asserting a genuine confidentiality expectation over information that was not directly conveyed to the engineer in confidence but was instead independently discovered through the engineer's professional observations; and establishing that the reduced confidentiality expectation arising from inspection-discovered information is a relevant factor in calibrating the engineer's escalation obligations, with inspection-discovered information creating a stronger basis for disclosure than client-confided information.
Inspection-Discovered vs. Client-Disclosed Safety Information Distinction State
unlike Case No. 89-7, which involved facts and circumstances that were openly conveyed directly to Engineer A from a client, in the present case, the circumstances bearing on the public safety were revealed to the engineer as part of the engineer's inspection and professional observations
State in which the ethical weight of a confidentiality obligation is materially affected by the manner in which safety-relevant information came to the engineer's attention: information discovered independently through professional inspection carries a weaker confidentiality expectation than information directly and voluntarily disclosed by the client in confidence — such that the source of the information (inspection vs. client disclosure) determines the strength of the confidentiality countervailing duty and the scope of the engineer's reporting obligation.
Inspection Engagement Adverse Party Report Non-Transmission Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by one party to a real estate transaction (e.g., a prospective purchaser) to perform a pre-purchase inspection to refrain from transmitting the resulting inspection report — or any copy thereof — to parties on the opposing side of the transaction (e.g., the seller's real estate agent or the seller), recognizing that such parties have interests directly adverse to the client's interests, and that disclosure to them undermines the client's negotiating position, violates the faithful agent standard, and constitutes an unauthorized breach of the confidential engineer-client relationship regardless of the engineer's subjective intent or professional custom.
Inspection Program Structural Adequacy Obligation
Engineer A believes that there is no way even the most conscientious code official can make 60 adequate, much less thorough, inspections in one day, particularly under the newer, more rigid code requirements for the city.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who direct or supervise public building inspection programs to ensure that the structural conditions of the program — including inspector caseload, time per inspection, and resource levels — are sufficient to enable inspections of the quality and thoroughness required by applicable codes, and to refuse to certify or sign off on inspection reports when the structural conditions of the program make adequate inspection impossible
Inspection Program Systemic Failure Pattern Recognition Capability
Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector's reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years
Capability of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer responsible for a public infrastructure inspection program to recognize when a series of individual inspection failures — such as repeated missed defects across multiple inspection cycles — constitutes a systemic program failure rather than an isolated incident, and to correctly classify the full scope of the failure (including its duration, recurrence, and implications for public safety) as material information requiring complete upward reporting to the supervising licensed professional engineer.
Inspection Quality Non-Subordination to Developer Approval Incentive Capability
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct construction inspection of private development projects to recognize that when the developer whose project is being inspected is also a fee-paying private client of the firm, the financial incentive to retain that developer as a client creates pressure to calibrate inspection rigor to a level sufficient to cause work to be approved rather than to the full standard required by the city for public protection — and to correctly determine that this incentive must not be allowed to subordinate inspection quality, and that the structural arrangement making such subordination likely must be avoided or terminated.
Inspection Quality Non-Subordination to Developer Approval Incentive Obligation
Since the beneficiary of the services in question is the city, the marketing technique suggests that Firm A may be offering developers less than the full range of services required to perform the services adequately but sufficient enough to cause the work to be approved by the city.
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a city to conduct construction inspection of private developer projects to ensure that the quality, rigor, and completeness of inspection services are calibrated exclusively to the city's design standards and the public interest — and not to the level of service minimally sufficient to cause the developer's work to be approved — recognizing that the commercial relationship with the developer creates a structural incentive to provide inspection services adequate for approval rather than adequate for public protection, and that yielding to this incentive constitutes a fundamental breach of the public trust inherent in the city-retained inspection role.
Inspection Report Adverse Party Confidentiality Boundary Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer offering home or property inspection services to recognize that a written inspection report prepared for a fee-paying client is confidential to that client, and that the party on the opposite side of the transaction (e.g., the real estate firm representing the seller) is an adverse party whose interests conflict with the client's interests, such that transmitting the report to that adverse party without the client's express prior consent constitutes a breach of the confidentiality obligation and a violation of the faithful agent duty — regardless of whether the transmission was motivated by professional courtesy, routine practice, or any other benevolent rationale.
Inspection Report Adverse Transaction Party Non-Transmission Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party to a real estate or commercial transaction from transmitting, copying, or otherwise sharing the commissioned inspection report with any party whose interests are adverse or potentially adverse to the retaining client — including the seller's agent, the property owner, or any representative of the opposing side of the transaction — without the express prior consent of the retaining client, establishing that the adversarial or potentially adversarial relationship between the recipient and the client is an independent and heightened basis for the non-transmission obligation beyond the general client consent requirement.
Inspection Report Sign-Off Substantive Accuracy Certification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is required to sign off on final building inspection reports to understand and apply the principle that such sign-off constitutes a substantive professional certification of inspection adequacy — not a mere administrative formality — and to refuse to sign off on reports that cannot be substantively certified as accurate due to structural program deficiencies such as excessive inspection workloads that preclude thorough review.
Inspection Report Sign-Off Substantive Accuracy Certification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is required to sign off on final building inspection reports to ensure that such sign-off constitutes a substantive certification of the adequacy of the underlying inspections — and to refrain from signing off on reports generated under conditions the engineer knows make adequate inspection impossible — recognizing that the professional signature on inspection reports carries a certification of technical adequacy that cannot be discharged when the engineer has actual knowledge that the inspection process is structurally incapable of producing adequate results.
Inspection Report Third-Party Non-Disclosure Without Client Consent Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who prepares a written inspection report for a fee-paying client (such as a prospective home purchaser) to refrain from transmitting, copying, or otherwise disclosing that report to any third party — including parties to the underlying transaction such as a real estate firm or seller — without the express prior consent of the client, recognizing that the inspection report is prepared exclusively for the client's benefit and that unauthorized disclosure to adverse or interested parties directly prejudices the client's legal, financial, and bargaining interests.
Inspection Workload Adequacy Safety Threshold Constraint
Safety and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer directing a public building inspection program must recognize and formally escalate when the per-inspector daily workload volume — such as 60 inspections per day — exceeds the threshold at which any conscientious inspector can perform adequate, code-compliant inspections, prohibiting the engineer from treating the workload as operationally acceptable and requiring escalation regardless of budget or staffing constraints imposed by the employing municipality.
Inspection Workload Public Safety Threshold Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer directing or supervising a building inspection program to assess whether the assigned inspection workload per inspector — measured in inspections per day or similar metrics — exceeds the threshold at which thorough, adequate inspections are possible, and to communicate that threshold assessment to institutional authorities with sufficient specificity to support resource allocation decisions, including the ability to distinguish between workloads that permit adequate inspection and those that structurally preclude it regardless of inspector diligence.
Inspector Misconduct Escalation Constraint
Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member
Ethical, regulatory, and procedural constraint requiring that a supervising engineer intern or licensed professional engineer who discovers a subordinate inspector's multi-year pattern of systematic non-reporting of visibly obvious defects must escalate that inspector conduct finding — separately from and in addition to the structural defect finding — to the supervising licensed professional engineer and, if warranted, to appropriate personnel or disciplinary authorities, prohibiting treatment of the inspector's systematic non-reporting as a minor administrative matter subsumed within the structural defect report, and establishing that the inspector's pattern of conduct constitutes an independent program integrity failure requiring independent escalation.
Inspector Workload-Driven Inspection Quality Degradation Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer directing a public building inspection program to formally and explicitly disclose to appropriate authorities — including city council, mayor, and state oversight bodies — that the current per-inspector workload volume has degraded inspection quality below professionally acceptable standards, prohibiting the engineer from treating the resource constraint as an internal operational matter and requiring proactive disclosure of the systemic quality degradation as a public safety matter.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who holds specific responsibility for public infrastructure bears a heightened escalation obligation — beyond that of a private engineer — requiring immediate and comprehensive multi-authority action when safety-critical infrastructure is at risk, arising from the dual role as both a professional engineer and a public employee with specific custodial responsibility, and prohibiting the application of the more limited graduated-response standard applicable to private engineers in analogous situations.
Institutional Administrative Role Competence Non-Expansion Constraint
Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation.
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's appointment to an institutional administrative or supervisory role — such as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief — does not expand, confer, or imply competence in technical regulatory domains outside the engineer's prior education and experience, prohibiting the engineer from accepting or performing certification work in those domains on the basis of their administrative title or institutional authority alone, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and the principle that competence must be substantively demonstrated rather than institutionally assumed.
Institutional Pressure Framing Non-Legitimization of Safety Override Obligation
Moreover, the Code provides guidance to engineers who are confronted with circumstances where their professional reputation is at stake.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and resist the rhetorical framing of legitimate safety and regulatory compliance concerns as mere 'technical hang-ups,' procedural obstacles, or bureaucratic inconveniences by supervisors seeking expedited action, understanding that such framing does not diminish the substantive validity of the safety concern and that compliance with a directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid hang-ups' — when the engineer believes the resulting permit or approval would violate applicable law and endanger public health — constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility, regardless of the institutional authority of the person issuing the directive.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who believes great dangers to public health and safety are present to refrain from bowing to public pressure or employment situations that would cause the engineer to abandon or subordinate that professional safety determination, recognizing that yielding a fundamental safety judgment to such pressures constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility and obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Institutional Pressure Resistance in Public Engagement Capability
Capability to recognize when client or institutional directives to conduct public engagement in a particular manner are designed to suppress, exclude, or misrepresent input from affected communities, and to resist compliance with such directives on ethical and professional grounds — including when the directing party cites economic, political, or social considerations — maintaining the integrity of the public participation process as required by professional obligations to public welfare.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Scope Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer assigned to an institutional administrative or supervisory role — such as a Building and Grounds Division Chief — to recognize that the title, authority, and responsibilities of that role do not expand the engineer's technical competence into specialized regulatory domains unrelated to their engineering education and experience, and to decline to certify compliance with regulations in those domains regardless of the institutional expectations associated with the role.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Competence Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that holding an institutional administrative or supervisory title — such as Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief — does not confer, expand, or substitute for substantive technical competence in domains outside the engineer's established training and experience, and to correctly conclude that the authority and responsibilities of the administrative role cannot be used to justify certifying compliance with technical regulations in those unrelated domains.
Institutional Role Non-Expansion of Technical Competence Scope
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's assignment to an institutional role — such as Building and Grounds Division Chief — does not expand the engineer's professional competence to encompass all technical matters that may arise within that role's administrative jurisdiction. The scope of an engineer's institutional responsibilities does not determine the scope of their professional competence; engineers must recognize when their assigned role places before them technical tasks genuinely outside their expertise, and must respond by declining, escalating, or seeking qualified assistance rather than treating role assignment as a proxy for competence.
[Case 158] Professional principle establishing that an engineer's assignment to an institutional role does not expand the engineer's professional competence to encompass all technical matters that may arise within that role's administrative jurisdiction. The scope of an engineer's institutional responsibilities does not determine the scope of their professional competence; engineers must recognize when their assigned role places before them technical tasks genuinely outside their expertise, and must respond by declining, escalating, or seeking qualified assistance rather than treating role assignment as a proxy for competence.
State in which a licensed professional engineer has affixed their seal or signature to plans or documents without having maintained responsible charge as defined by licensure law — specifically, without being actively engaged in the engineering process from conception to completion, without providing supervisory direction and control over the design development process, and without conducting an experience-based quality assurance review — resulting in a violation of professional licensure obligations.
Insurance Affordability Exception Scope Calibration Capability
We are mindful that the cost and scope of professional liability insurance continue to be prohibitive for some practitioners and we are in no way suggesting that the failure to obtain professional liability insurance is in any sense a breach of ethics.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly calibrate the scope of the professional liability insurance affordability exception — recognizing that the ethical obligation to obtain professional liability insurance (rather than seek client indemnification for ordinary negligence) applies when coverage is 'reasonably available and affordable,' and that the exception for cost-prohibitive or unavailable insurance is genuine but narrow, applying only when coverage is genuinely unaffordable or unavailable rather than merely inconvenient or more expensive than preferred, and to apply this calibration when deciding whether to seek client indemnification or procure insurance.
Insurance Affordability Exception Scope Limitation Constraint
the insurance industry has re-entered the pollution insurance market and now provides limited pollution coverage for an additional premium
Ethical constraint establishing that the exception to the professional liability insurance procurement obligation — applicable where insurance remains genuinely cost-prohibitive for the individual practitioner — is narrowly scoped and does not authorize the continued use of broad client indemnification clauses for ordinary negligence, establishing that even where insurance affordability remains a genuine constraint, the engineer must seek alternative ethical risk management approaches rather than shifting the full liability burden to clients, and that the affordability exception does not restore the ethical permissibility of provisions that require clients to indemnify the engineer for the engineer's own negligence.
Insurance Assessment Engineer Non-Advocate Objectivity Constraint
The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane and to determine whether the damage was hurricane-related (a claim covered by insurance) or due to a pre-existing structural condition (a claim not covered by insurance).
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer retained by a property insurance company to conduct structural damage assessments must render objective, technically honest findings based solely on observed conditions and professional judgment — prohibiting the engineer from altering findings to favor the insurer's financial interest in denying claims, and establishing that the engineer's duty to the public and to the integrity of the professional assessment supersedes any implicit or explicit pressure from the retaining insurer to characterize damage as pre-existing rather than event-related when the technical evidence does not support that characterization.
Insurance Assessment Objectivity Under Commercial Pressure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a property insurance company to conduct damage causation assessments to maintain complete objectivity and technical honesty in findings — including the ability to recognize when the insurance company client's commercial interest in minimizing covered claims creates implicit or explicit pressure to find pre-existing conditions rather than covered hurricane damage, to resist that pressure by reporting findings based solely on technical evidence, and to correctly classify the engineer's role as an objective technical assessor rather than an advocate for the client's preferred outcome.
Insurance Causation Determination Client
The firm was hired by a property insurance company to inspect and conduct structural assessments of residential properties damaged by a recent hurricane
A property insurance company client role that retains an engineering firm to conduct structural assessments of hurricane-damaged residential properties and determine whether damage is hurricane-related (a covered claim) or attributable to pre-existing structural conditions (an excluded claim), bearing authority over the engagement scope but subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations to report findings accurately and to the paramount duty to protect affected property owners and the public from fraudulent misrepresentation of engineering conclusions.
Insurance Claim Engineering Assessment Integrity Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of engineers retained by insurance companies to assess property damage claims, including the duty to provide objective and unbiased assessments, the prohibition on altering findings to favor the retaining insurer's financial interests, and the obligation to protect the interests of third-party property owners who rely on the engineer's professional findings.
Engineer A is performing a forensic engineering investigation for an insurance company
A client role in which an insurance company retains a licensed professional engineer to conduct a forensic investigation of a structure — such as assessing fire or arson damage — bearing authority over the engagement scope but subject to the engineer's overriding obligations to report structural safety hazards to appropriate authorities regardless of the client's primary interest in claim resolution.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A client role that retains a professional engineer to conduct a forensic or investigative assessment of a building for purposes such as fire origin/cause determination, bearing authority over the engagement scope but subject to the engineer's overriding obligations to report structural safety hazards to appropriate authorities regardless of client instructions or interests.
Intellectual Authorship Integrity Obligation
Duty of a licensed engineer to accurately represent the authorship and intellectual provenance of professional work product, and to refrain from presenting AI-generated content as the engineer's own original professional analysis or writing without appropriate attribution, particularly when submitting deliverables under a professional seal.
Professional principle requiring engineers and other professionals to accurately represent the authorship and intellectual origins of their work products, avoiding misrepresentation — whether explicit or implicit — that the work is solely or independently their own when material contributions were made by other sources, including AI systems
Intensified Site Use Environmental Risk Acceptance State
the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design which resulted in an accepted solution, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
State in which a municipal client directs engineers to redesign an existing environmental infrastructure site (e.g., sanitary landfill) to operate at significantly higher intensity — such as substantially increased final contours, minimum setbacks, and maximum allowable slopes — after multiple prior designs were rejected, resulting in an accepted design that raises foreseeable environmental risks (methane migration, groundwater contamination) to adjacent properties and the public, and where the engineers must evaluate whether compliance with the client's directive is consistent with their paramount obligation to public safety.
Intent-Differentiated Marketing Misrepresentation Assessment State
State in which a firm's promotional materials contain personnel or qualification information that may be inaccurate, and the ethical evaluation of the firm's conduct turns on whether the inclusion of the inaccurate information reflects intentional enhancement of the firm's apparent qualifications versus inadvertent oversight — with intentional misrepresentation constituting a clear ethics violation and oversight requiring corrective action but not necessarily constituting a violation absent continued inaction after notification.
Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a to exist.
Duty of an ethics adjudicator or engineering firm principal to recognize that when the facts of a promotional materials case fail to satisfy both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test — specifically where (1) the listed personnel information does not constitute a 'pertinent fact' of clear and decisive relevance to client selection, and/or (2) there is no demonstrable intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications — no violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a exists, even if the materials are technically inaccurate. This obligation requires case-by-case analysis distinguishing cases where both elements are present (violation) from cases where one or both elements are absent (no violation, though corrective action remains advisable).
Intentional Deception Versus Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction in Professional Misrepresentation
we do not mean to suggest that unintentionally false or inaccurate statements would be unethical per se
Professional virtue principle establishing that the ethical prohibition on misrepresentation in professional qualification documents — including resumes, brochures, and correspondence — applies to statements and implications that are intentionally designed to mislead a prospective employer or client by obscuring the truth, and does not extend to unintentionally false or inaccurate statements per se; the ethical culpability for misrepresentation is conditioned on the engineer's deliberate intent to deceive, distinguishing willful deception from honest error or inadvertent inaccuracy
Intentional Evidence Disregard Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and refrain from intentionally disregarding a subordinate's professional assessment of likely hazardous waste classification, understanding that intentional disregard of credible field evidence — motivated by business relationship preservation — constitutes an ethical violation equivalent to or more serious than negligent disregard.
Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Constraint
the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal (intentional disregard of other information); that the test equipment had failed (selective use of information)
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from intentionally disregarding, selectively omitting, or failing to investigate material information when preparing professional reports, advisory analyses, or technical evaluations — requiring instead that all relevant and pertinent information be included, that contradictory or qualifying data be disclosed, and that the engineer not cherry-pick findings to support a predetermined or self-serving conclusion, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and truthfulness provisions and BER Case 95-5 precedent.
Intentional Information Disregard Prohibition Obligation
objective and truthful, include all relevant and pertinent information
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing a professional report, advisory memo, or technical analysis to refrain from intentionally disregarding, selectively omitting, or failing to investigate material information that would alter or qualify the conclusions presented — including information that is adverse to the engineer's preferred conclusion or commercial interest — recognizing that intentional disregard of contrary evidence constitutes a fundamental violation of the objectivity and completeness obligations of professional engineering practice.
Inter-Engineer Communication Absent During Active Redesign State
At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers
State in which a successor engineer is actively redesigning a predecessor engineer's sealed plans, yet no communication of any kind has occurred between the two engineers — depriving the predecessor of the opportunity to clarify design intent, understand the scope of changes to their sealed work, or take steps to protect their professional reputation and liability exposure.
Inter-Engineer Communication Obligation in Sequential Design Engagement
Relational principle requiring that when a successor engineer is retained to review and redesign work previously performed and sealed by another licensed engineer, the successor engineer must initiate direct professional communication with the original engineer — to understand design intent, identify known constraints or hazards, and ensure that the original engineer is aware that their sealed work is being materially modified — recognizing that the absence of such communication creates risks of design error, misrepresentation of the original engineer's work, and failure to benefit from the original engineer's accumulated project knowledge.
Inter-Engineer Public Policy Criticism Professional Deportment Constraint
it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer — particularly at public hearings on engineering projects in the interest of the public — must offer that criticism on a high level of professional deportment, prohibiting personalities, abuse, and malicious or false attacks on the other engineer's professional reputation, and requiring that the criticism be grounded in engineering conclusions or the application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses, as established by NSPE Code Section 12 and BER Case Nos. 63-6 and 65-9.
Inter-Firm Design Safety Escalation Completed Without Resolution State
engineers of Company B called the matter to the attention of appropriate officials of their employer who, in turn, advised Company A of the concern
State in which an executing firm's engineers have completed all available internal and inter-firm escalation channels regarding a safety concern — notifying their own management, who in turn notified the originating firm — and the escalation has been formally rejected, leaving no further procedural pathway within the existing contractual relationship to resolve the safety dispute.
Inter-Firm Safety Dispute Impartial Referral Obligation
Professional principle establishing that when engineers from two different firms reach an honest, irreconcilable disagreement about whether a design is safe to the public — and neither firm's internal hierarchy can resolve the dispute — the appropriate mechanism is referral to an impartial body of experts (such as a technical engineering society in the relevant field) for an independent determination, rather than unilateral assertion of authority by either party or forced compliance by the production-phase engineers.
Inter-Firm Safety Dispute Impartial Technical Arbitration Referral Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that when engineers of a designing firm and engineers of an executing firm hold an honest, good-faith, irreconcilable technical disagreement about the safety adequacy of a design — and all available internal and inter-firm escalation channels have been exhausted without resolution — both firms' officials and engineers are constrained to refer the dispute to an impartial body of technical experts (such as a technical engineering society in the relevant field of practice) rather than resolving the dispute by the designing firm's unilateral assertion of adequacy or the executing firm's employer-ordered continuation of production, establishing that impartial arbitration is the ethically required mechanism for resolving genuine inter-firm safety disputes that cannot be resolved through direct negotiation.
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Recognition for Specialized Referral Obligation
Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to maintain sufficient understanding of related engineering disciplines — including hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling — to form a reasonable professional judgment about whether a proposed project raises technical questions that merit detailed, specialized evaluation for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, even when the engineer is not an expert in those disciplines; the engineer need not be capable of performing the specialized analysis but must be competent to recognize when the threshold for requiring it has been crossed.
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold for Specialized Referral
Professional principle requiring engineers to possess sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of related engineering fields and sciences to recognize when a problem exceeds their own analytical capacity and requires specialized evaluation, even when the engineer is not themselves an expert in the specialized field — establishing that the threshold obligation is not to perform the specialized analysis but to recognize its necessity and act accordingly
[Case 150] Professional principle requiring engineers to possess sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of related engineering fields and sciences to recognize when a problem exceeds their own analytical capacity and requires specialized evaluation, even when the engineer is not themselves an expert in the specialized field — establishing that the threshold obligation is not to perform the specialized analysis but to recognize its necessity and act accordingly.
[Case 158] Professional principle requiring engineers to possess sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of related engineering fields and sciences to recognize when a problem exceeds their own analytical capacity and requires specialized evaluation, even when the engineer is not themselves an expert in the specialized field — establishing that the threshold obligation is not to perform the specialized analysis but to recognize its necessity and act accordingly.
[Case 88] Professional principle requiring engineers to possess sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of related engineering fields and sciences to recognize when a problem exceeds their own analytical capacity and requires specialized evaluation, even when the engineer is not themselves an expert in the specialized field — establishing that the threshold obligation is not to perform the specialized analysis but to recognize its necessity and act accordingly.
[proethica-intermediate] Balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration.
Interdisciplinary Scope Boundary Navigation Capability
The project's landscape architect specifies a traditional lawn irrigation system for the resort's golf course as part of the project
Capability to recognize the professional authority boundaries between different licensed design disciplines — including engineering and landscape architecture — and to channel professional objections or concerns about work products originating from another discipline through appropriate professional channels rather than directly overriding or refusing to implement the other discipline's specifications, while still fulfilling obligations to raise legitimate technical and ethical concerns.
Interdisciplinary Scope Boundary Respect in Environmental Objection Obligation
Duty of a licensed engineer or engineer intern who objects to a design specification originating from another licensed design professional (such as a landscape architect) on sustainability or environmental grounds to respect the professional scope and authority of that other discipline — refraining from unilaterally overriding or refusing to implement the specification without first engaging the supervising engineer and client through appropriate channels — while still fulfilling the duty to formally communicate identified environmental risks so that the client and supervising engineer can make an informed decision about whether to request modification of the specification from the originating professional.
Interdisciplinary Specification Authority Deference Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed engineer or engineer intern who objects to a design specification originating from another licensed design professional — such as a landscape architect operating within their own scope of practice — must channel that objection through the supervising engineer or lead firm rather than treating the specification as subject to unilateral override, and must refrain from refusing to execute the specification on the grounds that it conflicts with the objecting engineer's personal sustainability preferences when the specifying professional holds legitimate authority over that design domain.
Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Referral Constraint
Competence constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer — who is not a specialist in a related technical discipline such as hydrodynamic modeling, coastal engineering, or hydraulic analysis — nonetheless possesses sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding to form a reasonable professional judgment that a proposed project creates sufficient potential for harm to merit specialized evaluation, establishing that this threshold competence triggers an obligation to recommend specialized subconsultant engagement and prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of specialist credentials as a basis for declining to form or act on that threshold judgment.
Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition for Specialized Hydraulic Referral Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is not a specialist in hydrodynamic modeling, coastal engineering, or hydraulic analysis to nonetheless possess sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment about whether a proposed infrastructure project creates sufficient potential for flooding or other hydraulic impacts on third parties to merit detailed, complex specialized evaluation — and, upon forming such a judgment, to recommend engagement of a specialized subconsultant rather than proceeding without the required analysis.
Intern Complicity in Impaired Licensee Practice State
Engineer Intern C, a subordinate of Engineer B, was fully aware of Engineer B's impaired condition
State in which an engineer intern or subordinate, fully aware that their supervising licensed engineer is medically impaired and incapable of providing adequate direction, supervision, or review, actively cooperates with that engineer in continuing to deliver engineering design services under the impaired engineer's seal — thereby becoming ethically culpable for aiding unlicensed or incompetent practice even though the intern lacks a license and cannot be held to the same legal standard as a licensed professional.
Intern Correction-Seeking Obligation Constraint
A similar ethical violation is discussed in BER Case 15-2, in which an engineering report was revised after the report was signed and sealed inappropriately. The BER determined that the Engineer had an obligation to seek an immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities, including the state engineering licensure board and other enforcement officials as appropriate.
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that an engineer intern who discovers or participates in an arrangement whereby engineering documents are signed and sealed inappropriately — including without adequate review or direction — must seek immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities, including the state engineering licensure board and other enforcement officials as appropriate, prohibiting the intern from continuing to cooperate with the improper arrangement as a substitute for seeking correction, as established by BER Case 15-2 precedent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that an engineer intern or subordinate who is fully aware that a supervising licensed engineer is medically impaired and incapable of exercising genuine responsible charge must refuse to participate in arrangements whereby the intern performs substantive engineering design work that will be sealed by the impaired licensee without adequate review — prohibiting the intern from knowingly serving as the de facto unlicensed engineer of record under the fiction of licensed supervision, and requiring the intern to seek correction through appropriate authorities when such arrangements are imposed, as established by BER Case 15-2 and NSPE Code provisions governing intern conduct.
Intern Epistemic Humility and Materiality Deference Obligation
Engineer Intern A had a responsibility to report all material facts related to the visibly obvious defect
Professional principle requiring engineer interns and other unlicensed or junior engineering personnel to report all potentially material facts to their supervisors without independently filtering or suppressing information based on their own assessment of its materiality or urgency, recognizing that interns are not yet professionally qualified to make final determinations about what information is material to a licensed engineer's professional judgment
Intern Ethical Culpability Despite Unlicensed Status Constraint
While this might keep Engineer Intern C from legal censure per the State Engineering Practice Act, it does not absolve Engineer Intern C of ethical responsibility.
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer intern who knowingly cooperates with an impaired or non-supervising licensed engineer to continue delivering engineering services — despite full awareness of the licensee's incapacity — bears independent ethical culpability under the professional code of ethics, even though the intern's unlicensed status may shield them from legal censure under the State Engineering Practice Act, prohibiting the intern from treating the absence of licensure as an absence of ethical obligation.
Intern Knowing Circumvention Refusal Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that an engineer intern or subordinate who is fully aware that a supervising licensed engineer is medically impaired and incapable of exercising genuine responsible charge must refuse to participate in arrangements whereby the intern performs substantive engineering design work that will be sealed by the impaired licensee without adequate review — prohibiting the intern from knowingly serving as the de facto unlicensed engineer of record under the fiction of licensed supervision, and requiring the intern to seek correction through appropriate authorities when such arrangements are imposed, as established by BER Case 15-2 and NSPE Code provisions governing intern conduct.
Intern Materiality Assessment Incompetence Constraint
Engineer Intern A was not yet qualified to either make that determination or evaluate the materiality of the information.
Competence constraint arising from an engineer intern's lack of qualification to independently assess the materiality, urgency, or systemic significance of discovered information — prohibiting the intern from filtering, prioritizing, or withholding information on the basis of their own unqualified assessment of its relevance or importance, and requiring complete upward disclosure of all potentially material facts to the supervising licensed professional engineer, even when the intern believes the information may reduce rather than increase urgency.
Intern Materiality Judgment Incompetence State
State in which an engineer intern or unlicensed subordinate, having discovered material factual information relevant to a safety or professional investigation, lacks the professional licensure, experience, and independent judgment required to assess the materiality or urgency implications of that information — and therefore bears an unqualified obligation to report all discovered facts to their supervising authority without filtering, prioritizing, or withholding information based on their own assessment of its significance.
Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Capability
Capability of an engineer intern or other unlicensed junior engineering personnel to recognize that they are not yet qualified to independently assess the materiality or urgency implications of contextual information bearing on a safety deficiency — including information about the duration of a defect's existence or prior inspection failures — and to therefore report all potentially material facts to the supervising licensed professional engineer without filtering, editing, or withholding information based on personal materiality judgments, understanding that such judgments are reserved for licensed professionals.
Intern Materiality Judgment Restraint Obligation
Duty of an engineer intern or other unlicensed junior engineering personnel who discovers contextual information bearing on a reported safety deficiency — including historical patterns of missed inspections or prior non-reporting — to report all such material facts to the supervising licensed professional engineer without independently filtering or withholding information based on the intern's own assessment of its materiality or urgency, recognizing that the intern is not yet qualified to make independent determinations about what information is material to the supervising PE's decision-making.
State in which an engineer intern or early-career professional is actively being formed in their professional identity and ethical standards through direct exposure to a supervisor's conduct — where the supervisor's direction to engage in ethically questionable or policy-violating action creates a heightened ethical obligation on the supervisor, because the lesson modeled will be formational for the intern's future professional practice, and the intern's compliance or refusal will itself constitute a significant professional development event.
Internal-to-External Escalation Trigger Upon Demonstrated Pattern of Disregard
It is difficult for us to say exactly at what point Engineer A should have reported her concerns to the 'appropriate authorities.' However, we would suggest that such reporting should have occurred at such time as Engineer A was reasonably certain that no action would be taken concerning her recommendations either by City Administrator C or the members of the city council and, that in her professional judgment, a probable danger to the public safety and health then existed.
Professional principle establishing the specific triggering condition for transitioning from internal escalation to mandatory external regulatory reporting: when an engineer has made repeated internal reports of a public safety concern and has acquired reasonable certainty — grounded in professional judgment — that (a) no remedial action will be taken by internal authorities and (b) a probable danger to public safety and health exists, the engineer's obligation shifts from internal advocacy to mandatory external reporting to the proper regulatory authorities. This principle defines the temporal and epistemic threshold at which internal escalation is exhausted and external reporting becomes obligatory.
Internal Compliance Reporting Capability
Capability to formulate, document, and communicate findings of regulatory or legal non-compliance to supervisors or organizational leadership in a clear, accurate, and professionally appropriate manner, including recommending specific corrective actions and maintaining records of the reporting interaction for accountability purposes.
Internal Compliance Reporting Escalation Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers regulatory or legal non-compliance within their employing organization first report findings through internal channels to the appropriate superior authority before escalating externally, while simultaneously being constrained from suppressing or abandoning those findings if internal reporting is dismissed without corrective action.
Internal Design Team Ongoing Review Non-Acquiescence Obligation
When the manager indicates that the matter is still being looked into by a design team, Engineer A indicates that if prompt measures are not taken to correct the problem, he will be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has raised a safety concern internally to refrain from treating a manager's representation that the matter is 'still being looked into' by an internal design team as a sufficient or final resolution of the safety concern — recognizing that an open-ended internal review process, without a committed timeline or corrective action plan, does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation to ensure that the safety issue is actually resolved, and that the engineer must continue to press for concrete corrective action commitments.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose recommendation for additional safety testing has been rejected by an employer on cost or schedule grounds — when the engineer continues to believe the product raises unique safety concerns not captured by completed standard testing — to refrain from acquiescing in the employer's rejection as a final resolution of the safety concern, and to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified risk requires escalation beyond the employer relationship to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, recognizing that the employer's economic objection does not extinguish the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public welfare.
Internal Design Team Review Non-Acquiescence Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has raised a safety concern internally to recognize that a manager's representation that the matter is 'still being looked into' by a design team does not constitute a sufficient response to a safety concern, and to refrain from treating ongoing internal review as a discharge of the professional obligation — continuing to press for concrete corrective action rather than deferring indefinitely to an unresolved internal process.
Internal Error Concern Escalation to Supervisor Obligation
Engineer T felt some personal responsibility for the accident.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, following a construction accident or adverse event, forms a good-faith belief that their own prior design decisions may constitute a professional error requiring acknowledgment under the ethics code, to promptly bring that concern to a senior supervisor or responsible authority within the firm — disclosing the full factual basis for the concern — so that the firm can make a considered institutional determination about whether error acknowledgment is required, rather than either unilaterally acknowledging error or suppressing the concern without supervisory review.
the third question asks what steps must Engineer A take given the City D Engineer's refusal to address the contract arrangement with Firm Z
State in which a licensed professional engineer has pursued all available internal organizational channels to address a compliance violation — including direct reporting to the responsible superior — and those channels have been exhausted without resolution, requiring the engineer to consider external reporting to regulatory or legal authorities.
Internal Escalation Failure Proper External Authority Re-Identification Constraint
After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, the engineer knew, or should have known, that 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably, state officials.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role who has exhausted internal escalation pathways — including repeated attempts to modify the views of supervisors and local officials — must re-identify who constitutes 'proper authorities' for external escalation purposes, recognizing that when local officials are themselves the source of ongoing disregard for the law, the proper authorities are not those same local officials but rather state or other higher-level regulatory bodies with jurisdiction, prohibiting the engineer from treating repeated failed internal escalation as a complete discharge of the safety reporting obligation and from treating local officials as 'proper authorities' when those officials are complicit in the violation, as established by BER Case 88-6.
Internal Escalation Pathway Exhaustion Assessment State
Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns
State in which a professional engineer who has identified a safety concern and received an unsatisfactory response from an immediate supervisor must assess whether internal escalation pathways within the organization have been genuinely exhausted before considering external reporting — where the ethical obligation is to pursue all available internal mechanisms (design teams, senior management, internal review boards) before threatening or executing external regulatory reporting, and where premature external reporting threats are themselves ethically impermissible.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer has pursued all available internal organizational channels to address a compliance violation — including direct reporting to the responsible superior — and those channels have been exhausted without resolution, requiring the engineer to consider external reporting to regulatory or legal authorities.
Internal Mechanism Exhaustion Before External Reporting Threat Obligation
The Board believes that there were more reasonable and appropriate internal mechanisms within MedTech that could and should have been explored by Engineer A before threatening to report the matter to governmental authorities.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety concern in an employer's product or process — but who was not personally involved in the engineering decision-making process and does not possess domain-specific expertise — to exhaust all reasonable internal mechanisms within the organization before threatening to report the matter to governmental authorities, recognizing that the existence of an ongoing internal investigation by competent personnel constitutes a legitimate internal process that must be allowed to proceed before external escalation threats are issued, and that the engineer's good faith and legitimate concern do not render premature external threats ethically appropriate.
Internal Mechanism Exhaustion Sequencing Before External Regulatory Threat Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety concern in an employer's product or process to correctly sequence internal escalation mechanisms — including initial reporting, allowing reasonable time for response, re-escalation with additional inquiries, and exploration of further internal recourse pathways — before issuing any threat of external regulatory reporting, recognizing that the threat of external reporting is ethically permissible only after all reasonable internal mechanisms have been explored and found unsatisfactory.
Internal Reporting Non-Equivalence to Proper Authority Reporting Constraint
we do not believe that Engineer A's act of reporting her concerns to City Administrator C or certain members of the city council constituted a reporting to the 'proper authorities' as intended under the Code
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's act of reporting safety or regulatory concerns to an immediate supervisor or local officials does not constitute reporting to 'proper authorities' when those officials are themselves the source of ongoing disregard for the law or are complicit in the violation — prohibiting the engineer from treating internal reporting to non-compliant superiors as a discharge of the obligation to report to proper external authorities (such as state regulatory bodies), and establishing that the identity of 'proper authorities' must be assessed in light of whether the recipients of internal reports are themselves compliant with the law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role who has exhausted internal escalation pathways — including repeated attempts to modify the views of supervisors and local officials — must re-identify who constitutes 'proper authorities' for external escalation purposes, recognizing that when local officials are themselves the source of ongoing disregard for the law, the proper authorities are not those same local officials but rather state or other higher-level regulatory bodies with jurisdiction, prohibiting the engineer from treating repeated failed internal escalation as a complete discharge of the safety reporting obligation and from treating local officials as 'proper authorities' when those officials are complicit in the violation, as established by BER Case 88-6.
International Engineering Ethics Cross-Cultural Norm Conflict Navigation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer practicing internationally to identify, analyze, and correctly resolve conflicts between host-country legal norms, local business customs, and NSPE Code of Ethics provisions — including the ability to recognize when local customs that are legally permitted and culturally normalized in the host country nonetheless violate NSPE ethics standards, and to navigate these cross-cultural normative conflicts by maintaining NSPE ethics compliance as the governing standard.
International Engineering Practice Engineer Dishonor Avoidance Obligation
Engineers must not take actions that bring dishonor on other engineers, and this is equally true when engineers are practicing in the international arena (See NSPE Code Section II.1.d.)
Duty of a licensed professional engineer practicing in the international arena to refrain from taking actions that bring dishonor on other engineers, recognizing that the prohibition on conduct that dishonors the engineering profession applies with equal force in international practice contexts as it does in domestic practice, and that participation in corrupt payment schemes, kickback arrangements, or ethically prohibited procurement practices in foreign countries constitutes conduct that dishonors the engineering profession globally.
International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer practicing in the international arena from taking actions that bring dishonor upon other engineers or upon the engineering profession as a whole — establishing that the obligation under NSPE Code Section II.1.d to avoid conduct that dishonors the profession applies with equal force in international engineering practice as in domestic practice, and that participation in corrupt payment schemes, kickback arrangements, or facilitation payment customs in foreign markets constitutes conduct that dishonors the profession regardless of local cultural acceptance.
International Engineering Procurement Competitive Integrity Capability
Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member, provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing services to foreign governments to pursue and obtain engineering contracts exclusively through merit-based, competitive, and transparent means — including the ability to identify when local customs, government encouragement, or competitive pressure would lead to procurement through corrupt or non-merit channels, and to insist on qualifications-based selection processes even in jurisdictions where corrupt procurement is normalized or legally permitted.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer competing for a public or private engineering contract to recognize and fulfill the obligation to conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly in all matters related to the procurement — including refraining from exploiting improper competitive intelligence opportunities, declining to participate in processes that disadvantage competitors through non-merit means, and ensuring that competitive conduct is consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of professional ethics codes governing procurement and collegial relations.
International Engineering Procurement Competitive Integrity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer providing services to foreign governments to pursue and obtain engineering contracts exclusively through merit-based, qualification-based, and honest competitive means, refraining from any conduct — including corrupt payments, kickbacks, or improper inducements — that distorts fair competition and undermines the integrity of the international engineering procurement process.
International Government Consulting Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or engineering firm provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments across international jurisdictions, bearing obligations under their professional code of ethics (e.g., NSPE) that may conflict with the laws or business practices of their home country or the host country, including prohibitions on improper payments or inducements to public officials regardless of local legal permissibility.
International Member Ethics Standard Applicability State
Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
State in which an engineer holding international membership in a professional society (e.g., NSPE International Member) operates in a jurisdiction where domestic law permits conduct that the membership organization's ethics code prohibits, creating an obligation to determine which standard governs professional conduct and whether membership ethics obligations apply extraterritorially to the engineer's foreign business practices.
International Practice Slippery Slope Ethical Consequence Reasoning Capability
If the Board was to decide otherwise, it would not be much of a leap to suggest that engineers practicing in another country could engage in practices that could weaken the minimal protections afforded to the citizens of that country because engineers would only be bound by the requirements, however minimal that might exist in that country.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to reason about the systemic and downstream consequences of permitting situational ethics in international engineering practice — specifically, the ability to recognize that allowing engineers to apply only host-country minimal standards would progressively weaken the protections afforded to citizens of host countries, undermine the global integrity of professional engineering ethics, and create a race-to-the-bottom dynamic in international practice. This capability enables engineers to articulate why uniform ethics standards serve not only professional integrity but also the public welfare of host-country populations.
with the increase in international engineering practice as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), engineers are being exposed to differing design selection methods
Multilateral or bilateral legal agreements governing cross-border trade in goods and services, including professional engineering services, that establish the legal and commercial context within which internationally practicing engineers operate and that may expose engineers to differing procurement and selection practices.
Interrelated Infrastructure Domain Cross-Conflict Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency in one infrastructure domain (e.g., state highways) to recognize that accepting private consulting work in a nominally distinct but functionally interrelated infrastructure domain (e.g., airports) for the same client municipalities creates a conflict of interest — including the ability to identify the substantive linkages between the two domains (e.g., highway-airport connectivity, shared traffic and access planning), to foresee how decisions in one domain could compromise or appear to compromise the engineer's judgment in the other, and to correctly determine that the functional interrelationship between the domains elevates the cross-domain conflict to an ethically impermissible level even when the domains are formally distinct.
Irreconcilable Employment Role Competence Gap Declination Capability
the Board decided it was unethical for Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when an employment role — particularly a public sector appointment — requires substantive technical competence in a domain the engineer does not possess, and to correctly conclude that the role cannot be ethically accepted or continued because no organizational arrangement (subconsultant, joint venture, additional hire) is practically available in the employment context to remediate the competence gap, making any course of action in the role result in unethical conduct.
Isolated Project Viability Masking Systemic Risk State
Engineer A is convinced that the solar project, when considered in isolation, is viable
State in which a professional engineer has completed an analysis demonstrating that a proposed project is technically viable when evaluated in isolation — satisfying the client's stated objectives under normal conditions — but is simultaneously aware of systemic or contextual factors that qualify or undermine that viability when the broader operational environment is considered, creating a direct tension between reporting the in-isolation finding (which is accurate but incomplete) and the obligation to present a complete and non-misleading professional assessment.
Isolated Technical Viability Insufficiency Principle
Professional principle establishing that a finding of technical viability for a proposed engineering solution when evaluated in isolation — without accounting for systemic interdependencies, external constraints, or broader public welfare impacts — is ethically insufficient as the sole basis for a professional advisory recommendation, and that the engineer must contextualize the isolated finding within the full operational environment before presenting conclusions to decision-makers.
Iterative Client-Directed Redesign Ethical Compliance Persistence Constraint
After several redesigns were not accepted, the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design which resulted in an accepted solution, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who undergoes multiple iterative redesign cycles at a client's direction — where successive designs are rejected and the client requests progressively more intensive designs — must maintain continuous ethical compliance throughout each redesign iteration, prohibiting the engineer from treating client acceptance of a prior rejected design as a waiver of the engineer's obligation to assess and disclose the public safety and environmental implications of each successive design, and establishing that the cumulative effect of iterative intensification must be evaluated holistically rather than incrementally.
Engineer A along with five other engineers in his team participated in and was credited with the design of a series of patented products
A professional engineering role borne by a member of a peer-level team collectively responsible for the design of products or systems, where credit for the resulting work (including patents or design records) is shared among all team members, and whose professional interests include accurate attribution of collaborative contributions in any subsequent professional representations by any team member.
Joint Engineering Judgment Override State
State in which two or more professional engineers, acting jointly and presenting unified findings and recommendations, have had their collective engineering judgment overruled by a governing client authority — creating coordinated but individually differentiated obligations on each engineer to respond in concert while preserving their individual professional duties.
Joint Engineering Recommendation Coordination and Unified Escalation Capability
Capability of two or more licensed professional engineers who have jointly presented safety findings and recommendations to a public authority — and whose joint recommendations have been overridden — to coordinate their post-override escalation actions, maintain a unified professional position, and jointly report safety concerns to the appropriate state regulatory authority, ensuring that the escalation reflects the combined professional judgment of all engineers involved rather than fragmented individual actions.
Joint Engineering Recommendation Unified Escalation Obligation
Duty of two or more licensed professional engineers who have jointly presented safety recommendations to a public authority and whose joint recommendations have been overridden by that authority to coordinate and jointly escalate their safety concerns to the applicable regulatory authority, recognizing that the joint nature of their original recommendation creates a shared professional obligation to pursue escalation together, and that unified escalation carries greater weight and credibility with regulatory authorities than individual reports.
Joint Inspection Participation Adverse Opinion Epistemic Grounding Obligation
At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is forming adverse technical opinions about another engineer's prior work to participate in available joint or collaborative inspection opportunities with the original engineer and relevant regulatory authorities before issuing findings, so that the adverse opinion is grounded in shared evidentiary review rather than unilateral assessment; recognizing that joint inspection both satisfies the epistemic duty to consult available evidence and provides procedural fairness to the engineer whose work is being evaluated.
Joint Multi-Party Inspection Coordination and Participation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to participate constructively in a joint inspection organized by a client that includes multiple parties — such as the original design engineer, a reviewing engineer, and a regulatory inspector — recognizing that joint inspection participation provides the epistemic foundation for adverse technical opinions, fulfills collegial obligations of fairness to the original engineer, and produces more reliable findings than unilateral inspection, while also managing the interpersonal and professional dynamics of a multi-party inspection involving potentially adverse interests.
Joint Patent Co-Designer Credit Omission Resume Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from listing jointly-patented or jointly-designed products on a resume, qualification statement, or professional self-presentation without affirmatively disclosing the team composition and the engineer's specific individual role — establishing that the omission of co-equal team members from a resume description of jointly-patented work constitutes a failure to give due credit to co-designers and, when the omission creates an implied impression of sole or primary authorship, simultaneously constitutes a misrepresentation of professional qualifications, as grounded in NSPE Code Section III.10.a (duty to give credit to those to whom credit is due) and Section II.5.a (prohibition on misrepresentation of qualifications), and as applied in BER Case No. 86-6 to a six-member equal-rank engineering team whose jointly-patented products were listed by one member without acknowledgment of the other five contributors.
Joint Patent Team Composition Affirmative Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who lists jointly-patented or jointly-designed products on a resume or qualification statement to affirmatively disclose the team composition — specifically identifying that the products were designed by a multi-member team of equal-ranked engineers — so that the prospective employer receives an accurate picture of the engineer's individual contribution rather than a misleading impression of sole or primary authorship, in compliance with NSPE Code obligations prohibiting misrepresentation of qualifications.
Joint Patent Team Composition Disclosure in Resume Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who lists jointly-patented products on a resume or professional qualification document to disclose the team composition — including the number of co-equal co-designers and the engineer's specific role within that team — so that prospective employers can accurately assess the engineer's individual contribution to the patented work, and so that the resume does not create a false impression of sole inventorship or primary design responsibility.
Joint Presenter Coordinated Escalation Action Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when two or more licensed professional engineers have jointly presented findings and recommendations to a client or governing authority, their subsequent escalation actions — including formal presentations to regulatory agencies and written advisements to the client — must be coordinated and conducted in concert, prohibiting unilateral divergence in escalation strategy that would undermine the unified professional position jointly established, while permitting non-identical individual actions that remain consistent with the shared professional judgment, as established by NSPE Code provisions and the principle that joint professional presentations create coordinated professional obligations.
Engineers A and B have presented the findings and recommendations jointly and, as such, their actions should be in concert, although not identical
A licensed professional engineering role in which two or more engineers, having jointly presented findings and recommendations to a client or public authority whose engineering judgment has been overruled, bear a shared obligation to formally escalate public safety concerns to all appropriate regulatory authorities — including the state regulatory agency — without requiring client consent, and to advise the client that the project cannot succeed safely if their recommendations are not adopted.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who has identified a significant public health and safety risk—arising from a client's or public authority's decision to proceed without recommended safeguards—bears obligations to escalate warnings beyond the immediate client relationship, including written notification to decision-makers, public testimony, and reporting to state regulatory authorities, even after being discharged from the project, and to consider continuing obligations as both a professional and a citizen.
Joint Venture Code Section 6 Specialist Engagement Ethical Equivalence to Prime Firm Obligation
we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm participating in a joint venture for a project assignment to recognize and fulfill the same specialist engagement obligations under Code Section 6 that would apply to a single prime firm — namely, the obligation to engage or recommend engagement of experts and specialists whenever the client's or employer's interests are best served by such service — without regard to whether the legal entity performing the work is a single firm or a multi-firm joint venture, on the grounds that the joint nature of the legal arrangement does not diminish the ethical obligation to ensure adequate technical qualifications for the assignment.
Joint Venture Equal Amendment Opportunity Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the fairness of allowing competing joint venture firms to revise their team composition in response to public screening committee feedback during a qualification-based selection process, conditioned on all competing firms receiving the same opportunity to amend their proposals
Joint Venture Ethical Equivalence to Prime Firm Responsibility Principle
In the context of this case the 'firm' would include a joint venture, which is a legal entity for the one project.
Domain-specific principle establishing that the ethical obligations applicable to a prime professional firm — including the duty to engage specialists, maintain competence, and bear full professional responsibility for a project — apply equally when the legal entity undertaking the project is a joint venture rather than a single firm, because the ethical substance of professional responsibility does not vary with the legal form of the professional entity, and joint venture partners bear jointly the same ethical duties that a single prime firm would bear individually
Joint Venture Firm Partnering with Former Government Insiders
Negotiations were finally concluded between this group and a firm of consulting engineers for a cooperative project to execute the work
A private consulting engineering firm role that knowingly enters into a joint venture or cooperative arrangement with a group of engineers who recently departed a government agency, where those engineers bring privileged insider knowledge, contacts, and prior design work on the very project being contracted — generating obligations to assess and disclose the ethical propriety of the arrangement, avoid benefiting from improperly obtained competitive advantages, and ensure the partnership does not constitute facilitation of a conflict of interest.
Joint Venture Insider-Advantage Knowing Participation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a private consulting engineering firm from knowingly entering into a joint venture, cooperative arrangement, or partnership with former public agency engineers when the firm knows or reasonably should know that those engineers' competitive advantage in the procurement derives from insider knowledge, privileged relationships, or publicly-funded work product acquired during their public employment — establishing that the private firm's knowing participation in such an arrangement renders it complicit in the ethical violation and independently violates the NSPE Code's honorable conduct and competitive integrity provisions.
Joint Venture Legal Entity QBS Firm Equivalence Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewing body, or public procurement authority to recognize that a joint venture formed for a single project constitutes a legal 'firm' for purposes of qualifications-based selection law — including the Brooks Act and analogous state and local QBS statutes — and that all QBS obligations, qualification standards, and Code Section 6 specialist engagement duties that apply to a single prime firm apply equally to the joint venture as the legal entity competing for the project assignment.
Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed
An engineering firm role that joins an existing joint venture team in response to a lead firm's need to cure identified technical deficiencies in a qualifications-based selection submission, contributing specialized expertise or personnel to strengthen the combined team's qualifications for a complex public engineering project.
Joint Venture Prime Firm Code Section 6 Specialist Obligation Ethical Equivalence Constraint
The earlier case related to a single firm employing other firms as associates for part of the work, with the prime firm retaining full legal responsibility for the project assignment. But we see no real difference in the ethical obligation when instead of one 'prime' firm the legal entity is to be a joint venture in which all the involved firms are jointly responsible.
Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics Section 6 (former) obligation to engage experts and specialists when the client's or employer's interests are best served — which was developed in the context of a single prime firm retaining other firms as associates — applies with equal force when the legal entity performing the project is a joint venture in which all involved firms are jointly responsible, prohibiting the interpretation that joint venture structure creates a lesser or different specialist-engagement obligation than single-firm prime arrangements, and establishing that the ethical obligation to upgrade qualifications through specialist engagement is not diminished by the distributed responsibility structure of a joint venture.
Joint Venture Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Upon Screening Deficiency Identification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm or joint venture lead competing in a qualifications-based selection process, upon receiving feedback from a public screening committee indicating that the joint venture's technical support is insufficient to meet the project's qualification requirements, to make a reasonable effort to upgrade the joint venture's qualifications — through internal restructuring, addition of new joint venture partners, or other means — or, if such upgrade is not feasible, to withdraw from further consideration, recognizing that continuing to compete with known, client-identified qualification deficiencies without remediation constitutes an ethical violation of the specialist engagement mandate under Code Section 6.
Joint Venture Unified Qualification Legal Entity State
State in which multiple engineering firms have formed or are proposing to form a joint venture for a single project, such that the joint venture constitutes the legal 'firm' for purposes of qualification-based selection law and professional ethics codes — with all constituent firms bearing joint legal responsibility for the project assignment. This state determines how qualification standards, competence obligations, and specialist-engagement duties apply: they attach to the joint venture as a unified entity rather than to individual constituent firms, and the ethical obligations of Code provisions regarding expert engagement apply to the joint venture's collective qualifications rather than to any single firm's standalone capabilities.
Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Constraint
State Z's rules in this regard are very clear, and require that next to the specific project listing, the previous firm be named and that Engineer B's specific role on that project be clearly described.
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer and their employing firm, when marketing engineering services across multiple jurisdictions, identify and comply with the specific attribution and project description rules of each individual jurisdiction's licensing board — including requirements that prior-employer project listings include the prior firm's name and the engineer's specific role next to each individual project entry — prohibiting the use of a uniform proposal format that satisfies only the least restrictive jurisdiction's standards when submitting proposals in jurisdictions with more specific attribution requirements, as established by state licensing board rules of professional conduct that vary by jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction-Specific Attribution Rule Compliance Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to identify, retrieve, and apply the specific attribution requirements imposed by individual state licensing board rules of professional conduct when preparing qualification proposals — including understanding that state rules may impose more specific requirements than NSPE Code provisions (such as requiring project-level attribution next to each specific project listing, naming the prior firm, and describing the engineer's specific role) — and to verify that proposal content meets those specific requirements before submission.
Jurisdiction-Specific Conflict of Interest Law Verification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm contemplating participation in a procurement or engagement that may raise conflict of interest concerns — particularly following a prior independent review role — to verify the applicable conflict of interest laws and regulations of the specific jurisdiction in which the work will be performed, recognizing that state laws may vary on whether particular sequential roles constitute a conflict of interest, and to seek legal counsel and agency guidance before proceeding.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer and their employing firm that markets engineering services across multiple licensing jurisdictions to identify and comply with the specific attribution and misrepresentation rules of each jurisdiction's licensing board — including jurisdiction-specific rules that impose more stringent requirements than the NCEES Model Rules baseline — when preparing and submitting qualification proposals or solicitation materials in those jurisdictions, recognizing that compliance with one jurisdiction's rules does not ensure compliance with another jurisdiction's more specific requirements.
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
Engineer A decides to review the NSPE Code of Ethics and the engineering licensing board law and rules of professional conduct in both states.
Professional principle requiring engineers who practice across multiple licensing jurisdictions to identify, review, and comply with the specific ethics rules and professional conduct requirements of each jurisdiction in which they practice — recognizing that jurisdictions may impose materially different and more stringent obligations than national model rules — and to calibrate their professional conduct to the most demanding applicable standard when jurisdictions differ
Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance in Qualification Proposals Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and their employing firm that markets engineering services across multiple licensing jurisdictions to identify and comply with the specific attribution and misrepresentation rules of each jurisdiction's licensing board — including jurisdiction-specific rules that impose more stringent requirements than the NCEES Model Rules baseline — when preparing and submitting qualification proposals or solicitation materials in those jurisdictions, recognizing that compliance with one jurisdiction's rules does not ensure compliance with another jurisdiction's more specific requirements.
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer
Engineer A has a clear obligation to report the misconduct to the engineering licensing board in State Z
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who identifies potential misconduct by another engineer or firm evaluates the specific professional conduct rules of each relevant state licensing jurisdiction to determine whether a reporting obligation exists, bearing obligations to accurately assess jurisdiction-specific standards, report confirmed violations to the applicable state licensing board, and recognize that reporting duties may differ across jurisdictions even for the same underlying conduct.
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold
a key message from this case is that, when considering reporting the unethical practices of others vis-à-vis state licensure law, engineers need to look to the specific Rules of Professional Conduct of the individual engineering licensing jurisdiction in which the others are practicing since those rules vary by jurisdiction
Professional principle requiring engineers who evaluate potential misconduct by another engineer or firm to apply the specific substantive standards of each relevant licensing jurisdiction — rather than a uniform national standard — when determining whether the conduct rises to the level of reportable misconduct, recognizing that jurisdictions may impose materially different specificity requirements that determine whether the same conduct constitutes a violation in one jurisdiction but not another
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to identify and apply the specific reporting threshold standard of the jurisdiction in which potential misconduct occurred — including recognizing that different states may impose different standards (e.g., 'knowledge,' 'reason to believe,' or 'reasonable grounds to believe') for triggering a mandatory reporting obligation to the state licensing board — and to correctly evaluate whether the observed conduct meets that jurisdiction-specific threshold before filing or declining to file a report.
Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified potential misconduct by another engineer or firm in qualification proposals or solicitation materials to evaluate that conduct against the specific rules of professional conduct of each licensing jurisdiction in which the conduct occurred — rather than applying a single uniform standard — and to report misconduct to the licensing board of each jurisdiction where the jurisdiction-specific rules have been violated, recognizing that the same conduct may constitute reportable misconduct in one jurisdiction but not another depending on the specificity of that jurisdiction's attribution and misrepresentation rules.
Jurisdiction-Specific Rule Stringency Differential State
State in which a licensed professional engineer operating across multiple jurisdictions discovers that the applicable professional conduct rules in those jurisdictions differ materially in specificity and stringency regarding the same type of conduct — with one jurisdiction adopting general model rules and another adopting more detailed and restrictive requirements — creating an obligation to assess compliance separately under each jurisdiction's standards and potentially triggering different reporting or remediation obligations in each.
Key-Employee vs Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Materiality Distinction Capability
In Case No. 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall makeup of the firm.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, firm principal, or ethics reviewer to distinguish between (a) the listing of a departed engineer as a 'key employee' in a firm's promotional brochure — which constitutes a material misrepresentation of pertinent facts because it signals to prospective clients that a specifically identified, individually significant professional is available for future projects — and (b) the listing of a departed engineer who was not designated as a key employee and whose departure does not materially alter the firm's overall qualification profile — which may be permissible under the totality of circumstances — and to use this distinction to correctly calibrate the ethical obligations arising from continued post-departure brochure listings.
Key Employee Brochure Listing Prospective Client Reliance Non-Misleading Obligation
We said that the names of the firm's members are often quite significant to the client selecting the firm. The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure.
Duty of an engineering firm to ensure that the listing of named individuals as 'key employees' in promotional brochures accurately reflects those individuals' current employment status with the firm, recognizing that prospective clients reasonably rely on such listings when selecting engineering firms — particularly when they may have prior familiarity with the named individual — and that the inclusion of a departed or departing engineer's name as a key employee constitutes a misrepresentation of a pertinent fact because client selection decisions are materially influenced by the identity and availability of key personnel. This obligation is heightened when the named individual is identified specifically as a 'key employee' rather than merely listed among general staff.
Key Employee Status Materiality Threshold Brochure Listing Constraint
In BER Case 83-1, Engineer A was highlighted in the firm's promotional brochure as a 'key employee.' Under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was apparent that Engineer B's continued inclusion of Engineer A's name in the brochure constituted an overt misrepresentation of an important fact concerning the overall make-up of the firm.
Ethical constraint establishing that the ethical permissibility of continued listing of a departing engineer in firm promotional materials turns critically on whether that engineer was designated or functionally treated as a 'key employee' — defined as an individual whose expertise constitutes a significant percentage of the firm's work and who is a principal reason clients engage the firm — constraining firms to apply a heightened prohibition when key-employee status is present (where continued listing after departure constitutes a per se misrepresentation of pertinent facts) while permitting a more contextual, case-by-case materiality assessment when the departing engineer is not a key employee, and prohibiting firms from treating the absence of an explicit 'key employee' label as a blanket shield against misrepresentation findings where the functional significance of the departing engineer is equivalent.
Knowingly Incomplete Deliverable Submitted Without Disclosure State
State in which a professional engineer has submitted signed and sealed drawings or specifications that the engineer personally knows to be materially incomplete or deficient — without disclosing that incompleteness to the client, approving authority, or other stakeholders — typically rationalized by deadline pressure or anticipated cost coverage, resulting in a gap between the engineer's actual knowledge and the information available to parties relying on the documents.
Known-Authority Awareness Discharge of External Reporting Obligation
In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'. As we see it, such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation.
Professional principle establishing that when appropriate governmental or regulatory authorities are already aware of a public health and safety violation — through media coverage, ongoing investigation, or other means — an engineer's obligation to bring the matter to the attention of 'proper authorities' is discharged, because further notification would be a useless act that adds nothing to the protection of the public interest.
Landfill Capacity Exhaustion Imminent State
Engineers A and B jointly determine that the existing landfill space will be exhausted at present rate of use in three years, or soon thereafter
State in which an existing sanitary landfill is projected to exhaust its remaining capacity within a defined near-term horizon (typically three years or less), with no confirmed alternate disposal site identified, compelling the responsible engineers and municipal authority to pursue intensified use of the existing site — including higher final contours or reduced setbacks — as the only operationally viable option, thereby creating pressure that may compromise independent engineering judgment on environmental risk.
Landfill Design Honest Disagreement Non-Ethical-Indictment of Peer Engineers Obligation
Engineer C has publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly challenges the design choices of other qualified engineers — such as questioning whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to a higher-intensity landfill design — to recognize that honest professional disagreement about a technically and policy-laden engineering decision does not constitute an ethical violation by the challenged engineers, provided those engineers acted with integrity, complied with applicable regulations, and fulfilled their disclosure obligations to the client; and conversely, the duty of reviewing bodies to refrain from treating the outcome of an open public engineering debate as an ethical indictment of any participating engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged a design or policy decision made by other engineers — including by raising environmental or safety concerns in a public forum — to accept, after the appropriate public authority has considered all views and reached a decision, that each engineer involved acted in conformance with the code of ethics, and to refrain from treating the outcome as an ethical indictment of engineers whose honest professional judgment differed; recognizing that conflicting professional views in public policy matters are not an ethical concern and that open public debate resolved by appropriate authority is the proper mechanism for such disputes.
the town council requested Engineers A and B to submit new designs for the existing site at higher final contours in accordance with state environmental laws
State environmental regulations and professional norms governing the design, siting, final contours, setbacks, slopes, and environmental performance requirements for sanitary landfills, including constraints on methane gas migration and groundwater protection.
Engineer A, a town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer, retained by the town council, who collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer — whether municipal or consulting — collaborates on the redesign of an existing sanitary landfill to higher final contours under direction of a town council, balancing environmental constraints, state regulatory requirements, and community waste disposal needs, bearing obligations to apply sound professional judgment on environmental trade-offs and to accept that reasonable engineers may reach different conclusions on the same facts.
Landfill Final Contour and Slope Design Competence
Engineer A, the town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the town council, collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill, taking into account final land use, environmental concerns, surrounding land use, and topography.
Technical competence of a licensed professional engineer to design the final contours of a sanitary landfill expansion — including determination of maximum allowable slopes, minimum setback distances, topographic integration with surrounding land use, and compliance with state environmental laws governing landfill geometry — and to iteratively revise those designs in response to client and regulatory feedback while maintaining professional integrity regarding environmental and safety constraints.
Landfill Higher-Contour Design State Environmental Law Compliance Verification Obligation
It then requested Engineers A and B to submit new designs for the existing site at higher final contours in accordance with state environmental laws.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer tasked with designing a higher-intensity landfill expansion to verify that the proposed design — including maximum allowable slopes, minimum setbacks, and final contour elevations — complies with all applicable state environmental laws and regulations governing landfill operations, and to document that compliance verification before submitting the design to the municipal client for approval, recognizing that state environmental law compliance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical design approval.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed engineer to verify that all engineering design documents, plans, and specifications comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations and safety standards before submitting those documents to clients or public authorities, including when those documents are generated with AI-assisted drafting tools.
Landfill Methane Migration and Groundwater Contamination Risk Assessment Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer designing or evaluating a sanitary landfill expansion to assess the risk of methane gas migration from the landfill into adjacent private properties and the risk of groundwater contamination from leachate or gas migration — including identification of migration pathways, proximity of adjacent land uses, depth to water table, and the adequacy of setbacks and slopes to mitigate these risks — sufficient to form a professional judgment about whether the design poses unacceptable environmental and public health risks and to disclose those risks in writing to the client.
Landfill Methane and Groundwater Risk Proactive Written Disclosure to Municipal Client Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing a higher-intensity landfill expansion to proactively disclose in writing to the municipal client — before finalizing and submitting the accepted design — the specific risks of methane gas migration to adjacent private property and groundwater contamination associated with the higher-contour design, including the engineer's professional assessment of the magnitude and likelihood of those risks, so that the client can make an informed decision about whether to proceed, seek additional environmental studies, or explore alternative disposal solutions.
A non-engineering design professional role responsible for specifying landscape and irrigation systems as part of a larger multi-discipline project, whose specifications interact with and may generate ethical obligations for the engineering team responsible for implementing those specifications.
Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Approaches Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics bodies evaluating engineering decisions on large public infrastructure projects — to recognize that particularly in large and complicated engineering problems (such as a water-power complex), there may be many approaches all based on sound engineering principles, and that the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses but also determinations of public policy; accordingly, the engineer must not treat the existence of a competing technically sound approach as evidence of incompetence or ethical failure by the engineer who advocated it.
Large Complex Project Multiple Sound Engineering Approaches Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of professional ethics bodies evaluating engineering decisions on large, complicated public infrastructure projects — to recognize that such projects may admit of multiple technically sound approaches all grounded in sound engineering principles, that the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses but also public policy determinations, and that an engineer who presents any one of these sound approaches cannot be said to be 'incorrect' — thereby avoiding the fallacy that all engineering problems have only one correct answer.
Late SOQ Submission Received Outside Formal Process State
The envelope was date- and time-stamped to indicate that the submittal was received on January 30 at 2:05 pm in the city manager's office
State in which a Statement of Qualifications or other procurement submission from a participating firm is received after the published deadline and at a location other than the designated submission point — creating a condition where the reviewing engineer or procurement official must determine whether to accept, reject, or escalate the late submission, with direct implications for procurement integrity, equitable treatment of all competing firms, and compliance with QBS or other qualification-based selection procedures.
Late Submission Strict Deadline Enforcement Constraint
City X published the date, time, and location of the submittal for the Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) indicating all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a public agency engineer administering a QBS or competitive procurement process strictly enforce the published SOQ submission deadline and designated delivery location against all competing firms — including firms with prior favorable performance histories — prohibiting acceptance of submissions received after the deadline or at a non-designated location, and establishing that uniform deadline enforcement is a non-negotiable requirement of procurement integrity regardless of the lateness interval, the quality of the submitting firm, or the personal relationships between the evaluating engineer and the late-submitting firm.
Firm B, one of the firms that had participated in the pre-submittal meeting
A private engineering firm stakeholder role that participates in a public Qualifications-Based Selection process by submitting a Statement of Qualifications, but whose submittal is received after the published deadline and/or at a location other than the designated submission point, generating ethical questions about whether the procuring agency's point-of-contact engineer may accept, reject, or forward the submittal consistent with published rules and obligations of fairness to all competing firms.
Law-Bounded Obligation Non-Limitation Recognition Capability
That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare is not bounded by what is required by law or regulation, but is stated broadly — including the ability to identify situations where legal compliance is necessary but insufficient, and to act on professional ethical obligations that exceed legal minimums without waiting for regulatory requirements to be updated or enforced.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when professional obligations to public health, safety, and welfare must override client loyalty and faithful agent duties, and to correctly prioritize public welfare as paramount in situations of direct conflict between client interests and public safety
Law-or-Code-Authorized Disclosure Exception to Confidentiality Obligation
Relational principle establishing that an engineer's obligation to maintain client confidentiality is subject to an explicit exception when disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the applicable ethics code itself, such that the existence of a legal or ethical duty to disclose releases the engineer from the confidentiality obligation — meaning the confidentiality duty and the disclosure duty are not in irresolvable conflict but are structured so that the latter displaces the former when its conditions are met.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that engineering ethics codes contain explicit exception clauses that affirmatively authorize — and in cases of public danger, require — disclosure of client information that would otherwise be protected by confidentiality obligations, and that engineers must recognize and activate these exception clauses when the factual conditions they specify (public health and safety endangerment) are present, rather than treating the general confidentiality obligation as absolute.
Lead Contamination Vulnerable Population Drinking Water Risk Disclosure Capability
The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards.
Technical and ethical capability of a licensed professional engineer evaluating a water source change to specifically identify, quantify, and disclose the disproportionate risk of lead contamination in drinking water to vulnerable populations — including children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals — who face heightened health consequences from lead exposure through aging service pipes, and to ensure that this population-specific risk analysis is prominently communicated to decision-makers and affected communities.
Lead Contamination Vulnerable Population Specific Risk Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer advising a public water authority on a water source change to specifically identify and disclose the disproportionate risk of lead contamination to vulnerable populations — including children, pregnant women, and low-income households with aging service pipes — who face heightened health consequences from lead leaching in drinking water, so that the authority's decision-makers can weigh those population-specific risks in their determination.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies that a proposed design alternative could disproportionately harm an underserved or vulnerable community — including by diverting flood risk, pollution, or other hazards to that community — to disclose that disproportionate impact clearly and completely to the client and relevant decision-makers, including the probability, magnitude, and distributional inequity of the risk, so that decision-makers can make informed choices consistent with environmental justice principles and public welfare obligations.
Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer on a major public infrastructure project
A licensed professional engineering role serving as the primary engineer of record on a major public infrastructure project, bearing obligations to ensure technical integrity, community engagement equity, ethical subcontractor oversight, and faithful representation of public interests throughout planning and execution phases.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database
analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill
A state environmental agency database tracking reportable leaks and spills from underground fuel storage tanks, providing statistical evidence of failure rates used to assess environmental risk in engineering and regulatory contexts.
Learned Profession Exclusive Authority Personal Liability Acceptance Constraint
A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders.
Ethical and legal constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer, as a member of a learned profession granted exclusive authority to practice engineering by state licensing laws — to the exclusion of unlicensed persons — bears a corresponding legal and ethical obligation to accept personal liability for acts, errors, and omissions in the performance of professional services; prohibiting the use of contractual mechanisms to wholesale transfer personal liability for ordinary negligence to clients as inconsistent with the exclusive grant of practice authority, and establishing that the legal expectation of non-negligent performance and personal accountability is a foundational condition of the exclusive practice grant rather than a negotiable contractual term.
Learned Profession Personal Liability Acceptance Grounding Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand and articulate the foundational legal-ethical basis for personal professional liability — specifically, that as a member of a learned profession granted exclusive authority to practice by state licensing law, the engineer possesses specialized skill, knowledge, and expertise that society relies upon, and that this grant of exclusive authority carries a corresponding obligation to perform services non-negligently and to accept personal liability for acts, errors, and omissions — and to apply this grounding when evaluating the ethical permissibility of contractual arrangements that attempt to shift personal liability to clients.
Learned Profession Personal Liability Acceptance Principle
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that membership in a learned profession — one granted exclusive authority to practice by society through licensure laws — carries a correlative obligation of personal liability for acts, errors, and omissions in the performance of professional services, grounded in the social compact by which the profession receives its privileged status in exchange for accountable, non-negligent service to those who rely on it.
Learned Profession Personal Liability Legal-Ethical Grounding Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, as a member of a learned profession granted exclusive authority to practice by law, to accept personal legal and ethical liability for acts, errors, and omissions in the performance of professional services — grounded in the social compact by which the state grants engineers exclusive practice authority in exchange for the engineer's commitment to non-negligent performance and personal accountability — such that contractual devices that transfer this liability to clients undermine the foundational basis of professional licensure.
[proethica-intermediate] A duty or responsibility arising from professional role or standards
Legal Adjudication Predicate Disciplinary Jurisdiction Grounding Capability
But when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession.
Capability of a professional engineering society or ethics reviewing body to correctly ground its disciplinary jurisdiction over personal misconduct in a prior legal adjudication — a conviction, guilty plea, or other official legal finding — rather than independently adjudicating the underlying personal conduct; including the ability to recognize that the professional society's role is to take note of official legal findings and act accordingly to protect the profession's good name, not to substitute its own judgment for that of legal authorities on the underlying facts of personal misconduct.
Legal Adjudication Predicate Requirement for Professional Society Personal Misconduct Discipline Obligation
Obligation of a professional engineering society or ethics body to ground any disciplinary action taken against a member for personal misconduct — conduct unrelated to the direct performance of engineering services — in a prior official determination by proper legal authority that the conduct is beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society, and to refrain from independently adjudicating the underlying personal conduct as if it were a first-instance tribunal; the professional society's role is to take note of the legal finding and act to protect the profession's good name, not to substitute its own factual determination for that of the legal system.
Legal Authority Adjudication as Predicate for Professional Society Disciplinary Action Principle
when the conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when a professional society exercises disciplinary authority over personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice, the proper predicate for such action is an official finding by a competent legal authority — such as a criminal conviction — that the conduct is beyond the pale of socially sanctioned activity; the professional society may then take note of such official findings and act to protect the good name of the profession, rather than independently adjudicating the underlying personal conduct itself
Legal Counsel Deposition Conduct Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint arising from attorney guidance during deposition preparation, establishing that a licensed professional engineer must respond to all deposition questions with complete factual transparency and accuracy, while refraining from voluntarily characterizing their own work product as erroneous when the question of error has not been legally or professionally adjudicated — prohibiting both distortion of facts and unsolicited self-characterization of professional conduct in a manner that exceeds the scope of questions asked, as the legal process itself is the designated mechanism for error determination.
Legal and professional norms governing the conduct of engineers during depositions and legal proceedings, including obligations of factual transparency, the distinction between reporting facts and characterizing professional judgments, and the role of legal process in determining professional error.
Legal Permissibility Non-Equivalence to Ethical Permissibility Public Role Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's satisfaction of the legal credential requirement for a public position — such as holding a valid PE license satisfying a county ordinance's PE requirement — does not establish that acceptance of the position is ethically permissible under the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to go beyond what is specifically permitted by law and to practice only within their demonstrated area of competence; prohibiting engineers from invoking legal compliance as a defense to ethical competence violations in public role acceptance, and establishing that the ethical standard for public role acceptance is higher than and independent of the legal credential requirement, as illustrated by the Board's First Amendment analogy in BER Case 85-3.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's satisfaction of the legal minimum requirement for a position or assignment — such as holding a valid PE license — does not satisfy the engineer's ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires the engineer to go beyond what is specifically permitted by law and to practice only within their demonstrated area of competence, prohibiting engineers from invoking legal compliance as a defense to ethical competence violations, as established in BER Case 85-3 and NSPE Code II.2.
Legal Profession Advocacy Bar Analogy Rejection Capability
It appears that the attorney was attempting to draw a parallel between the legal profession, where there is an institutionalized 'plaintiff's bar' and 'defense bar,' and the engineering profession.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in forensic or expert witness roles to recognize, resist, and reject attempts by opposing counsel or other parties to analogize the engineer's professional role to the institutionalized plaintiff's bar or defense bar structure of the legal profession — including the ability to articulate that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not advocates in rendering professional services, that engineers are not expected to align permanently with one side of adversarial proceedings, and that importing the legal profession's institutionalized advocacy structure into engineering ethics would improperly compromise the professional independence and autonomy that define the engineer's role.
Legal Profession Advocacy Norm Engineering Non-Importation Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting the importation or application of legal profession advocacy norms — including the institutionalized plaintiff's bar and defense bar structure, and attorney side-loyalty obligations — to licensed professional engineers serving as expert witnesses or forensic consultants in adversarial proceedings; establishing that engineers, unlike attorneys, are not advocates in rendering professional services and must not be expected to compromise their professional independence and autonomy by conforming to attorney-style side-loyalty expectations, and prohibiting opposing counsel from successfully imputing attorney advocacy obligations to engineers as a basis for challenging the propriety of sequential service to opposing parties in unrelated matters.
Legal Profession Analogy Inapplicability to Engineering Independence Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that the structural division of the legal profession into institutionalized plaintiff and defense bars — where attorneys serve as partisan advocates — does not apply to the engineering profession, and that attempts to import legal advocacy norms into engineering practice to constrain an engineer's professional independence or to characterize adverse engagements as conflicts of interest are ethically impermissible, because engineers are not advocates and their professional independence cannot be subordinated to the adversarial logic of legal proceedings
[Case 136] Domain-specific principle establishing that the structural division of the legal profession into institutionalized plaintiff and defense bars — where attorneys serve as partisan advocates — does not apply to the engineering profession, and that attempts to import legal advocacy norms into engineering practice to constrain an engineer's professional independence or to characterize adverse engagements as conflicts of interest are ethically impermissible, because engineers are not advocates and their professional independence cannot be subordinated to the adversarial logic of legal proceedings.
as noted in Black's Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition): 'Trustee' is also used in a wide and perhaps inaccurate sense, to denote that a person has the duty of carrying out a transaction...
An authoritative legal reference work providing definitions and interpretations of legal terms used in professional practice contexts, such as Black's Law Dictionary, used to clarify the meaning of terms embedded in professional codes of ethics.
Legislative Hearing Engineering Advocate Role Honest Conviction Prerequisite Obligation
Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known engineering data.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves as an advocate of a position before a legislative committee — as recognized by the ethics code's reference to the engineer being an 'advocate' — to ensure that the position advocated is grounded in honest conviction based on adequate knowledge, so that the advocacy role does not degenerate into mere partisan pleading disconnected from the engineer's genuine professional judgment; the engineer may legitimately advocate a client's preferred engineering solution only when the engineer sincerely believes, based on professional analysis, that the advocated solution is technically sound.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before public bodies on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare to perform that testimony in a manner fully consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, recognizing the heightened responsibility that arises from the potential effect of engineering testimony on public policy decisions and on people's lives.
Legislative Hearing Technical Testimony Objectivity Obligation
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies that engineering studies by him and his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is a series of low dams.
Professional principle requiring engineers who testify before legislative committees on technical matters of public policy — including infrastructure, water supply, flood control, and energy production — to ground their testimony in objective engineering analysis and voluminous supporting data, regardless of whether they represent a public agency or a private company, so that the legislature receives technically reliable input for policy decisions affecting the public welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle establishing that engineers who testify before public bodies on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare bear a heightened obligation to perform their role consistently with professional ethics standards — because their technical expertise gives their testimony disproportionate influence on public policy — while also recognizing that this role encompasses both retained engineers presenting client projects and independent engineers offering critical perspectives in the public interest.
Legislative Hearing Voluminous Data Submission Completeness Capability
Each engineering witness submits voluminous engineering data in support of his position
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a legislative committee as a retained witness to compile, organize, and submit voluminous, complete engineering data in support of a technical position — including all material studies, analyses, calculations, and supporting documentation — ensuring that the legislative record contains a full and accurate evidentiary basis for the engineer's conclusions, and refraining from selective omission of data that would undermine or qualify the position being advocated.
Legislative Testimony Competing Principal Representation State
A professional engineer representing the state power commission testifies
State in which two or more professional engineers testify before a legislative or governmental body on a matter of public policy, each representing a different principal with a stake in the outcome (e.g., a public agency versus a private company), and each advocating for a different technical solution based on their own engineering analysis — where the engineers' affiliations and principals are disclosed, the criticism of competing analyses is grounded in engineering data rather than personal attack, and the legislative body is the ultimate decision-maker. In this state, the engineers' advocacy role is transparent and institutionally sanctioned, distinguishing it from covert or undisclosed partisan engagement, and the mutual technical criticism is ethically permissible provided it remains objective, data-supported, and professionally conducted.
Legislative Testimony Retained Engineer Client Affiliation Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a legislative or governmental body as a retained witness must clearly disclose the identity of the client or party on whose behalf the testimony is offered — prohibiting testimony that obscures or omits the engineer's retained status and client affiliation in a manner that could mislead the legislative body into treating the testimony as independent expert opinion rather than as advocacy grounded in a client relationship — and establishing that transparent disclosure of client affiliation is a prerequisite for ethically permissible legislative testimony by a retained engineer, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and non-deception provisions and the principle that legislative bodies are entitled to know the interests represented by each technical witness.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who testifies before public bodies on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare must perform those obligations in a manner consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — prohibiting testimony that is selective in a deceptive manner, factually unsupported, or structured to mislead the decision-making body, and establishing that the public role of engineers in policy deliberations carries heightened ethical obligations commensurate with the effect that such testimony may have on public policy decisions.
Legitimate Inter-Engineer Public Disagreement State
engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
State in which two or more licensed professional engineers, each acting in good faith and within their competence, have reached materially different technical conclusions or recommendations on the same engineering problem — particularly in the context of public policy, environmental design, or infrastructure planning — and have expressed or are expected to express those differences in public forums. The state recognizes that honest professional disagreement does not constitute an ethical violation by either party, and that public debate between engineers on such matters is consistent with professional obligations.
Lessons Learned Post-Accident Communication Capability
Engineer T revisited the site and realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, in hindsight following an adverse project outcome, recognizes that alternative approaches would have been feasible and would have substantially reduced risk, to honestly acknowledge that missed opportunity — including communicating the lessons learned to colleagues, the profession, and relevant parties — without necessarily characterizing the original decision as a professional error, thereby contributing to professional knowledge advancement while maintaining accurate characterization of the original conduct.
Liability Crisis Exception Temporal Scope Limitation Constraint
This language was added to the NSPE Code of Ethics in response to the needs expressed by many practitioners at the height of the 'liability crisis' during which many engineers were forced to practice with little or no professional liability insurance.
Ethical constraint establishing that the Section III.9 indemnification exception — permitting engineers to seek client indemnification for professional services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence where the engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected — was adopted in response to specific historical conditions of the professional liability insurance crisis during which engineers were forced to practice with little or no professional liability insurance, and that the temporal and conditional scope of the exception is therefore limited to circumstances in which those crisis conditions persist; prohibiting the application of the liability-crisis exception as a permanent or unconditional authorization for client indemnification clauses, and establishing that the exception's permissibility is strictly conditioned on the persistence of the underlying crisis conditions that motivated its adoption.
License Jeopardy Proactive Board Consultation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who faces a directive to issue a permit, certification, or approval that the engineer believes would violate applicable law or regulations — thereby potentially exposing the engineer's professional license to suspension or revocation — to proactively contact the state engineering registration board to seek authoritative guidance on the licensure consequences of compliance with the directive, and to use that guidance as an input into the professional decision about whether to comply, refuse, or escalate.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has fulfilled a minimum reporting obligation to proactively consult the State Board of Professional Engineers for authoritative guidance on whether additional professional obligations exist beyond those already discharged — including the ability to frame the inquiry accurately, interpret the Board's response, and integrate that guidance into a final professional judgment about further action.
License Jeopardy Self-Protection Board Consultation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who faces a directive from a superior to issue a permit, certification, or approval that the engineer believes would violate applicable law or regulations — and who is uncertain whether compliance with that directive would jeopardize the engineer's professional license — to proactively consult the state engineering registration board or equivalent licensing authority to obtain guidance on the license implications before acting, so that the engineer can make an informed decision about whether to comply, refuse, or seek alternative resolution, and so that the engineer's professional standing is protected through documented due diligence.
License Self-Protection Consultation Obligation
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer faces a directive that may require the engineer to violate professional ethics or applicable law — and where compliance could expose the engineer to license suspension or revocation — the engineer has an obligation to consult appropriate professional or regulatory bodies to understand the license implications before deciding how to proceed, so that the decision is made with full awareness of the professional consequences.
Licensed Engineer Directed by Unlicensed Reviewer State
Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review, Engineer A is working in association with B.
State in which a licensed professional engineer has been explicitly directed by a client, agency, or superior to revise their sealed and signed contract documents based on the review and direction of an individual who does not hold a professional engineering license, placing the licensed engineer in direct tension between compliance with client or agency directives and their obligations not to aid or abet unlicensed practice of engineering.
Licensed Firm Representative Business Development in Jurisdiction State
State in which a business development representative of an engineering firm — who may not personally hold licensure in a given jurisdiction — distributes business cards and solicits work in that jurisdiction on behalf of a firm that does have duly licensed engineers there, creating a permissible solicitation condition where the individual's personal licensure status is subordinate to the firm's institutional licensure standing, provided no deception occurs about who will perform the engineering work.
Licensee Subject to Professional Conduct Complaint
A licensed professional engineer who is the named subject of a complaint filed with a state engineering licensure board alleging a serious violation of the board's rules of professional conduct. This role is defined by the engineer's status as a respondent in a regulatory proceeding, carrying implications for due process, the right to know the identity of the complainant, and the board's investigative authority.
Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Compliance Obligation
Most states even have it in their law (licensing act) how and when 'engineer' can be used, usually requiring a college degree and/or meeting licensing requirements.
Duty of engineering firms and licensed professional engineers to comply with state licensing act provisions that govern when and how the title 'Engineer' may be used, including requirements that the title be reserved for individuals who hold a college degree in engineering and/or have met state licensure requirements, and to refrain from assigning that title to personnel who do not satisfy those statutory criteria regardless of industry convention or internal firm practice.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and government agencies to actively preserve the integrity of the engineering licensure system by refusing to allow unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as engineers without the associated ethical and legal obligations, recognizing that permitting such misrepresentation diminishes the profession, undermines public confidence, and endangers public health, safety, and welfare.
Licensure-Based Engineering Title Entitlement Recognition Obligation
If the non-degreed personnel have passed the state requirements for licensed, they may use the term regardless of their formal education.
Duty of engineering firms, licensed professional engineers, and state licensing boards to recognize that non-degreed personnel who have successfully passed state licensure requirements are entitled to use the title 'Engineer' regardless of their formal educational background, and to apply this entitlement consistently so that the title accurately reflects demonstrated competence as validated by the licensure process rather than solely formal academic credentials.
Licensure-Grounded Public Duty Principle
It also is rooted in the implicit fact that as individuals who are granted a license by the state to practice, engineers have a duty to engage in practice which is consistent with the interests of the state and its citizenry.
Domain-specific principle establishing that the state grant of a professional engineering license creates a reciprocal public duty — beyond mere technical competence — requiring engineers to exercise their licensed authority consistently with the interests of the state and its citizenry, such that the license is not merely a credential permitting practice but a public trust imposing affirmative obligations to protect those who rely on engineering judgment.
Licensure-Grounded Superior Technical Knowledge Public Safety Duty Constraint
This responsibility rests with the recognition that engineers with their education, training and experience possess a level of knowledge and understanding concerning technical matters which is superior to that of the lay public.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health and safety is grounded in two independent foundations: (1) the engineer's education, training, and experience confer a level of technical knowledge superior to that of the lay public, creating a duty to act on that superior knowledge when public safety is at risk; and (2) the state's grant of a license to practice creates an implicit duty to engage in practice consistent with the interests of the state and its citizenry — prohibiting engineers from treating their superior technical knowledge as a private professional asset that can be withheld from those at risk when imminent danger is discovered, and establishing that the licensure relationship with the state is itself a source of public safety obligation independent of any contractual or client relationship.
Licensure-Grounded Superior Technical Knowledge Public Safety Duty Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the obligation to protect public health and safety is grounded in two complementary foundations: (1) the engineer's superior technical knowledge and understanding of technical matters relative to the lay public, which creates a responsibility to act on that knowledge when public safety is at risk; and (2) the implicit reciprocal duty arising from the state grant of a professional license, which requires the engineer to engage in practice consistent with the interests of the state and its citizenry — and to fulfill both foundations by taking affirmative action to protect public welfare when professional knowledge reveals an imminent danger.
Licensure-Grounded Superior Technical Knowledge Public Safety Duty Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the professional obligation to protect public health and safety is grounded in two distinct foundations: (1) the superior technical knowledge and understanding of technical matters that engineers possess by virtue of their education, training, and experience — knowledge that exceeds that of the lay public — and (2) the implicit duty arising from state licensure to engage in practice consistent with the interests of the state and its citizenry, and to act on both foundations when evaluating the scope and weight of the public safety obligation relative to competing professional duties such as client confidentiality.
Licensure Board Reporting Obligation for Procurement Violations
Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D's Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified credible evidence that other engineers — whether in a public agency or private firm — have violated procurement laws that also constitute violations of state registration board rules of professional conduct, to consider and fulfill any obligation to report those violations to the state licensure board, in addition to any internal or other external reporting obligations.
Licensure Board Self-Reporting Assessment Capability
Capability to assess whether confirmed professional ethics or procurement law violations — including one's own conduct or the conduct of other licensed engineers — rise to the level requiring self-reporting or reporting to the state licensure board, and to make an informed, principled judgment about fulfilling this reporting obligation in accordance with professional codes and licensure board rules of professional conduct.
Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that an engineering candidate who accepts employment conditioned on obtaining PE licensure within a specified period must honestly represent their realistic prospects of satisfying that condition at the time of acceptance — prohibiting acceptance of a licensure-conditioned offer when the candidate has knowledge of facts (such as prior examination failures, board-imposed re-examination bars, or known eligibility impediments) that make satisfaction of the condition within the specified timeframe materially unlikely, and requiring that any such known impediments be disclosed as a condition of honest acceptance.
Licensure Condition Employment Acceptance Honest Representation Obligation
Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
Duty of an engineering candidate who accepts employment conditioned on obtaining PE licensure within a specified post-hire period to represent honestly, at the time of acceptance, their realistic prospects of satisfying that condition — including refraining from accepting the position when known prior failures and board-imposed restrictions make satisfaction of the condition within the required timeframe objectively unlikely — so that the employer's offer and acceptance are grounded in accurate mutual understanding of the candidate's licensure trajectory.
Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Capability
Capability of an engineering firm or its hiring authority that advertises a position with an explicit PE licensure condition to conduct reasonable pre-hire due diligence by inquiring about a candidate's prior examination attempt history, current examination eligibility status, and any board-imposed restrictions — recognizing that the firm's legitimate interest in the licensure condition creates a corresponding duty to investigate the candidate's realistic ability to satisfy it, and that failure to inquire does not relieve the candidate of disclosure obligations but does constitute a failure of the firm's own due diligence duty.
Licensure Condition Realistic Prospect Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of an engineering candidate who accepts employment conditioned on obtaining PE licensure within a specified timeframe to honestly assess and represent their realistic probability of satisfying that condition — including accounting for prior examination failures, board-imposed restrictions, and any procedural barriers to re-examination — and to refrain from accepting the position when the condition cannot realistically be met within the required period, thereby avoiding misrepresentation by omission to the prospective employer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed engineer intern or engineering candidate who has previously failed the professional engineer licensing examination to correctly assess whether prior exam failures constitute material facts requiring voluntary disclosure to a prospective employer — including understanding that materiality depends on the employer's decision context, that an employer who offers employment with full knowledge that the candidate has not yet passed the PE exam has implicitly accepted the candidate's current licensure status, and that non-disclosure of prior failures in such a context does not constitute omission of a material fact.
Licensure Disclosure in Expert Testimony
Professional principle requiring engineers who provide expert testimony or forensic consulting services in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to affirmatively disclose their unlicensed status — rather than obscuring it through alternative credential presentations — so that retaining attorneys, courts, and opposing parties can assess the engineer's legal authority to testify and compliance with applicable licensure statutes
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
Licensing requirements are imposed upon highly skilled professional occupations such as medicine, law, and engineering. These requirements protect the public interest by ensuring members of the profession have demonstrated acceptable levels of competence and expertise and by excluding unqualified individuals who might misrepresent their skills and abilities to take advantage of the unsuspecting public.
Domain-specific principle requiring that the engineering licensure system be protected from erosion by unlicensed practice, title misuse, and misrepresentation of qualifications, on the grounds that licensure serves as the primary mechanism by which the public is protected from incompetent or unqualified engineering practitioners
Engineer A signed the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' and made no reference whatsoever to licensure status
State in which a professional presents credentials or titles that imply or assert engineering qualifications in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice engineering, creating a gap between represented status and actual licensure standing, and triggering obligations of accurate self-representation under state registration laws.
Licensure Public Trust Preservation Constraint
Allowing unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as 'Engineers' with none of the associated ethical or legal obligations diminishes the profession and endangers the public by posing a significant threat to public health and safety.
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and government agencies actively preserve the public trust that underlies the engineering licensure system — including the public's reasonable expectation that individuals holding engineering titles have demonstrated minimum competence through education, examination, and experience — prohibiting conduct that allows unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as engineers without the associated ethical and legal obligations, on the grounds that such conduct diminishes the profession, undermines public confidence, and endangers public health and safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and professional bodies actively resist the erosion of licensure integrity caused by unlicensed individuals holding engineering titles without the associated ethical, legal, and competence obligations — prohibiting passive acquiescence in practices that allow unqualified individuals to hold themselves out as engineers without the accountability structures that licensure imposes, on the grounds that such acquiescence diminishes the profession, undermines public confidence, and endangers public health and safety.
Licensure Rationale and Public Interest Articulation Capability
Capability to understand, internalize, and articulate the public interest rationale underlying professional licensure requirements — including the purposes of competence demonstration, exclusion of unqualified individuals, protection of public health and safety, and maintenance of professional integrity — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical significance of unlicensed practice and engineering title misrepresentation, including articulating how creative engineering titles undermine public confidence and the intent of licensure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to understand, internalize, and articulate the public interest rationale underlying professional licensure requirements — including the purposes of competence demonstration, exclusion of unqualified individuals, protection of public health and safety, and maintenance of professional integrity — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical significance of unlicensed practice and engineering title misrepresentation.
Licensure Requirement Public Interest Justification Constraint
Licensing requirements are imposed upon highly skilled professional occupations such as medicine, law, and engineering.
Foundational ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that engineering licensure requirements exist to protect the public interest by ensuring demonstrated competence and excluding unqualified individuals who might misrepresent their skills — thereby constraining all actors in the engineering ecosystem from treating licensure requirements as mere administrative formalities, and requiring that the public interest rationale for licensure be actively honored through compliance with and enforcement of licensure requirements, prohibiting conduct that treats licensure as optional or irrelevant to professional authority.
Licensure System Integrity Preservation Advocacy Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize their role as an active steward of the engineering licensure system's integrity — including understanding that the licensure system's effectiveness depends on licensed engineers reporting violations, that failure to report known violations undermines the system's public protection function, and that this stewardship obligation persists even when reporting is personally uncomfortable or competitively disadvantageous — and to act accordingly by fulfilling reporting obligations as a matter of professional duty to the system itself.
Licensure System Integrity Preservation Obligation
Duty of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and government agencies to actively preserve the integrity of the engineering licensure system by refusing to allow unlicensed individuals to hold themselves out as engineers without the associated ethical and legal obligations, recognizing that permitting such misrepresentation diminishes the profession, undermines public confidence, and endangers public health, safety, and welfare.
Licensure as Credential-Independent Title Legitimation Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that successful completion of state licensure requirements constitutes a sufficient and independent basis for use of the 'Engineer' title regardless of formal educational background, such that a non-degreed individual who has passed applicable state licensing examinations and met all licensure requirements is ethically and legally entitled to use engineering titles — while a degreed individual who has not met licensure requirements where required is not
Literal-vs-Purposive Code Interpretation Rejection Principle
A literal construction of the Code language may, therefore, indicate that the engineers of Company 'B' may ethically proceed with their role in the production process.
Hermeneutic principle establishing that when a literal or narrow reading of an ethics code provision would allow an engineer to participate in engineering operations that endanger public health and safety — merely because the engineer's role does not technically require signing or sealing the unsafe plans — that literal construction must be rejected in favor of a purposive reading that captures the full protective intent of the provision: that engineers shall not participate in any way in engineering operations which endanger the public health and safety, regardless of whether they are the sealing engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Hermeneutic principle requiring that specific enumerations of engineering work products or instruments in ethics code provisions — such as 'plans and specifications' — be read expansively to encompass all engineering instruments of service, in light of the overall public welfare thrust of the code, so that the protective purpose of the provision is not defeated by narrow textual literalism
Litigation Attorney Directing Engineer Confidentiality Over Safety Findings
An attorney client role in which a lawyer representing a building owner in tenant litigation retains a professional engineer to inspect the building and provide expert testimony, and upon receiving the engineer's report of serious structural defects constituting an immediate threat to tenant safety — defects not part of the existing lawsuit — instructs the engineer to maintain confidentiality over those findings as part of the litigation strategy, thereby generating a conflict between attorney-client privilege and the engineer's overriding obligation to disclose imminent danger to appropriate authorities.
Litigation Confidentiality Instruction Imminent Safety Suppression Non-Compliance Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from complying with an attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality over forensic findings when those findings reveal an imminent threat to the safety of building occupants — establishing that litigation confidentiality, while a legitimate professional obligation in ordinary circumstances, does not extend to suppressing information about conditions that pose an immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm to identifiable third parties, and that the engineer's compliance with such an instruction constitutes an independent ethical violation of the paramount public safety canon.
Litigation Confidentiality Scope Boundary for Imminent Occupant Safety Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness under litigation-related confidentiality to correctly assess the scope boundary of that confidentiality obligation, recognizing that while litigation strategy and client communications may be legitimately confidential, discovered conditions constituting an immediate threat to occupant life safety fall outside the permissible scope of confidentiality and must be disclosed to appropriate authorities and affected parties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained under a formal confidentiality agreement to assess structural integrity of an occupied building to recognize that the confidentiality obligation does not extend to bar disclosure of electrical, mechanical, or structural code violations that pose imminent danger to occupants, and to correctly determine that the NSPE Code's use of 'paramount' to describe the public safety obligation means that confidentiality agreements are superseded by imminent occupant safety threats, even when the violations fall outside the engineer's primary discipline.
Litigation Context Intentional Evidence Disregard Recognition Capability
Engineer B said: 'We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented...'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that intentionally disregarding available evidence — such as pile driving records — when forming adverse technical opinions in a litigation context constitutes an ethical violation, and to distinguish between legitimate professional skepticism about evidence quality (which requires investigation and disclosure) and impermissible intentional disregard of evidence that contradicts a preferred conclusion.
an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two
A municipal government stakeholder role in which the municipality is a party to an adversarial legal or quasi-legal dispute and retains engineering consultants to conduct testing and produce reports intended to support its position in cost-sharing or liability negotiations, bearing interests in resolving the dispute favorably while remaining subject to the professional obligations of its retained engineers.
the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides expert testimony during mediation or legal proceedings on behalf of a party, evaluating technical aspects of design or construction and offering professional opinions on compliance with applicable standards.
Living Ethics Code Current-Conditions Interpretive Constraint
Interpretive and ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics must be read and applied in light of current conditions within professional practice rather than the conditions that prevailed at the time a particular code provision or amendment was adopted, requiring the Board of Ethical Review to interpret code provisions consistently with the current professional practice environment and reserving the Board's authority to modify its interpretive positions as professional practice circumstances change; prohibiting the static application of code provisions in ways that are disconnected from the current practice environment, and establishing that the living-document character of the Code imposes an ongoing interpretive obligation on the Board to maintain the Code's credibility and currency.
Local Advertisement Restriction Constraint
It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases.
A procedural and competitive constraint arising from a public agency's policy of advertising consulting engineering services only within a local geographic area, which restricts the pool of qualified competitors to locally based firms and may prevent the agency from accessing the most qualified engineering talent available, creating tension between local preference policies and the obligation to secure competent professional services.
Local Custom Legality Invoked as Ethics Justification State
State in which a foreign government official or local party explicitly invokes the legality and established custom of a practice under local law as justification for an engineer's compliance with that practice, where the practice would otherwise violate the engineer's home-country professional ethics obligations. The invocation of local legality and peer conformity ('other firms have adhered') is presented as a normative argument for compliance, activating the engineer's obligation to assess whether local law and custom can override professional ethics code requirements.
Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that prevailing local business customs, cultural norms, or industry practices — even when widely accepted or legally sanctioned in a host jurisdiction — do not constitute a valid excuse or defense for conduct that violates professional engineering ethics obligations, because professional ethics represent a higher standard of conduct that is not culturally relative and cannot be waived by appeal to local custom
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that a professional ethics code — such as the NSPE Code of Ethics — sets a higher threshold of required conduct than the legal minimum standards enforced by a state licensure board, such that compliance with the legal minimum does not discharge the engineer's full ethical obligation, and engineers must look beyond regulatory sufficiency to determine whether their conduct meets the aspirational standard of the profession.
Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data
Municipal or local government regulations specifying design standards and requirements for development projects, including stormwater, hydraulic, and infrastructure design criteria that engineers must satisfy when obtaining local permits
Engineer A worked for a local government and learned about a critical situation involving a bridge
A licensed professional engineering role employed by a local government with specific assigned responsibility for bridge infrastructure, bearing obligations to enforce safety closures, escalate violations of safety restrictions to supervisors and state/federal transportation authorities, coordinate with consulting engineers on remediation adequacy, and report unlicensed engineering practice — even under public pressure or contrary direction from non-engineer supervisors.
Local Intermediary Corrupt Payment Facilitation Non-Participation Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from entering into, authorizing, or benefiting from arrangements with local intermediaries — including local engineering partners, agents, or consultants — that involve the payment of kickbacks, facilitation payments, or corrupt transfers to foreign government officials, even when such arrangements are structured to place formal legal distance between the engineer and the payment, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.5.b, III.6, and III.7 and BER Case 96-5 (involving a U.S. consulting engineer encouraged to associate with a local engineer in a foreign country where gift-giving to government officials was customary).
Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Non-Participation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refuse to participate in, authorize, or benefit from arrangements in which a local intermediary engineer or agent facilitates corrupt payments or kickbacks to foreign government officials in exchange for engineering contract awards, even when such arrangements are proposed or encouraged by the client government itself and are consistent with local business customs.
Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Recognition and Refusal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed arrangement with a local engineer, agent, or intermediary in a host country constitutes a kickback scheme — including arrangements where the intermediary's compensation is contingent on or structured to facilitate payments to government officials — and to refuse to enter into, authorize, or benefit from such arrangements, even when the arrangement is framed as legitimate local business practice or encouraged by the client government.
Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
Engineer B proposed to Engineer A that if the project was awarded to Engineer A's firm, Engineer B would handle 'business arrangements' in Country A
A professional engineering role borne by a locally licensed engineer in a host country who proposes to serve as an intermediary for 'business arrangements' — i.e., facilitating improper payments or gifts to public officials — in exchange for project association with a foreign engineering firm. This role raises ethical violations under professional codes such as NSPE regardless of local legal permissibility, as it involves using professional standing to enable corrupt procurement practices.
Local Procurement Policy Competitive Fairness Assessment Capability
Capability of a public agency client to evaluate whether its own procurement policies — including local preference policies that restrict advertisement of engineering services to local firms only — provide fair and open competitive opportunity to all qualified firms, comply with applicable QBS procurement law requirements, and serve the public interest in obtaining the most competent available engineering services, rather than merely the most locally convenient.
Logistical Difficulty Non-Excuse for Marketing Correction Delay Constraint
while we recognize basic logistical problems involved in distributing, correcting and reprinting brochures and other promotional material, we believe the marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created.
Ethical constraint establishing that the logistical difficulties inherent in distributing, correcting, and reprinting marketing brochures and other promotional materials do not excuse an engineering firm or its marketing personnel from the obligation to expeditiously correct known inaccuracies — prohibiting the use of printing costs, distribution complexity, or administrative burden as justifications for indefinite delay in correcting misrepresentations that could mislead clients or prospective clients, while acknowledging the realities of firm practice and permitting the use of proportionate correction mechanisms such as errata sheets.
Long-Term Building Code Integrity Non-Subordination to Short-Term Staffing Gain Obligation
Engineer A should insist that the public will be seriously damaged in either case and that if the integrity of the building code enforcement process is undermined for short-term gain, the city, its citizens, and its businesses will be harmed in the long term
Duty of a licensed professional engineer directing a municipal building inspection program to refuse to subordinate the long-term integrity of building code enforcement — including consistent application of updated, more protective code requirements — to the short-term administrative gain of obtaining additional inspection staff, recognizing that undermining code enforcement consistency for short-term resource benefits causes long-term harm to the city, its citizens, and its businesses.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer advising on an energy system replacement decision to ensure that long-term public welfare considerations — including sustained grid reliability, protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts, and the systemic integrity of the local electric power system — are not subordinated to short-term sustainability or political gains such as carbon footprint reduction metrics or stakeholder advocacy goals, recognizing by analogy to BER 98-5 that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' — in this context, accepting reduced grid reliability as the price of environmental benefit — does grave damage to public health and safety and that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain.
Long-Term Infrastructure Risk Communication Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer evaluating competing design alternatives for public infrastructure to clearly communicate to the client the long-term risks of each alternative — including deterioration timelines, capacity limitations, expandability constraints, and the consequences of design capacity exceedance — so that the client can make an informed decision that accounts for lifecycle costs, future risk exposure, and the potential need for complete reconstruction.
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Gain Constraint
long-term public welfare (a valid building code enforcement process) cannot be undermined for short-term gain (grandfathering specified buildings in the name of increased jobs and tax revenues)
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from structuring an advisory report or professional recommendation in a manner that subordinates long-term public welfare considerations — such as sustained grid reliability and protection of vulnerable populations — to short-term gains — such as carbon footprint reduction, cost savings, or political expediency — establishing that the engineer's obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount requires explicit identification and disclosure of long-term welfare trade-offs when short-term benefits are presented, as established by BER Case 98-5 (grandfathering ordinance for short-term economic gain) and the principle that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does grave damage to public health and safety.
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Political Gain
righting a wrong with another wrong does grave damage to the public health and safety
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that engineers must not allow short-term political, economic, or budgetary gains — such as increased jobs, tax revenues, or political goodwill — to undermine long-term public welfare interests, including valid safety codes, inspection standards, or infrastructure reliability, and that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' does not constitute an ethically permissible resolution to resource or political constraints
[Case 112] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that engineers must not allow short-term political, economic, or budgetary gains — such as increased community satisfaction, political goodwill, or responsiveness to citizen advocacy — to undermine long-term public welfare interests, including valid safety codes, engineering standards, and statutory requirements for engineering studies
[Case 112] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that engineers must not allow short-term political, economic, or budgetary gains — such as increased jobs, tax revenues, or political goodwill — to undermine long-term public welfare interests, including valid safety codes, inspection standards, or infrastructure reliability
[Case 113] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that engineers must not allow short-term political, economic, or budgetary gains — such as increased jobs, tax revenues, or political goodwill — to undermine long-term public welfare interests, including valid safety codes, inspection standards, or infrastructure reliability
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from agreeing to compromise public safety standards — including building code enforcement, inspection adequacy, or safety reporting — as consideration for political or budgetary concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints that make full compliance difficult
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer advising on an energy system replacement decision to recognize when a short-term sustainability gain — such as carbon footprint reduction through solar adoption — is being used, implicitly or explicitly, to justify accepting long-term public welfare costs such as reduced grid reliability, increased rolling blackout probability, and foreseeable harm to vulnerable populations, and to resist that subordination by ensuring that the advisory report explicitly addresses the long-term public welfare implications and does not present the short-term gain as sufficient justification for accepting the long-term risk — consistent with the BER 98-5 principle that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain.
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Sustainability Gain Obligation
The BER affirmed that engineers 'must hold the public health and safety paramount.' Engineer Adam 'had a responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer advising on an energy system replacement decision to ensure that long-term public welfare considerations — including sustained grid reliability, protection of vulnerable populations from rolling blackouts, and the systemic integrity of the local electric power system — are not subordinated to short-term sustainability or political gains such as carbon footprint reduction metrics or stakeholder advocacy goals, recognizing by analogy to BER 98-5 that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' — in this context, accepting reduced grid reliability as the price of environmental benefit — does grave damage to public health and safety and that long-term public welfare cannot be undermined for short-term gain.
Low-Cost Correction Mechanism Proportional Deployment Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that engineering firms and their marketing personnel, upon identifying inaccuracies in printed promotional materials, deploy available low-cost correction mechanisms — including errata sheets inserted into existing brochures, cover letters, strike-outs, and reprints where necessary — within a reasonable period of time, prohibiting the use of logistical difficulty or printing cost as a justification for indefinite delay in correcting known inaccuracies, particularly where the firm has reason to believe that a misunderstanding might occur.
Firm A's bid was $70,000 less than the bid of Firm B
A professional engineering firm role in which the firm submits and wins a public contract through a fee-based competitive bidding process at a price significantly below competitors, generating obligations to demonstrate that the low fee does not compromise the competence or safety of the services to be rendered, and to avoid bait-and-switch or deceptive fee practices.
Low-Fee Bait-and-Switch Deception Prohibition in Engineering Procurement
Professional virtue principle establishing that submitting an artificially low fee proposal to win a public engineering contract, with the intent or foreseeable consequence of delivering incompetent or deficient service, constitutes a form of bait-and-switch deception — an improper and questionable method of obtaining professional engagements that violates both the honesty obligations and the procurement integrity obligations of the engineering ethics code.
Low-Fee Competitive Bid Public Safety Adequacy Self-Verification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm that submits a fee proposal substantially below competing firms' proposals for a public safety-critical project — such as a highway bridge — to verify, before submission, that the proposed fee is sufficient to fund competent, code-compliant, and safe engineering performance, and to refrain from submitting a fee that the firm knows or should know is inadequate to meet the project's minimum professional performance requirements, recognizing that a commercially motivated underbid that results in inadequate design endangers the public and violates the engineer's paramount duty to hold public safety above commercial self-interest.
Low-Fee Proposal Adequacy Verification Obligation
The firms then subsequently submitted the following price proposals: Firm A: $50,000; Firm: $120,000; and Firm C: $200,000
Professional competence principle requiring an engineering firm that submits a fee proposal substantially below competitor proposals for the same scope of work to have a documented, defensible basis demonstrating that the proposed fee is sufficient to support competent, safe, and complete engineering performance — and that the firm has not simply underbid to win work it cannot perform adequately at that fee level
Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer disclose to clients and relevant stakeholders identified risks that are low in probability but high in consequence — particularly when those consequences include disproportionate harm to vulnerable or underserved populations — prohibiting the engineer from omitting or minimizing such risks on the basis of their low likelihood alone, and requiring that the full consequence profile be presented alongside probability assessments to enable informed client decision-making.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting engineers from omitting known or suspected material risks from communications with clients, employers, or relevant stakeholders, particularly when those risks affect public welfare or the scope of professional engagement.
Low-Retainer Dual-Role Competitive Constraint Self-Acceptance Capability
Such a municipal engineer is paid either on a cost-plus basis or a flat monthly retainer-usually a relatively low amount.
Capability of a consulting engineering firm principal appointed as statutory municipal engineer on a low flat retainer or cost-plus basis to recognize, accept, and comply with the competitive constraints that flow from the dual-role arrangement — specifically understanding that the low compensation for the advisory role is offset by the expectation of subsequent design service retention, and that this structural arrangement imposes obligations to refrain from exploiting the advisory position for competitive advantage, to accept restrictions on advising on contractor selection where the firm has a financial interest, and to treat the competitive constraint as an inherent and ethically required feature of the arrangement rather than an unfair burden.
Low-Retainer Municipal Engineer Capital Project Competitive Constraint
Ethical and resource constraint establishing that a consulting firm principal appointed as municipal engineer on a low flat retainer or cost-plus basis must accept that the retainer arrangement creates a competitive limitation — specifically that the low compensation for the advisory role is understood to be offset by the expectation of follow-on capital project retention, and that this arrangement, while ethically permissible under the public interest justification for small municipalities, constrains the engineer from treating the advisory role as a free-standing profit center and from exploiting the advisory position to guarantee rather than merely compete for capital project work.
Low-Retainer Municipal Engineer Competitive Constraint Acceptance Obligation
Duty of a consulting engineering firm principal appointed as statutory municipal engineer on a low flat retainer or cost-plus basis to accept the competitive constraints that accompany the advisory role — including limitations on soliciting or accepting design work that would create irreconcilable conflicts of interest — as an inherent condition of the appointment, recognizing that the relatively modest compensation of the advisory role does not diminish the ethical obligations attached to it.
Lowest-Level Resolution Priority Constraint
Resolving issues at the lowest possible level is often an effective way to solve problems.
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer identifies a compliance concern or violation, the engineer should first attempt to resolve the matter at the lowest possible organizational level before escalating to higher authorities, requiring that internal resolution pathways be genuinely pursued before external reporting, while not permitting indefinite deferral of escalation when internal resolution fails.
Relational principle requiring engineers to serve employer and client interests faithfully, but only within the bounds of professional ethics, law, and public welfare obligations
[Case 150] Relational principle governing the engineer's obligation of faithful service to employer and client, requiring the engineer to act in the employer's legitimate interests while remaining within ethical limits — including the limit that employer loyalty cannot override public safety obligations.
[Case 175] Relational principle requiring engineers to serve employer and client interests faithfully, but only within the bounds of professional ethics, law, and public welfare obligations.
Loyalty Fulfillment Through Role-Faithful Objective Performance
Engineer A's action provided the Owner with a candid and straightforward interpretation of the issues involved in the claim, expedited the claim, and avoided further delays and a potential for further misunderstandings between the parties.
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's duty of loyalty to a client is not violated — and is in fact fulfilled — when the engineer acts objectively and impartially in a role that the client contractually designated as impartial, because the client's true interest is served by candid, accurate, and expeditious resolution rather than by partisan advocacy that could expose the client to collusion allegations, further delays, and misunderstandings
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering
A licensed professional engineering role serving as a principal or owner of a mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineering consulting firm, bearing authority over project assignments, staff supervision, client contract performance, and institutional decisions about the scope and ethical acceptability of firm work, with obligations to ensure competent delivery, supervise engineer interns, and respond appropriately to internal sustainability or ethical objections raised by staff.
Management Business Decision Characterization Non-Excuse for Specification Non-Compliance Obligation
Management rejected the comments of Engineer A, particularly his proposal that the work of a particular subcontractor be redesigned because of Engineer A's claim that the subcontractor's submission represented excessive cost and time delays.
Duty of professional engineers and ethics bodies to recognize that management's characterization of a subcontractor specification compliance dispute as a 'business decision' — grounded in cost and schedule considerations — does not extinguish the engineer's professional obligation to document and maintain the technical position on specification deficiencies, and does not constitute an ethical justification for the engineer to abandon that position; while simultaneously recognizing that management retains the organizational authority to make the final procurement decision, and that the engineer's obligation is to ensure the professional judgment is formally recorded rather than to override management's business authority.
Management Business Decision Framing Non-Excuse for Specification Non-Compliance Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when management characterizes a subcontractor's specification non-compliance as a 'business decision' grounded in cost or schedule considerations, this characterization does not relieve the engineer of the professional obligation to document and report the deficiency, and does not transform a specification compliance failure into a permissible engineering outcome — understanding that business rationales cannot override professional engineering standards.
Management Business Decision Non-Override of Engineer Specification Compliance Judgment
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer has formed a professional judgment — grounded in technical review and specification analysis — that a subcontractor's submission is deficient and non-compliant, management's characterization of the engineer's concerns as a 'business decision' does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation, because specification compliance in public-funded projects is a professional matter governed by engineering standards rather than a business matter governed solely by cost and schedule considerations.
Management Override Post-Exhaustion Personal Conscience Escalation Permissibility Constraint
After the exchange of further memoranda between Engineer A and his management superiors, and continued disagreement between Engineer A and management on the issues he raised
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has exhausted available internal escalation pathways — including multiple written memoranda to management superiors — and whose documented technical concerns have been persistently overridden by management, retains a personal conscience right to continue insisting on compliance and to seek an external ethics review, even in the absence of a mandatory escalation duty triggered by public health or safety endangerment; prohibiting the characterization of such continued personal conscience advocacy as an ethical violation, while recognizing that the engineer must accept the professional consequences — including employment sanctions — of exercising this personal conscience right.
Management Override of Engineer Technical Recommendation State
Management rejected the comments of Engineer A, particularly his proposal that the work of a particular subcontractor be redesigned
State in which an engineer's documented technical recommendations — submitted through proper internal channels such as memoranda — are formally rejected by management superiors, creating an unresolved professional disagreement between the engineer's technical judgment and organizational authority, without the engineer having any remaining internal avenue to compel compliance.
Management Pressure Resistance in Peer Document Modification Capability
Management strongly encouraged Engineer A to complete his work so that all design documents could be released.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when management pressure — including time constraints, financial pressures, and organizational urgency — is creating motivation to modify another engineer's sealed documents without that engineer's knowledge or consent, and to resist that pressure by refusing to make unauthorized modifications, seeking out the responsible engineer, or escalating the situation rather than proceeding with unauthorized changes.
Management Pressure Responsible Charge Bypass State
State in which organizational management explicitly encourages or directs a licensed professional engineer to complete or release engineering work in a manner that bypasses required professional certification processes — such as consultation with the responsible engineer or exercise of responsible charge — citing time constraints, project schedule, or financial pressures, thereby creating direct tension between organizational authority and the engineer's professional obligations.
Management Pressure Responsible Charge Non-Bypass Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from bypassing responsible charge requirements — including the requirement to confer with and obtain approval from the engineer in responsible charge of sealed documents before making modifications — in response to management pressure arising from time constraints, financial pressures, or organizational scheduling demands, establishing that such pressures do not constitute justification for deviating from the ethical and regulatory requirements governing sealed engineering documents.
Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation
Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another engineer or firm has violated applicable licensing board rules — including rules governing qualification proposal representations — to report that knowledge or belief to the relevant licensing board in writing, even when the potential violator is a competitor and the reporting engineer has a personal competitive interest in the outcome
[Case 116] Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another engineer has violated applicable licensing board rules to report that knowledge to the relevant licensing board, even when the reporting engineer has a personal competitive interest in the outcome.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who identify credible evidence of procurement law violations — particularly in public engineering contracting — to formally report those violations to appropriate oversight authorities when internal remediation is refused, rather than acquiescing in continued non-compliance
Mandatory Silence and Isolation Compliance State
By refraining from becoming involved in this matter for the state, Engineer A is not 'representing the client' (as the facts suggest) or providing any services to the client. Engineer A is merely remaining silent.
State in which a professional engineer, having been barred from participation in an adversarial proceeding due to prior specialized knowledge obligations, fulfills their ethical duty by remaining silent and isolated from the matter — neither disclosing confidential information nor actively representing any party — while their current employer is obligated to assign them to other duties and respect the ethical constraint. The state represents ethical compliance through inaction rather than through active service, and is distinguished from deception or evasion by its grounding in explicit code provisions.
Mandatory Statutory Environmental Overflow Reporting Constraint
Inviolable legal constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware that a wastewater or environmental overflow condition meets the statutory threshold for mandatory reporting to a state water pollution control authority to make that report without delay, regardless of employer directives, internal communication restrictions, or employment consequences — establishing that the statutory reporting obligation is triggered by the engineer's awareness of the condition and cannot be deferred, suppressed, or channeled through a non-compliant superior.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role with statutory responsibility for environmental compliance who is directed by a superior authority (such as a city administrator) to suppress or limit legally required regulatory reporting — such as overflow capacity violations required to be reported to state water pollution control authorities — must not comply with that suppression directive, and must escalate the matter to the appropriate proper authorities (which, after internal escalation has failed, are state regulatory officials rather than local city officials), prohibiting the engineer from treating internal reporting to a non-compliant superior as a discharge of the mandatory external regulatory reporting obligation.
Mandatory Statutory Reporting Obligation Non-Deferrable by Employer Order
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer is aware of a condition that triggers a mandatory statutory or regulatory reporting obligation — such as a state-law requirement to report wastewater overflow to a pollution control authority — that obligation cannot be lawfully or ethically deferred, suppressed, or nullified by an employer's order, a supervisor's directive, or threats of employment termination. The statutory duty to report runs independently of the internal chain of command and supersedes organizational authority.
Mandatory Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed as a city engineer who becomes aware that a wastewater overflow condition exists or is imminent — specifically where state law mandates reporting of such conditions to the state water pollution control authority — to report that condition to the designated regulatory authority regardless of employer orders to the contrary, recognizing that a statutory reporting obligation cannot be deferred, suppressed, or overridden by a non-engineer municipal administrator's directive.
Mandatory Withdrawal-Reporting Threshold Public Safety Endangerment Confinement Obligation
The Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Duty of professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies to recognize that the NSPE Code's mandatory obligation to notify proper authority and withdraw from further service on a project is confined to situations in which the circumstances involve endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare — and does not extend as a mandatory duty to situations involving only unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds without a direct public health or safety danger — so that engineers are not incorrectly held to a mandatory withdrawal-and-report standard when the triggering condition of public endangerment is absent.
Mandatory Withdrawal Code Provision Public Safety Confinement Self-Application Capability
The Code section in point related to plans and specifications 'that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare,' and ties that standard to the ethical duty of engineers to notify proper authority of the dangers and withdraw from further service on the project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to correctly recognize that the NSPE Code's mandatory obligation to withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities is confined to situations involving endangerment of public health, safety, and welfare — and does not extend to situations involving only unjustified expenditure of public funds or unsatisfactory plans without a safety nexus — thereby correctly classifying the present case as falling outside the mandatory withdrawal-and-report zone while remaining within the permissible personal conscience advocacy zone.
Mandatory Withdrawal and Reporting Threshold Confined to Public Health Safety and Welfare Endangerment
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the engineering ethics code's mandatory obligations — to notify proper authority of dangers and withdraw from further service on a project — are triggered specifically and only when the circumstances involve endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare, and that below this threshold (e.g., unsatisfactory plans, unjustified public expenditure without safety endangerment) the engineer's ethical obligations shift from mandatory duty to discretionary right governed by personal conscience.
A private client role borne by an entity that retains an engineer to perform design services and scheduling (e.g., CPM scheduling) for a manufacturing facility, bearing the right to receive competent services and material information relevant to the engineer's fitness to perform those services.
Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive
Relational principle requiring engineers and engineering firms to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — so that information about qualifications, licensure status, and service capabilities remains accurate, truthful, and non-deceptive over time; the obligation is ongoing and is not discharged by accuracy at the time of initial publication
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring that engineering firms ensure their sales and marketing materials — including brochures, proposals, and websites — accurately represent the academic and licensure qualifications of listed personnel, so that prospective clients and the public who rely on such materials to assess firm capabilities are not misled about the credentials of the individuals who will perform or supervise engineering work
Marketing Director PE Expeditious Correction Dual-Duty Constraint
the marketing director, a professional engineer, has an ethical obligation both to the clients and potential clients as well as to the Engineer A to expeditiously correct the mis-impression which may have been created.
Ethical constraint establishing that a marketing director who holds a professional engineering license bears a dual ethical obligation upon receiving notification of an inaccuracy in firm promotional materials: (1) an obligation to clients and prospective clients to prevent misleading impressions from being created or perpetuated, and (2) an obligation to the engineer whose qualifications are misrepresented to correct the false impression of their professional identity — prohibiting the marketing director from treating the correction obligation as purely administrative or discretionary, and establishing that the PE credential activates heightened ethical responsibility for the accuracy of firm marketing communications.
Marketing Material Accuracy Correction Standard
we believe engineering firms that use printed material as part of their marketing efforts should take reasonable steps to assure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible
Professional norms and ethical obligations requiring engineering firms to take reasonable and expeditious steps to correct inaccurate or outdated promotional materials (brochures, resumes, etc.) that may mislead clients or prospective clients, including through errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints within a reasonable period of time
Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability
Capability of licensed professional engineers and engineering firms to actively maintain, review, and update all public-facing marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they remain accurate, truthful, and non-deceptive regarding qualifications, licensure status, and services offered, recognizing that the reduced time and cost of updating materials in the digital age heightens the obligation to keep such materials current.
Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that engineers and engineering firms continuously maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they are accurate, truthful, and not deceptive regarding the engineer's or firm's qualifications, licensure status, and service offerings, prohibiting the continued use of outdated or inaccurate marketing materials that may create public misunderstanding about qualifications, and establishing that the reduced time and cost of updating materials in the electronic era heightens the obligation to keep such information current.
Marketing Material Engineering Discipline Accuracy Maintenance Capability
Capability of an engineer serving in a marketing or business development role within an engineering firm to maintain ongoing accuracy of promotional materials with respect to the specific engineering disciplines of listed personnel — including verifying that each named engineer is listed under their actual degree discipline and practice area, promptly correcting discipline misclassifications upon discovery, and establishing review processes to prevent discipline errors from persisting in distributed materials — recognizing that discipline misclassification misleads prospective clients about the firm's actual technical capabilities in specific engineering subdisciplines.
Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Obligation
Duty of licensed professional engineers and engineering firms to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they remain accurate, truthful, and not deceptive as qualifications, licensure status, and personnel change over time. This obligation is continuous and not discharged by a one-time review; engineers and firms must monitor and revise these materials as necessary to prevent public misunderstanding about their or their firm's qualifications. The reduced time and cost of updating materials in the electronic age reinforces the practical feasibility of this obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineering firm that becomes aware — or has reason to believe — that its public-facing marketing materials, including company brochures, assign engineering titles to personnel who do not hold engineering degrees or professional engineering licensure, to conduct a prompt audit of those materials, revise or remove misleading title designations, and issue corrected materials, so that prospective clients and the public are not misled about the qualifications of the firm's personnel.
Marketing Material Personnel Credential Differentiation Capability
key personnel who do not hold an engineering degree and may in fact be high school graduates only, are given such titles in the brochure as 'Engineer', 'Design Engineer', etc.
Capability of an engineering firm and its licensed professional engineers to clearly differentiate, in all public-facing marketing materials including brochures, between personnel who hold professional engineering licenses or engineering degrees and those who do not — including assigning distinct, non-misleading titles to each category, ensuring that non-degreed or unlicensed staff are not listed with titles such as 'Engineer' or 'Design Engineer' that imply engineering qualifications, and revising materials proactively upon recognition that the current presentation may mislead readers about the composition of the firm's qualified engineering staff.
Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation
Relational principle requiring that engineering firms ensure their sales and marketing materials — including brochures, proposals, and websites — accurately represent the academic and licensure qualifications of listed personnel, so that prospective clients and the public who rely on such materials to assess firm capabilities are not misled about the credentials of the individuals who will perform or supervise engineering work
Material Harm Potential Negotiation Heightened Honesty Constraint
The facts of this case suggest potential material harm to an interested party during negotiations.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer makes statements during a business negotiation that carry the potential for material harm to the counterparty — including financial harm from a transaction entered into on the basis of false or misleading information — the engineer's duty of honesty and non-deception is heightened, such that the potential for material harm to an interested party is an aggravating factor that strengthens the ethical case against misleading statements and weighs against any defense based on the commercial or adversarial nature of the negotiation context, as established by NSPE Board of Ethical Review analysis noting that 'the facts of this case suggest potential material harm to an interested party during negotiations.'
Material Harm Potential in Business Negotiation State
State in which misleading or deceptive statements made during a business negotiation carry the potential for material financial or professional harm to one or more parties to the negotiation, elevating the ethical gravity of the misrepresentation beyond mere tactical maneuvering and triggering heightened honesty obligations, particularly where full disclosure of the relevant circumstances would have altered the ethical assessment of the professional's conduct.
Material Information Completeness in Upward Reporting Capability
Capability of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer who discovers and reports a safety deficiency to a supervising licensed professional engineer to recognize that the obligation to report extends beyond the immediate defect to all material contextual facts bearing on the defect — including historical evidence of prior missed inspections, duration of the defect's visibility, and evidence of inspection program failure — and to ensure that the upward report is complete and unfiltered rather than limited to the most recent or most obvious finding.
Material Omission Privacy Balance Disclosure Obligation
However, the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
Duty of a professional engineer exercising a privacy right to withhold personal or professional information from clients, employers, or prospective employers to assess whether the withheld information rises to the level of a material fact — i.e., information whose omission would render the engineer's representations objectively misleading or incomplete — recognizing that the privacy right does not extend to omissions that constitute material misrepresentations, and that when the omitted information is material to the decision-maker's context, the engineer's obligation to be objective and truthful overrides the privacy interest.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed engineer intern or engineering candidate who is asked about or volunteers information regarding professional engineer examination status to an employer or prospective employer to assess whether undisclosed information — such as prior examination failures — constitutes a material fact given the employer's known decision-making context, recognizing that the omission of information is unethical only when that information is material to the employer's decision, and that when an employer has offered employment with full knowledge that the candidate has not yet passed the PE exam, prior failures are not material and need not be volunteered.
Material Omission Recognition in Professional Reports Capability
Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted.
Capability to identify when a professional report omits material facts — including session locations, times, participation barriers, comment submission restrictions, and evidence supporting claimed community positions — that are necessary for stakeholders to make informed decisions, and to recognize that such omissions constitute violations of professional obligations to issue statements in an objective and truthful manner, consistent with BER precedent requiring inclusion of relevant and pertinent information.
Maximum Clarity Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation
XYZ Engineers' proposal clearly indicated that Engineer B was in responsible charge of certain listed projects while in the previous employment of another firm.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who includes prior-employer projects in qualification proposals to present attribution information with maximum clarity — ensuring that the differentiation between the current firm's independent project experience and the engineer's prior-employer project experience is as clear and unambiguous as possible to a reasonable reader — recognizing that while a prefatory notice may satisfy minimum ethical requirements in some jurisdictions, ethical best practice requires that attribution be sufficiently prominent and repeated so that no reasonable reader could be misled about the provenance of the referenced experience.
Mechanical Product Failure Forensic Investigation Competence
Domain-specific technical competence to conduct forensic engineering investigations of mechanical product failures — including analysis of failure causation, product design standards compliance, material and mechanical failure modes, operating condition reconstruction, and applicable product safety standards — sufficient to render defensible expert opinions regarding the cause of accidents resulting in personal injury, and to identify when data underlying prior conclusions was inaccurate and how corrected data would alter those conclusions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Domain-specific technical competence to conduct forensic engineering investigations of boiler and pressure vessel failures — including analysis of explosion causation, pressure vessel design standards compliance, material failure modes, operating condition reconstruction, and applicable boiler code requirements — sufficient to render defensible expert opinions in litigation and regulatory proceedings.
Media-Coverage-Conditioned External Reporting Discharge Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public health and safety risk — and who has discharged mandatory internal obligations by refusing to issue a non-compliant permit and formally submitting findings to superiors — to recognize that when the matter has already received media coverage and appropriate public officials have already begun an investigation, the engineer's obligation to bring the issue to the attention of 'proper authorities' is discharged by that public awareness, and that further external reporting to those already-aware authorities is not required as a mandatory professional duty, because such reporting would be a useless act that adds nothing to the protection of public welfare.
Media-Coverage-Conditioned Mandatory Escalation Discharge Assessment Capability
Yet unlike the circumstances involved in BER Case 88-6 where the issues were hidden from public note, here, the case involves facts which have received coverage in the media.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public health and safety risk — and who has discharged minimum internal reporting obligations — to correctly assess whether widespread media coverage of the situation and the commencement of an official investigation by proper authorities discharges the engineer's remaining mandatory obligation to bring the matter to the attention of those authorities, recognizing that when proper authorities are already aware and have begun investigation, further reporting is a useless act that does not add to public protection, and that the mandatory escalation duty is thereby discharged without requiring additional external reporting by the engineer.
Media Coverage Public Authority Awareness External Escalation Discharge Constraint
In view of this fact, we do not believe it is incumbent upon Engineer A to bring this issue to the attention of the 'proper authorities'.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public health and safety risk — and who has discharged mandatory internal obligations by refusing to issue a non-compliant permit and formally submitting findings to superiors — is not required to bring the matter to the attention of proper external authorities when the facts have already received media coverage and the relevant public authorities are already aware of and have begun investigating the situation, on the grounds that escalation to already-aware and already-investigating authorities is a useless act that cannot further protect public health and safety, while preserving the engineer's personal conscience right to escalate further if desired.
Medical Device Safety Regulatory Framework
Federal regulatory standards, statutes, and agency oversight mechanisms governing the safety of medical devices, including respirators and life-critical equipment, establishing manufacturer obligations to report defects and correct hazardous conditions before or after market release.
Engineer B asks Engineer A to evaluate a respirator designed by MedTech for infant use
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer employed by a medical device or equipment manufacturer is asked by a colleague to evaluate a product for safety concerns, identifies a potentially life-threatening design defect, escalates findings internally to management, and — when the employer fails to act — bears an obligation to report the hazard to an appropriate federal regulatory agency to protect vulnerable end-users (e.g., infants, patients) from serious harm.
Medical Impairment Practice Cessation Capability
Engineer B felt he could not afford to suspend work or close his office
Capability to recognize when a medical condition — including stroke, cognitive impairment, or other health event — has substantially diminished one's professional capacity to perform licensed engineering work, and to act on that recognition by suspending practice, closing one's office, or taking other appropriate remedial steps rather than continuing to sign and seal documents without adequate review, consistent with professional obligations to practice only within one's competence and to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts
A senior professional engineering role that provides guidance, quality assurance review, and mentorship to less experienced engineers, supporting the development of technical writing and professional judgment.
[proethica-intermediate] Collegial relationship with mentoring and review obligations
Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity
State in which a professional who has previously relied on a mentor, supervisor, or senior colleague for quality assurance and guidance must now operate without that support structure, increasing the professional's sole responsibility for the quality and accuracy of their work product.
Mentorship Continuity and Succession Planning
Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.
Professional principle requiring engineers — particularly those who have relied on mentorship or supervisory review as a quality assurance mechanism — to ensure continuity of adequate oversight and guidance when a mentor or supervisor becomes unavailable, rather than proceeding with complex professional work without equivalent substitute support
Mentorship Succession and Peer Review Continuity Obligation
Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.
Duty of a licensed engineer who has relied on mentorship or supervisory review as a quality assurance mechanism to establish alternative peer review, supervisory, or mentorship arrangements when the original mentor or supervisor becomes unavailable, rather than substituting unvalidated novel tools or proceeding without adequate quality assurance.
Methane Gas Migration and Groundwater Protection Standard
Environmental engineering standards and regulatory requirements governing the assessment and mitigation of methane gas migration from sanitary landfills into adjacent private property and the protection of nearby groundwater from landfill leachate contamination.
Methane Migration and Groundwater Contamination Risk State
State in which a proposed or approved landfill design raises credible, publicly articulated concerns — from a qualified engineer — that methane gas generated within the landfill will migrate into adjacent private properties and that leachate or other contaminants will pollute nearby groundwater resources, creating foreseeable harm to identifiable third parties (adjacent property owners, groundwater users) who have not consented to the risk and who are not party to the engineering engagement.
Methodological Consistency Obligation in Comparative Testing
Professional principle requiring engineers who design or supervise comparative testing programs — intended to replicate or evaluate prior engineering work — to ensure that testing conditions are sufficiently consistent with the original conditions to permit valid comparison, and to disclose in their reports any material departures from original conditions that affect the validity or comparability of test results.
Methodological Consistency and Equipment Failure Disclosure in Forensic Testing
Professional principle requiring engineers who supervise or report on comparative forensic testing — intended to replicate or evaluate prior engineering work — to ensure that testing conditions are sufficiently consistent with original conditions to permit valid comparison, and to affirmatively disclose in their reports any material departures from original conditions (including equipment failures, different hammer types, and altered driving sequences) that affect the validity or comparability of test results
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who design or supervise comparative testing programs — intended to replicate or evaluate prior engineering work — to ensure that testing conditions are sufficiently consistent with the original conditions to permit valid comparison, and to disclose in their reports any material departures from original conditions that affect the validity or comparability of test results.
Metropolitan Water Commission Decision Authority
A public water authority decision-making body that receives engineering recommendations regarding public water supply changes, bears authority to approve or reject proposed changes, and is subject to obligations to act on complete technical information and not proceed with changes that engineers have identified as posing public health and safety risks without adequate concurrent safeguards.
Mid-Process Qualification Proposal Modification After Evaluator Feedback State
Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies
State in which a competing firm, having received informal feedback from a screening committee during an active qualification-based selection process but before final selection, restructures its proposed team or joint venture and requests permission to submit a revised qualification statement — where the authority grants the request on the condition that all competing firms are equally permitted to revise, raising questions about whether such mid-process modification violates the intent of procurement law, confers an unfair informational advantage on the modifying firm, or constitutes ethically permissible responsive action within a legally cleared process.
Mid-Process SOQ Amendment Equal-Access Conditioned Permissibility Constraint
Firm A requested the utility authority to allow it to modify its qualification statement and proposal in light of the change it had made in the team, with the understanding that all competing firms be allowed to likewise modify their statements of qualification, if desired.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a competing firm in an active qualifications-based selection process may request permission to amend its statement of qualifications after receiving screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies, provided that the request is explicitly conditioned on the procuring authority extending the same amendment opportunity to all other competing firms — prohibiting unilateral mid-process SOQ modification that would confer an informational or competitive advantage on the requesting firm not available to others, and establishing that the equal-access condition is a necessary but not sufficient ethical prerequisite for the amendment to be permissible, as the procuring authority must also obtain legal clearance and formally extend the opportunity to all competitors.
Military Authority Certification Requestor
An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
A non-engineering military official who directs or requests a civilian professional engineer to certify compliance with specialized military regulations (e.g., physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives standards) that fall outside the engineer's domain of competence, creating an employer-relationship pressure dynamic that tests the engineer's professional independence and obligation to refuse out-of-competence certification.
Military Installation Civilian Engineering Division Chief
A licensed professional engineering role in which a civilian engineer serves as the head of a building and grounds division at a military installation, bearing obligations to manage facility engineering work within their competence, to refuse certification of technical compliance in domains (e.g., physical security, arms/ammunition/explosives regulations) outside their expertise, and to communicate competency limitations to military authority rather than certify work they are unqualified to validate.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is directed or pressured by an employer or authority to certify, approve, or validate technical work in a domain outside their established area of competence, bearing obligations to refuse such certification when the knowledge gap poses a clear and present danger to public health and safety, even when employer or institutional pressures make refusal difficult.
Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Non-Compliance Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed at a military installation from complying with a directive from a non-engineering military official to certify compliance with specialized military regulatory domains — such as Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations — when the engineer lacks substantive competence in those domains, establishing that military command authority does not override the engineer's professional ethical obligation to decline certification work outside their competence, and that institutional hierarchy cannot substitute for the technical knowledge required for a valid professional certification.
Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Resistance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed at a military installation to recognize when a non-engineering military official is directing the engineer to certify compliance with specialized technical regulations outside the engineer's domain of competence, to resist that directive on the grounds that military rank or institutional authority does not override professional engineering competence requirements, and to decline the certification while escalating to appropriate channels — distinguishing between legitimate employer direction within the engineer's competence and illegitimate direction to certify beyond competence.
Military Non-Engineering Authority Certification Direction Resistance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed at a military installation to resist and decline directives from non-engineering military authorities — including commanding officers and Army officials — to certify compliance with specialized technical regulations outside the engineer's domain of competence, recognizing that military rank and institutional authority do not override the engineer's professional ethical obligations and that the engineer's duty to the public welfare is paramount over organizational command structures.
certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations
Detailed U.S. Army or Department of Defense regulations governing the physical security, storage, and handling of arms, ammunition, and explosives at military installations, including cross-referenced technical and procedural requirements for storage rooms and racks
Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception to Commissioned Report Confidentiality Obligation
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
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the principle of client confidentiality over a commissioned report applies regardless of whether the client actually suffered measurable economic harm from the unauthorized disclosure — and that even where the damage to the client was slight or speculative (such as a marginal reduction in bargaining power that may not have affected the final transaction outcome), the confidentiality principle predominates and the engineer's unauthorized disclosure to an adverse party constitutes an ethical violation, because the ethical rule is not contingent on proof of actual harm.
Minimal Client Harm Non-Exception to Confidentiality Principle Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the principle of client confidentiality over a commissioned report is not defeated or diminished by the fact that the client suffered only slight, speculative, or minimal economic harm from an unauthorized disclosure — and to correctly apply the principle that the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates regardless of the magnitude of actual harm caused, thereby preventing the engineer from rationalizing a confidentiality breach on the grounds that the client was not significantly damaged.
Minimal Economic Harm Non-Exception to Client Proprietary Rights Confidentiality Constraint
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.
Ethical constraint establishing that the principle of client proprietary rights over engineer-generated work product — and the corresponding confidentiality obligation — is not diminished or rendered inapplicable by the fact that the client suffered only slight, speculative, or minimal economic harm from the unauthorized disclosure; prohibiting the engineer from reasoning that a small or uncertain harm to the client justifies or excuses the confidentiality breach, and establishing that the principle of client confidentiality and proprietary rights operates as a categorical obligation whose force does not scale with the magnitude of demonstrated client harm, as the ethical principle itself predominates regardless of whether actual economic disadvantage can be proven.
Minimum Product Quality Legislative Standard
appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
Proposed or enacted legislative standards imposing minimum quality, durability, and efficiency requirements on commercial home-use products, serving as the regulatory target of engineer-led public advocacy campaigns.
Misdirected QBS Submittal Rejection Documentation Obligation
Engineer A may have been mindful of the past performance of Firm B and may have viewed Firm B's failure to deliver the submittal to the correct city office by the required hour a harmless error
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as the point of contact in a public QBS procurement process to document in the procurement record the rejection of any submittal that was delivered to the wrong location or after the published deadline — including the basis for rejection, the time and location of receipt, and communication of the rejection to the affected firm — so that the procurement record is transparent, defensible, and consistent with equal treatment of all competing firms.
Misdirected Submittal Non-Acceptance Obligation in Public Procurement
Engineer A returned to his office in the afternoon on January 30 and was intercepted by the city manager's administrative assistant, who had a large envelope bearing Engineer A's name and the letterhead of Firm B
Domain-specific principle establishing that a public agency engineer administering a competitive procurement process who receives or is presented with a competing firm's submittal that was delivered to the wrong office — even if within the same governmental entity — must treat that submittal as non-compliant with the published submission requirements and may not accept it on behalf of the procuring agency, because the designated submission location is a material procurement requirement and acceptance of misdirected submittals creates unfair competitive advantage and undermines the integrity of the process
Misdirected Submittal Procedural Triage Capability
Capability of a public agency QBS review team point of contact to recognize and correctly triage a situation in which a competing firm's submittal has been misdirected to an incorrect office or recipient within the agency — including the ability to assess whether the misdirection affects the timeliness determination, to identify the correct procedural response (rejection versus acceptance), and to ensure that the misdirected submittal is handled in a manner consistent with published procurement requirements and equal treatment of all competing firms.
Misleading Credentialed Expert Witness Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides expert testimony at a regulatory or legal proceeding while presenting credentials, affiliations, or employment associations in a manner that creates a false or misleading impression of the basis or independence of the testimony — including using employer branding in presentations while testifying in a private consulting capacity, failing to disclose financial relationships with interested parties, and omitting material conflicts of interest — bearing obligations of complete transparency regarding the actual basis of testimony, the identity of the retaining party, and all relevant professional affiliations and financial relationships.
Misleading Data Correction Obligation at Regulatory Hearing
Professional principle requiring an engineer who possesses completed technical findings that directly contradict data presented by a regulated party at a public regulatory hearing to take affirmative steps to correct the record — including voluntary testimony, written submission to the regulatory authority, or direct communication with the authority — when the uncorrected false data would result in regulatory approval of a project that violates established public health or environmental standards
Misleading Engineering Title Conferred by Agency State
State in which a public agency has systematically assigned the title 'Engineer' or equivalent engineering-implying designations to management staff who do not hold professional engineering licenses or engineering degrees, creating an institutionalized misrepresentation of qualifications that affects the integrity of regulatory review processes and misleads consulting engineers and the public about the qualifications of those exercising approval authority.
Misrepresentation Threshold Proportionality Assessment Capability
Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'?
Capability of a licensed professional engineer evaluating a competitor's qualification proposal to correctly assess whether identified attribution deficiencies rise to the level of actionable 'misrepresentation of qualifications' or 'misrepresentation of facts concerning past accomplishments' under applicable professional codes and licensing board rules — distinguishing between proposals that could have been clearer but do not constitute misrepresentation versus proposals that affirmatively violate specific attribution requirements — and to calibrate reporting obligations proportionately to this threshold determination.
Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested' — when Engineer C had definitively withdrawn interest
Professional norms and ethical obligations prohibiting engineers from making false, misleading, or deceptive statements in the course of business negotiations or commercial dealings, including the duty not to misrepresent the status, interest, or position of third parties in order to gain a negotiating advantage
State in which a professional report or official record submitted to a client or public authority omits material facts about the methodology, scope, or conditions of a public engagement or assessment process, and affirmatively characterizes the results in a manner that misrepresents the actual level of community support or opposition, thereby creating a false evidentiary basis for consequential project decisions.
Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Obligation
the BER believes Engineer T should state that while no error was made, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project existed which may have prevented the accident and worker injury
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who, in hindsight, recognize that alternative approaches to a completed project could have produced better outcomes for public safety — even when the original approach met the standard of care and constituted no ethical violation — to acknowledge those alternative approaches honestly and constructively, thereby promoting professional learning, institutional improvement, and continued commitment to public welfare without requiring self-characterization of non-errors as errors
Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment and Lessons Learned Communication Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, in hindsight following an adverse project outcome, recognizes that alternative approaches existed which may have produced better results — even when no ethical error was made — to acknowledge that missed opportunity honestly and to communicate lessons learned to colleagues, the firm, and the profession, so that professional development is advanced and similar outcomes may be prevented in future projects, without characterizing the original work as an error when none occurred.
Missed Opportunity Lessons Learned Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose project resulted in an adverse outcome — even when no ethical violation or design error occurred — affirmatively disclose in post-accident professional statements that hindsight reveals alternative approaches existed that may have prevented the harm, prohibiting the engineer from remaining entirely silent about retrospectively identified alternatives on the grounds that no formal error was made, and establishing that the obligation to promote professional development and honest professional discourse extends to acknowledging missed opportunities even when those opportunities were not mandatory obligations at the time of design.
Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation State
the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse and concludes that no 'error' was made in design
State in which a licensed professional engineer completed work that met the applicable standard of care and did not constitute an ethical violation, but in retrospect could have taken additional voluntary actions — such as exploring alternative design approaches, requesting constructability reviews, or consulting construction safety professionals — that would likely have produced better outcomes for public safety, health, and welfare, creating a distinction between what was ethically required and what was ethically optimal.
Missed Opportunity vs Error Distinction Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics reviewers — to correctly distinguish between a professional 'missed opportunity' (a situation where the engineer could have gone above and beyond accepted standard of care to achieve better outcomes but was not ethically obligated to do so) and a professional 'error' (a deviation from accepted standard of care that triggers acknowledgment obligations), including the ability to apply this distinction to post-accident self-assessment, deposition testimony, and professional communications, and to correctly characterize the situation as a missed opportunity rather than an error when the design met the standard of care.
Mitigating Circumstance Balanced Safety Obligation Assessment Obligation
As is often the case with these types of situations, sometimes mitigating factors and circumstances impact upon one's understanding of this conflict (e.g., the knowledge held by the engineer, the risks involved, level of personal involvement, actions taken and not taken by individual the engineer/employer, and other factors).
Duty of a licensed professional engineer assessing the scope of a public safety reporting obligation to identify and weigh all relevant mitigating factors and circumstances — including the engineer's level of personal knowledge, the risks involved, the level of personal involvement in the engineering decision-making process, the actions taken and not taken by the engineer and employer, and other contextual factors — before determining the appropriate form and urgency of the safety reporting obligation, recognizing that these mitigating factors do not extinguish the reporting obligation but do shape its scope, timing, and form.
Mitigating Factor Balanced Safety Escalation Scope Constraint
sometimes mitigating factors and circumstances impact upon one's understanding of this conflict (e.g., the knowledge held by the engineer, the risks involved, level of personal involvement, actions taken and not taken by individual the engineer/employer, and other factors)
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a potential safety concern calibrate the scope, form, and urgency of escalation by affirmatively identifying and weighing all relevant mitigating factors — including the engineer's level of personal knowledge, the degree of personal involvement in the engineering decision, the engineer's domain expertise relative to the product, the risks involved, and actions already taken by the employer — prohibiting the engineer from treating a good-faith safety concern as automatically triggering the maximum escalation response without first conducting this balanced assessment.
Mitigating Factor Weighted Safety Obligation Scope Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — or of an ethics reviewing body — to identify, enumerate, and weigh all relevant mitigating factors bearing on the scope and urgency of a public safety reporting obligation, including: the engineer's level of personal knowledge of the safety concern, the magnitude of the risks involved, the engineer's level of personal involvement in the engineering decision-making process, the actions already taken by the engineer and the employer, and other contextual factors — and to synthesize these factors into a calibrated determination of what the professional obligation requires in the specific circumstances.
Mixed-Authorship Design Document Attribution Obligation
Rather than starting from scratch and redesigning the project, Engineer B appears to have 'mixed and matched' the plans prepared by Engineer A with what he thought would be appropriate, never indicating which represented the work of Engineer A and which represented his own work.
Professional honesty and transparency principle establishing that when an engineer produces engineering documents that combine their own design work with design elements retained from another engineer's sealed plans — whether through selective modification, partial redesign, or use of prior plans as a guide — the engineer has an affirmative obligation to clearly and specifically identify on every affected sheet which elements represent the original engineer's work and which represent the successor engineer's own work, so that the professional record accurately reflects the authorship and accountability for each design decision; failure to make such attribution constitutes a form of deception that misrepresents both engineers' professional contributions.
Mixed-Authorship Plan Set Delineation Non-Deception Constraint
Engineer B appears to have 'mixed and matched' the plans prepared by Engineer A with what he thought would be appropriate, never indicating which represented the work of Engineer A and which represented his own work.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who produces engineering documents by combining elements of a predecessor engineer's original sealed work with the successor's own modifications from submitting those documents without clearly delineating which design elements represent the predecessor's original work and which represent the successor's own work — prohibiting the 'mixed and matched' approach in which predecessor and successor contributions are intermingled without attribution, establishing that such undifferentiated submission constitutes a violation of NSPE Code Section III.9 by creating a false and misleading impression of unified authorship and obscuring the professional accountability of each contributing engineer.
Mixed-Authorship Successor Design Attribution and Differentiation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who produces engineering documents by combining elements of another engineer's original sealed work with their own redesign contributions to clearly identify and differentiate in the resulting plan set which design elements represent the original engineer's work and which represent the successor's own work — avoiding the ethically impermissible practice of 'mixing and matching' plans without attribution, which misleads reviewers, clients, and authorities about the provenance and professional accountability for each design element.
Mixed-Authorship Successor Design Attribution and Differentiation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who produces engineering documents by combining elements of another engineer's sealed design with the engineer's own redesign work — rather than starting from scratch — to clearly identify and differentiate in the documents which design elements represent the original engineer's work and which represent the successor engineer's own work, recognizing that commingling another engineer's sealed design elements with one's own redesign without attribution constitutes a misrepresentation of authorship, deprives the original engineer of proper credit and accountability, and prevents parties relying on the documents from understanding the provenance and professional accountability for each design element.
Mixed-Practice Firm Identity Transparency in Sub-Professional Bid Obligation
An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services.
Duty of a professional engineering firm submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services to be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a PE firm operating in a sub-professional commercial context, so that the client understands the firm's identity and can make an informed procurement decision, without the firm either concealing its PE status or exploiting it to gain an unfair advantage over non-PE competitors.
Mixed-Practice Firm Professional Identity Transparency Capability
Capability of a professional engineering firm that engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional or commercial activities to be transparent with clients and procuring entities about its dual nature — disclosing that it is a PE firm when submitting bids for sub-professional work, so that clients can make fully informed procurement decisions and so that the firm's professional identity is not obscured or misrepresented in commercial contexts.
Mixed-Practice PE Firm Work Category Segregation Means Constraint
Where this is not practicable, and in the case of an operation in both categories by the same firm, the engineer should adopt other means to segregate the types of work, including references in the contract or in correspondence.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that where a professional engineering firm operates in both professional engineering and sub-professional/commercial service categories under the same organizational identity — and separate organization is not practicable — the firm must adopt other affirmative means to segregate the types of work, including explicit references in contracts or correspondence, so that clients and the public can clearly distinguish which category of service they are receiving; prohibiting the commingling of professional and sub-professional work without clear demarcation, and establishing that the obligation to segregate is not discharged by mere internal awareness but requires client-facing and public-facing clarity.
Mobility Right Ethics-Conditioned Exercise Insider Knowledge Restriction Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that while a licensed professional engineer has a fundamental right under NSPE Professional Policy No. 52 to resign from one position and accept other employment or initiate a business, the exercise of that right is conditioned on compliance with the Canons of Ethics — and that this conditioning specifically restricts the engineer from leveraging personal and intimate project knowledge and owner relationships gained during prior employment as competitive instruments in the new engagement, establishing that the mobility right does not immunize the engineer from ethics scrutiny of how insider advantages derived from prior employment are used in the competitive pursuit of the new opportunity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that, in the absence of a formal written non-compete agreement or the acquisition of particular and specialized knowledge during employment, a licensed professional engineer has the ethical freedom to depart from an employer firm and join or establish a competing practice — including by accepting employment offers from or extending employment offers to other engineers — drawing on the symmetry principle that just as an employer may generally discontinue the services of an employed engineer at will, the employed engineer may generally depart and compete at will, and prohibiting the misapplication of faithful agent or goodwill-preservation duties as a basis for claiming that engineer mobility into competition is per se unethical in the absence of these specific restricting conditions, as established by NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, and 97-2.
Month-Delay Inaction Re-Escalation Capability
a month later Engineer A learns from Engineer B that nothing has been done to correct the issue
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has raised a safety concern internally and received no corrective action after a reasonable waiting period to recognize that managerial inaction constitutes a failure to discharge the safety obligation, and to re-escalate the concern with renewed urgency — including issuing a conditional threat of external regulatory reporting — proportionate to the growing risk posed by continued inaction.
Month-Delay Inaction Re-Escalation and External Reporting Threat Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has raised a safety concern internally, waited a reasonable period, and learned that no corrective action has been taken — while the number of potentially defective products in circulation continues to grow — to re-escalate urgently to the responsible manager and, if prompt corrective measures are still not forthcoming, to formally threaten reporting to an appropriate federal regulatory agency; recognizing that the passage of time combined with growing product distribution and a vulnerable affected population (infants) elevates the reporting obligation from defeasible to near-mandatory.
Moonlighting Conflict of Interest Contextual Assessment Principle
The issue of engineer 'moonlighting' has been an issue considered by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER) in the past.
Professional principle establishing that engineer 'moonlighting' (part-time private employment concurrent with full-time employment) is not categorically prohibited but requires case-by-case contextual assessment of: (1) whether the dual employment creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest; (2) whether the engineer uses the full-time employer's materials, equipment, or resources for private work; (3) whether the practice is consistent with the full-time employer's policies and procedures; and (4) whether the dual employment could adversely affect the employer's professional liability — with ethical permissibility contingent on satisfactory resolution of all four dimensions
Moonlighting Conflict of Interest Multi-Factor Contextual Assessment Before Acceptance Obligation
Among the more significant considerations in this area are the extent to which such practice may constitute a conflict of interest, whether the individual is using the materials, equipment, and resources of the individual's full-time employer in pursuing and performing part-time work, and whether such practices are consistent with the policies and procedures of the employer
Duty of a licensed professional engineer considering concurrent part-time private employment (moonlighting) while holding full-time employment to conduct a comprehensive multi-factor contextual assessment before accepting the private engagement — evaluating at minimum: (1) whether the dual employment constitutes a conflict of interest; (2) whether public or employer resources would be used in private work; (3) whether the arrangement is consistent with employer policies and procedures; (4) whether the dual employment could adversely affect the employer's professional liability; and (5) whether the engineer can devote sufficient attention to both roles — and to decline the private engagement if any factor reveals an irresolvable ethical concern.
Moonlighting Government Procedure Policy Compliance Constraint
the Board must also caution Engineer A to be mindful of the issues raised earlier relating to the need to carefully follow all applicable government procedures and policies
Procedural and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency who is considering or engaged in part-time private consulting work carefully identify and comply with all applicable government procedures, policies, and regulations governing outside employment — including state ethics statutes, agency conflict-of-interest policies, prior approval requirements, and disclosure obligations — establishing that compliance with these procedural requirements is a threshold condition for ethical permissibility of dual employment, and that failure to follow applicable governmental procedures constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from any substantive conflict of interest, as established by BER Case 02-8.
Moonlighting Multi-Factor Pre-Acceptance Assessment Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer considering concurrent part-time private employment (moonlighting) while holding a full-time position — particularly with a governmental agency — conduct a comprehensive multi-factor contextual assessment before accepting the engagement, evaluating at minimum: (1) whether the dual employment creates a conflict of interest; (2) whether public resources, materials, equipment, or time would be used in the private work; (3) whether the arrangement is consistent with the full-time employer's policies and procedures; (4) whether the dual role may adversely affect the professional liability of the primary employer; and (5) whether the engineer can devote sufficient attention to both roles — establishing that the mere absence of employer objection does not discharge this assessment obligation, as established by BER Cases 97-1 and 02-8.
Moonlighting Multi-Factor Pre-Acceptance Conflict Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer considering concurrent part-time private employment (moonlighting) while holding full-time governmental or private employment to conduct a comprehensive multi-factor contextual assessment before accepting the dual engagement — including the ability to evaluate: (1) whether the private work constitutes a conflict of interest with the primary employer's activities or interests; (2) whether public resources, materials, equipment, or institutional assets of the primary employer would be used in the private work; (3) whether the dual employment is consistent with the primary employer's policies and procedures; (4) whether the dual employment may adversely affect the professional liability of the primary employer; (5) whether the engineer can devote sufficient attention to both roles; and (6) whether the shared client or subject-matter overlap between the two roles creates an irreconcilable structural conflict — and to correctly determine, based on this holistic assessment, whether accepting the moonlighting engagement is ethically permissible.
Moral Culpability Threshold Discrimination Capability
It is the Board's view that in order for an engineer to be found unethical for a design failure, the engineer must demonstrate some level of moral culpability.
Capability of a professional ethics board or reviewing authority — and of engineers conducting self-assessment — to correctly distinguish between conduct that rises to the level of moral culpability (intentional, reckless, or malicious action) and conduct that, while resulting in harm, does not meet that threshold, and to apply this distinction as a prerequisite to finding an ethical violation in design failure cases. Includes the ability to recognize that negligence alone, without moral culpability, is insufficient to constitute unethical conduct under the NSPE Code.
Moral Culpability Threshold Requirement for Design Failure Ethical Violation Finding Obligation
Duty of a professional ethics board or reviewing authority evaluating whether an engineer's design failure constitutes an ethical violation to require demonstration of moral culpability — specifically, that the engineer acted in an intentional, reckless, or malicious manner — before finding an ethical violation, recognizing that the mere fact of design failure, or even negligence, does not in itself establish unethical conduct absent a showing of intentional wrongdoing, recklessness, or refusal to take appropriate action. This obligation constrains ethics boards from conflating legal negligence with ethical misconduct.
Moral Culpability Threshold for Ethical Violation in Design Failure
Professional principle establishing that a design failure alone — even one resulting in harm — does not constitute an ethical violation absent a showing of moral culpability, defined as intentional, reckless, or malicious conduct by the engineer. Negligence in the legal sense does not automatically translate into ethical impropriety; the ethical evaluation requires a higher threshold of culpable mental state or deliberate disregard of professional duty beyond mere technical error or failure to follow the most recent literature.
State in which the historical climate and weather data that engineers have traditionally used as a fixed baseline for design is itself changing — with updated datasets reflecting shifting climate and weather patterns — such that engineers can no longer treat historical data as a reliable proxy for future conditions, and must instead treat climate and weather parameters as a dynamic, evolving target requiring ongoing professional reassessment rather than a static design input.
Multi-Agency Jurisdiction Identification for Safety Escalation Capability
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk and received an inadequate response from an initial regulatory contact to identify all additional agencies, officials, and authorities having jurisdiction over the safety concern — including supervisors of unresponsive officials, fire marshals, state and federal transportation authorities, state engineering licensure boards, county commissioners, and other relevant bodies — and to systematically contact each in a manner calibrated to the severity and imminence of the risk.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond — including a county building official who does not return a phone call — to recognize that the initial report does not discharge the professional obligation, and to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials, alternative regulatory bodies, fire marshals, or other agencies having jurisdiction, until the safety concern is adequately addressed or all reasonable escalation pathways have been exhausted.
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation State
State in which a professional engineer has identified a serious, widespread, or imminent public safety risk and is obligated to pursue a 'full-bore' escalation campaign — contacting multiple authorities simultaneously or in rapid succession (supervisors, county officials, state and federal transportation agencies, licensure boards, prosecutors, fire marshals, and other agencies with jurisdiction) — rather than relying on a single notification to a single authority. The state is distinguished from graduated escalation by the breadth and urgency of the required response, activated when the danger is both significant and potentially widespread.
Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation for Unresolved Public Safety Threats
Professional principle requiring engineers who have identified a genuine, unresolved public safety threat — particularly one involving condemned or structurally compromised public infrastructure — to escalate their concerns simultaneously to multiple authorities with jurisdiction, including local governing bodies, prosecutorial authorities, state and federal transportation or highway officials, and state engineering licensure boards, rather than limiting escalation to a single authority or treating an unacknowledged report as a discharged obligation.
[Case 137] Professional principle requiring engineers who have identified a genuine, unresolved public safety threat involving condemned or structurally compromised public infrastructure to escalate their concerns simultaneously to multiple authorities with jurisdiction, including local governing bodies, state and federal transportation officials, and state engineering licensure boards, rather than limiting escalation to a single authority.
[Case 137] Professional principle requiring engineers who have identified a genuine, unresolved public safety threat involving structurally compromised public infrastructure to escalate their concerns simultaneously to multiple authorities with jurisdiction — including local governing bodies, state and federal transportation officials, and state engineering licensure boards — rather than limiting escalation to a single authority.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who have reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond or act to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials, alternative agencies, or other parties with jurisdiction, rather than treating an unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation
Multi-Authority Reporting Scope Calibration to Engineering Standards Consistency Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a gap between applicable engineering standards and the actions of public authorities must calibrate the scope of multi-authority reporting to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect public health, safety, and welfare — establishing that the engineer's reporting obligation extends to all local, state, and/or federal authorities whose jurisdiction encompasses the engineering standards at issue, and prohibiting limitation of reporting to a single authority when multiple authorities have jurisdiction over the engineering standards consistency gap.
[Case 112] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a gap between applicable engineering standards and the actions of public authorities must calibrate the scope of multi-authority reporting to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Multi-BER-Precedent Proportional Safety Response Spectrum Constraint
On several occasions, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma and each of these situations is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer confronting a public safety situation explicitly calibrate the required response against the spectrum of BER precedent cases — including BER Case 00-5 (imminent bridge collapse requiring full-bore multi-authority campaign) and BER Case 07-10 (non-imminent barn structural risk requiring graduated written notification) — to determine the appropriate scope, urgency, and form of escalation, prohibiting both the application of the most aggressive escalation standard to all situations regardless of imminence and the application of the most deferential standard to situations involving significant foreseeable danger, and establishing that the calibration must account for the engineer's employment context, custodial responsibility, and the breadth of potential harm.
Multi-Case BER Precedent Integration Safety Response Constraint
Over its almost 60 years of deliberations, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has examined each of these situations.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer confronting a public health, safety, or welfare situation recognize and apply the accumulated body of BER precedent — including cases involving failing bridges reopened under public pressure, post-construction modifications causing structural failure, adjacent property safety violations, and parkway restriction violations — to calibrate the appropriate scope, urgency, and form of professional response, prohibiting the engineer from treating each situation as entirely novel when established BER precedent provides directly applicable guidance on the duty to act and the form of required action.
Multi-Case BER Precedent Synthesis for Consumer Product Safety Reporting Calibration Capability
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma on several occasions, and the Board's decision in each of these situations depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to identify, retrieve, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 76-4 (post-termination environmental reporting obligation) and 08-10 (premature external reporting threat prohibition and internal escalation exhaustion requirement) — that collectively establish the calibrated framework for consumer product and environmental safety reporting obligations, and to apply that synthesized precedent framework to determine the appropriate sequence and scope of safety reporting actions in novel cases involving general safety concerns, absent standards, and post-employment hearing participation.
Multi-Case BER Precedent Synthesis for Public Safety Action Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer confronting a public health, safety, or welfare situation to recognize and apply the accumulated body of BER precedent — including BER 00-5 (failing bridge reopened under public pressure), BER 07-10 (post-construction modifications risking structural failure), BER 10-5 (safety violation on adjacent property), and BER 12-11 (commercial driver endangerment from road repair) — to correctly identify the first and foremost obligation to protect the public, determine the specific affirmative actions required, identify to whom information must be reported, and fulfill the obligation to be honest and truthful in reporting, drawing on the full body of precedent rather than any single case.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 00-5, 19-10, and 89-7 — that collectively establish the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to apply that synthesized precedent framework to determine the step-by-step path forward when an engineer's safety recommendations have been overridden by a public authority, including the duty to notify all appropriate authorities, make formal presentations, and continue pursuit even after initial escalation.
Multi-Case Precedent-Informed Public Safety Action Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer confronting a public health, safety, or welfare situation to recognize and apply the accumulated body of professional ethics precedent — including prior Board of Ethical Review decisions addressing analogous situations such as failing bridge structures reopened under public pressure, post-construction modifications creating structural failure risk, adjacent property safety violations, and road repair dangers — as authoritative guidance on the scope and nature of the professional obligation to protect the public, and to calibrate the required affirmative actions, reporting targets, and honesty obligations accordingly, rather than treating the current situation as novel or unprecedented.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer facing a public health or safety situation to recognize and apply established precedent from prior professional ethics board decisions — including the duty to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities notwithstanding confidentiality agreements, and the duty to pursue resolution through all appropriate channels including supervisory officials and agencies with jurisdiction — as authoritative guidance on the scope of the professional obligation to protect the public, rather than treating each situation as novel.
Multi-Causal Flood Attribution Capability
After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
Technical capability to identify, analyze, and apportion the multiple contributing causes of post-construction flooding — including design deficiencies in stormwater management, insufficient downstream infrastructure capacity, and post-construction modifications by affected property owners — and to communicate a complete, accurate causal attribution that distinguishes between causes attributable to the design engineer, the municipality, and third parties, enabling fair and accurate assignment of responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to identify, analyze, and accurately attribute the root causes of engineering design deficiencies — including determining whether deficiencies arose from lack of domain competence, inadequate quality assurance, insufficient field investigation, or other causes — and to communicate this causal attribution honestly to clients and affected parties, including acknowledging when deficiencies resulted from the engineer's own competence limitations.
Multi-Client Interest Simultaneous Representation Feasibility Assessment Capability
the BER noted that it could not see how an engineer can wear multiple hats and ethically serve multiple interests while representing the best interest of his clients.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether simultaneous representation of multiple clients with separate and potentially differing interests is ethically feasible — including applying the principle that an engineer cannot 'wear multiple hats' and adequately serve multiple interests that may conflict — and to correctly determine when the nature of the concurrent relationships makes adequate representation of all clients impossible, requiring withdrawal from one or more engagements.
Multi-Company Engineer Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize the ethical permissibility of coordinating with engineers from multiple competing companies to form and operate a collective civic advocacy body — such as a citizens committee — that advocates for legislative minimum standards affecting the industry, understanding that such cross-company coordination for public welfare purposes does not constitute improper collusion or conflict of interest when the advocacy is grounded in genuine public welfare concerns and does not involve competitive business coordination.
Multi-Credential Competence Activation Obligation
Professional principle requiring engineers who hold credentials in multiple technical disciplines to recognize and act upon safety-relevant observations that fall within any of their credentialed domains — not merely the domain for which they were retained — when those observations arise in the course of their professional engagement, because the engineer's multi-disciplinary competence creates a heightened capacity to identify risks that a single-discipline engineer would not recognize
[Case 132] Professional principle requiring engineers who hold credentials in multiple technical disciplines to recognize and act upon safety-relevant observations that fall within any of their credentialed domains — not merely the domain for which they were retained — when those observations arise in the course of their professional engagement.
Multi-Credential Competence Activation Safety Constraint
Engineer A, who happens to have both structural and fire protection credentials, is hired by Homeowner to design a retaining wall system.
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer holds credentials in multiple technical disciplines and incidentally observes a condition within one of those secondary disciplines while performing services in another — establishing that the engineer cannot disclaim competence-based awareness of the observed deficiency by reference to the contracted scope, and must apply the relevant secondary credential to assess and disclose the safety risk, prohibiting the engineer from treating scope limitation as a basis for suppressing professional knowledge they actually possess.
Multi-Credential Cross-Domain Safety Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer holding credentials in multiple technical disciplines to recognize, upon incidental observation, that a condition observed outside the contracted scope of work falls within a secondary credentialed domain and triggers professional safety obligations under that secondary credential — including the ability to activate fire protection, structural, mechanical, or other domain-specific competence when an observed condition implicates that domain, even when the engineer was retained exclusively for a different purpose.
Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Capability
Engineer A, while retained solely to investigate fire origin and cause, was obligated to disclose the independently observed structural instability.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who holds credentials in multiple domains — such as forensic investigation and structural engineering — to recognize when an incidental observation made during a contracted engagement in one domain activates professional competence and disclosure obligations from a second domain, and to correctly apply the competencies of that second domain to assess and communicate the observed risk, rather than treating the contracted scope as limiting the professional obligations triggered by the observation.
Multi-Credential Incidental Observation Competence Activation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who holds credentials in multiple technical disciplines to recognize that when they incidentally observe a condition within one of their credentialed domains — even while performing contracted work in a different domain — their professional competence in the observed domain is activated, obligating them to evaluate the observed condition against applicable safety standards and to act on that evaluation consistent with their professional obligations, rather than treating the observation as outside their professional responsibility because it falls outside the contracted scope.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer holding credentials in multiple technical disciplines (e.g., structural and fire protection) is retained for one specific scope of work but, while performing that work or accessing the client's property, observes a potentially hazardous condition outside the contracted scope created by another party, bearing obligations to notify the client and relevant authorities of the observed safety risk even though the condition falls outside the contracted engagement.
Multi-Credential Structural Competence Activation in Fire Investigation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained for fire origin and cause investigation who also holds structural engineering credentials, upon observing structural instability during the investigation, to activate structural engineering competence and evaluate the observed condition against applicable safety standards — treating the structural observation as within professional responsibility despite being outside the contracted fire investigation scope.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who holds credentials in multiple technical disciplines to recognize that when they incidentally observe a condition within one of their credentialed domains — even while performing contracted work in a different domain — their professional competence in the observed domain is activated, obligating them to evaluate the observed condition against applicable safety standards and to act on that evaluation consistent with their professional obligations, rather than treating the observation as outside their professional responsibility because it falls outside the contracted scope.
Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Education-and-Experience Demonstration Capability
An individual seeking to obtain an acceptable level of competency in the basic elements of facilities design and construction (e.g., civil, structural, mechanical, electrical engineering) should seek and be able to demonstrate appropriate engineering and related education and experience.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to demonstrate — through verifiable engineering education and substantive field experience — the cross-disciplinary competence required to perform multi-disciplinary facilities design and construction services, encompassing civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering sub-domains, and to correctly assess whether their accumulated education and experience across those sub-domains meets the threshold required before accepting or marketing such services to clients.
Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Education-and-Experience Demonstration Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who seeks to perform multi-disciplinary facilities design and construction services — encompassing civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and related engineering sub-disciplines — to demonstrate appropriate engineering education and relevant experience in each of the component sub-disciplines required by the project scope, recognizing that a single-discipline engineering background (e.g., chemical engineering) does not confer competence across the full spectrum of facilities design sub-disciplines, and that the engineer must either possess or retain individuals who possess the necessary educational background and experience for each required sub-discipline.
Multi-Discipline Facilities Design Substantive Competence Prerequisite Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who seeks to offer multi-disciplinary facilities design and construction services — encompassing civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering — must demonstrate substantive engineering education and experience across each relevant sub-discipline before accepting such engagements, prohibiting the engineer from relying on general PE licensure in a single discipline (e.g., chemical engineering) as sufficient authorization to perform or offer services across the full spectrum of facilities design domains, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 94-8.
Multi-Engagement Sequential Opposing-Side Expert Appearance Challenge State
Engineer A was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
State in which a professional engineer has, across multiple unrelated engagements over time, provided expert services alternately to a party and to that party's adversary in separate, unrelated proceedings — creating a sequential pattern of switching sides that, while ethically permissible when matters are genuinely unrelated and no confidential information is implicated, generates a heightened appearance of impropriety that opposing counsel may exploit at trial to imply bias, lack of independence, or mercenary conduct. The state is distinguished from simple sequential adverse representation by the return to the original client after serving the opposing side, producing a 'boomerang' pattern that intensifies credibility scrutiny.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer has, over time, provided expert services to parties on opposing sides of different, unrelated legal or adversarial proceedings — such that at the time of each engagement no active conflict exists with the prior client, but the sequential pattern creates an appearance of impropriety that may be exploited by opposing counsel to imply ethical violation. The state is ethically permissible under codes that require disclosure rather than absolute avoidance, provided the matters are genuinely unrelated and no confidential information from prior engagements is implicated.
Multi-Engineer Conflicting Professional View Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
That there are conflicting public views between engineers in this case should be of no concern.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — whether as a participant in a public policy debate, a reviewing ethics body, or an observer — to recognize that conflicting professional views between equally qualified engineers looking at the same set of facts are ethically permissible and not a matter of ethical concern, that such disagreements reflect the inherent subjectivity of complex engineering and environmental trade-offs, and that the existence of conflicting views does not imply that any of the engineers involved acted unethically or incompetently.
Multi-Engineer Public Policy Disagreement Mutual Ethical Legitimacy Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when two or more licensed professional engineers reach different technical or policy conclusions from the same set of facts in a public policy engineering context — such as competing highway route analyses or competing landfill design assessments — neither engineer's position is inherently unethical solely by virtue of the disagreement, prohibiting the characterization of one engineer's professionally grounded public policy position as an ethical violation merely because another equally qualified engineer reached a different conclusion, and establishing that honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of known physical facts are a recognized and legitimate feature of engineering practice in public policy contexts, as established by BER Case Nos. 63-6, 65-9, and 79-2.
Multi-Factor Business-Safety Balancing Obligation State
Engineer A needed to balance a variety of factors
State in which a professional engineer must formulate a technical recommendation in a context where significant and legitimate non-technical factors — including financial impact on the company, client competitive disadvantage, job losses, public utility rate increases, and project delays — are present and acknowledged, but must nonetheless be evaluated separately from the technical safety determination, such that the engineer's recommendation is grounded solely in technical findings while the employer retains authority to weigh business considerations in making the final decision.
Multi-Hat Dual-Client Adequate Representation Impossibility Recognition Obligation
The Board cannot see how an engineer can wear the multitude of hats herein described and still represent the best interest of his clients.
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm to recognize and act upon the principle that when an engineer simultaneously serves multiple client roles — including preparing drawings for developers, reviewing those same drawings on behalf of the city, and performing inspection services for the city at developer expense — the cumulative multiplicity of roles creates a conflict of interest so fundamental that adequate representation of the separate and sometimes differing interests of all clients becomes impossible, and that this impossibility is not curable through disclosure, consent, or good intentions, requiring structural separation of the incompatible roles.
Multi-Hat Dual-Client Adequate Representation Impossibility Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to recognize when simultaneously occupying multiple professional roles — such as private developer designer, city plan reviewer, and city construction inspector — makes it structurally impossible to adequately represent the separate and sometimes differing interests of all clients, applying the principle that an engineer cannot 'wear the multitude of hats herein described and still represent the best interest of his clients,' and to correctly determine that the impossibility of adequate representation requires declining or terminating one or more of the conflicting roles rather than attempting to manage the conflict through disclosure or procedural safeguards.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess whether simultaneous representation of multiple clients with separate and potentially differing interests is ethically feasible — including applying the principle that an engineer cannot 'wear multiple hats' and adequately serve multiple interests that may conflict — and to correctly determine when the nature of the concurrent relationships makes adequate representation of all clients impossible, requiring withdrawal from one or more engagements.
Multi-Hat Public-Private Simultaneous Representation Impossibility State
State in which a single engineering firm simultaneously holds so many distinct public and private roles with respect to the same regulated parties and public authorities — including design preparation for developers, review of those designs on behalf of the city, and inspection services for the city paid by developers — that adequate representation of the separate and sometimes differing interests of all clients becomes structurally impossible, regardless of the firm's subjective intentions.
Multi-Hat Simultaneous Dual-Client Adequate Representation Impossibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineering firm simultaneously holds so many distinct public and private roles with respect to the same parties and subject matter — including preparing drawings for private developers, reviewing those same drawings as the city's plan reviewer, and inspecting the resulting construction as the city's inspector — the cumulative weight of those roles makes it impossible for the firm to adequately represent the separate and sometimes differing interests of all clients, prohibiting the firm from continuing to hold all such roles concurrently and requiring it to choose between the public oversight role and the private commercial service roles, as established by the Board's reaffirmation in the present case that 'the Board cannot see how an engineer can wear the multitude of hats herein described and still represent the best interest of his clients.'
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer's dual public-private employment involves exact identity of subject matter — rather than merely adjacent or interrelated domains — the conflict of interest is so extreme as to be virtually impossible to resolve through disclosure or consent alone, prohibiting the engineer from treating the dual engagement as manageable through ordinary conflict-of-interest mitigation measures and requiring recognition that the same-domain overlap makes it virtually impossible to serve as a part-time consultant in the same area for private clients while employed by a government agency in that same area, as established by BER Case 07-12's characterization of the coal bed methane dual role as 'a more extreme example' than the adjacent-domain conflicts in BER Cases 67-1 and 02-8.
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained by a public agency must balance the competing interests of multiple stakeholders — including state authorities, multiple municipalities, and private property owners with historic or sentimental property — when specifying a route or design solution, bearing obligations to advise the client of all feasible and reasonable alternatives, seek amicable resolutions consistent with the public interest, and weigh the greatest good for the greatest number against creative solutions that may protect minority stakeholder interests.
Multi-Interest Balancing in Public Infrastructure Route Selection
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers retained by public agencies to evaluate and specify routes for public infrastructure to balance the competing interests of multiple stakeholders — including the public benefit of efficient transportation, the rights and interests of affected property owners, historic preservation interests, and the client agency's legal and budgetary constraints — rather than optimizing solely for technical efficiency metrics such as route length or travel time savings
Multi-Interest Route Selection Balancing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to specify a road route to conduct and present a multi-criteria route evaluation that explicitly balances the competing interests of the traveling public (travel time savings), the historic property owner (displacement and loss of multi-generational family property), the state client (cost, feasibility, and legal authority), and the general public (historic preservation and environmental stewardship), presenting the tradeoffs among these interests completely and objectively so that the client can make a policy decision informed by all affected interests.
Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer
Engineer is licensed in States B, C, and D, but hands out business cards at a business meeting in State E
A licensed professional engineer who presents business cards or marketing materials in jurisdictions where they may or may not hold a valid license, bearing obligations to clearly identify the states in which a license is held, include a physical address, and avoid creating confusion or the appearance of deception about licensure status.
Multi-Jurisdiction Dual-Role Municipal Engineer
Engineer A, who was in full time private practice, was retained by the county as county engineer for a stipulated monthly fee
A licensed professional engineering role in which a private-practice engineer is simultaneously retained as engineer for multiple governmental entities (e.g., both county and city) on retainer fees, while also providing private consulting services to developers and private firms seeking approvals from those same governmental entities — bearing heightened obligations to avoid conflicts of interest, divided loyalties, and self-review, and to refrain from making recommendations on work in which the engineer has a private financial interest.
Multi-Jurisdiction Engineering Ethics Reviewer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer systematically reviews competitor or peer marketing and proposal practices against both the NSPE Code of Ethics and the specific licensing board rules of multiple state jurisdictions, bearing obligations to accurately assess whether violations have occurred and to report confirmed or reasonably believed violations to the relevant licensing boards in writing.
Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability
Capability to identify, retrieve, and compare the specific licensing board rules of professional conduct across multiple jurisdictions in which an engineer or firm markets services — including recognizing when state rules differ materially from NCEES Model Rules, understanding jurisdiction-specific legislative history, and correctly applying the more stringent or more specific requirements of each jurisdiction to evaluate compliance of marketing and solicitation practices.
Multi-Jurisdiction Solicitation Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer and their employing firm, when marketing engineering services across multiple jurisdictions with differing licensing board rules on solicitation accuracy, comply with the most stringent applicable jurisdiction's requirements for each proposal submitted in that jurisdiction — prohibiting the use of a uniform proposal format calibrated only to the least restrictive jurisdiction's standards when submitting proposals in jurisdictions with more specific attribution or misrepresentation rules, and establishing that jurisdiction-specific rule compliance is a non-delegable obligation that attaches to each proposal submission regardless of the firm's general marketing practices.
Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has previously rendered professional services to a party — whether as a retained expert, reviewer, or consultant — and who subsequently accepts retention by an adverse party in a new, unrelated matter, to proactively disclose the prior relationship to the new retaining party before or at the time of engagement, so that the retaining party can make an informed decision about retention with full awareness of the engineer's prior service history, recognizing that transparency about prior relationships preserves the integrity of the engagement and prevents the appearance of impropriety from arising unexpectedly during adversarial proceedings such as cross-examination.
Multi-Matter Multi-Party Forensic Engagement Disclosure Obligation
Relational principle requiring engineers who have provided professional services to a party in prior unrelated matters — and who subsequently accept an engagement adverse to that party, or who later re-engage with that party after having served its adversary — to proactively disclose the full history of prior engagements to all current retaining parties so that informed consent to the engagement can be obtained and any legitimate conflict concerns can be assessed and resolved before the engagement proceeds
Multi-Party Competing Interest Fair Balance Reasoning Capability
In each instance, the Board has sought to strike a fair balance between the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity, coupled with the obligation and responsibility of that engineer to his/her former employer and/or clients.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to identify, articulate, and fairly weigh the distinct and potentially competing legitimate interests of multiple parties in an engineering employment transition dispute — specifically (1) the client's interest in retaining the engineering firm of its choice, (2) the individual engineer's interest in career mobility and entrepreneurial initiative, and (3) the incumbent firm's interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients — and to reach a reasoned ethical conclusion that appropriately balances these interests rather than privileging any single party's interest absolutely.
Multi-Party Fault Allocation Procedural Constraint
bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when a design error has contributed to harm alongside independent third-party actions, requiring that the responsible engineer and firm convene appropriate stakeholders — including risk management, client, and potentially affected parties — to conduct a structured determination and allocation of fault among all contributing parties before implementing corrective measures, prohibiting unilateral assumption of sole fault or unilateral deflection of all fault to third parties without a structured multi-party assessment.
Multi-Party Forensic Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has previously rendered professional services to one or more parties to proactively disclose those prior relationships to each new retaining party at or before the time of accepting a forensic engagement — including the ability to identify all prior relationships that are material to the new retaining party's assessment of potential conflicts, to communicate those relationships clearly and completely without waiting to be asked, and to make such disclosures to all relevant parties (both retaining counsel and adverse parties where appropriate) across multiple sequential engagements involving overlapping client relationships.
Multi-Party Interest Balancing with Creative Resolution Obligation State
State in which a professional engineer advising a governmental or public client on a project affecting multiple stakeholders — including the state, multiple municipalities, and private property owners with historically or culturally significant holdings — is obligated not merely to identify the technically optimal or legally available solution (such as condemnation), but to actively explore and present creative alternative resolutions that could achieve the public objective while minimizing harm to affected third parties, including options such as physical relocation of historic structures to alternative sites.
Engineer A, who was retained by ABC Manufacturing for the purpose of reviewing documents to form an opinion in a patent litigation matter
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained as an expert witness or technical reviewer by multiple parties across separate, unrelated litigation matters over time — including parties with potentially adverse interests — bearing obligations of professional independence, objectivity, and disclosure of prior relationships, while retaining the right to exercise individual judgment about engagement acceptance without being bound by an absolute duty of perpetual loyalty to any former client.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides expert testimony during mediation or legal proceedings on behalf of a party, evaluating technical aspects of design or construction and offering professional opinions on compliance with applicable standards.
Multi-Precedent Public Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
In a case that has been cited many times, BER Case No. 00-5 centered on the reopening of a dangerous, closed bridge by a nonengineer public works director.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 00-5, 19-10, and 89-7 — that collectively establish the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to apply that synthesized precedent framework to determine the step-by-step path forward when an engineer's safety recommendations have been overridden by a public authority, including the duty to notify all appropriate authorities, make formal presentations, and continue pursuit even after initial escalation.
Multi-Precedent Structural Safety Duty Synthesis Capability
Reviewing earlier Board of Ethical Review Case Nos. 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6, the Board noted that the facts and circumstances facing Engineer A 'involved basic and fundamental issues of public health and safety, which are at the core of engineering ethics.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and synthesize multiple BER precedent cases — specifically BER Cases 00-5, 07-10, 89-7, 90-5, and 92-6 — that collectively establish the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare in structural safety contexts, and to apply that synthesized precedent framework to determine the step-by-step path forward when an engineer's structural safety concerns have been identified, including calibrating the response to the imminence and breadth of the danger.
Multi-Stage Court Proceeding Active State
These types of analyses quantify water and provide terms and conditions for future use that must be approved by the local courts
State in which a technical professional matter — such as a water-rights analysis — is embedded within a formal multi-step court process that spans years and includes sequential stages (application, engineering support, public objections, rebuttal, mediation or trial), such that the engineer's professional obligations evolve differently at each stage and the proceeding's adversarial structure constrains professional conduct throughout.
Multi-State PE Business Card Licensure Jurisdiction Identification Obligation
Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who uses the PE designation on a business card distributed in professional (business) contexts to identify on that card the specific state or states in which licensure is held, so that recipients — who may be in jurisdictions where the engineer is not licensed — are not misled into believing the engineer holds licensure in their jurisdiction or in all jurisdictions generally. The obligation is triggered whenever the card is distributed at a business meeting or in a professional capacity, and is satisfied by explicit listing of the licensing states on the card face.
Multi-State PE Business Card Mailing Address Inclusion Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who distributes a business card bearing the PE designation in a professional context to include a mailing address on that card, so that recipients can identify the geographic base of the engineer's practice and assess whether the engineer's licensure is relevant to their jurisdiction. The absence of a mailing address, combined with omission of licensing states, compounds the misleading impression that the engineer may be licensed everywhere or specifically in the recipient's jurisdiction.
Multi-State PE Business Card Office-Licensure Jurisdiction Differentiation Obligation
Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who maintains offices or a residence in a state where the engineer is not licensed to clearly differentiate on any business card the state(s) where offices are located from the state(s) where licensure is held, so that recipients are not misled into believing the engineer is licensed to practice engineering in the state where the office is located. This obligation applies when the engineer distributes the card in a professional context in any state, including the state of licensure.
Multi-State Project Manager Marketing Engineer
XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer hired as a project manager by a competing firm markets engineering services across multiple state jurisdictions by including prior-employer project experience in qualification statements and proposals, bearing obligations to accurately attribute prior work to previous employers and to comply with state-specific rules governing credit claims for projects completed under a prior firm's name.
Multi-Witness Hearing Institutional Process Reliance Capability
Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a private client to correctly recognize when the institutional structure of the hearing — specifically, the presence of multiple independent witnesses who will testify on aspects of the project not covered by the retained engineer's presentation — legitimately permits the engineer to refrain from volunteering adverse impact information that will be covered by other witnesses, while simultaneously recognizing the limits of this reliance: that it does not excuse affirmative concealment, artful misrepresentation, or evasion of direct questions, and that the engineer must still answer direct questions completely and honestly regardless of what other witnesses will cover.
Multi-Witness Hearing Process Institutional Reliance Non-Volunteering Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to recognize that the adversarial, multi-witness structure of the hearing — in which independent engineers and other witnesses may testify about adverse impacts not addressed by the presenting engineer — constitutes an institutional completeness mechanism that partially satisfies the public's interest in complete information, thereby modulating (but not eliminating) the presenting engineer's individual proactive disclosure duty: the engineer may permissibly rely on the multi-witness process to supply adverse impact information the engineer does not volunteer, provided the engineer does not affirmatively suppress, distort, or misrepresent such information, and answers all direct questions completely and honestly.
Multilateral Lender Procurement Integrity Awareness Capability
An agency of a foreign government invited proposals from consulting engineering firms to complete the design and supervise the construction of a hydroelectric project which is being financed in part by a World Bank loan.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of private consulting engineering firms to recognize that engineering projects financed in part by multilateral development institutions — such as the World Bank — are subject to heightened procurement integrity requirements, including competitive and merit-based selection processes, and that the involvement of such lenders creates additional stakeholder obligations beyond those owed to the immediate project owner, requiring that procurement conduct conform to the lender's standards of competitive fairness and transparency.
Multiple Sound Engineering Approaches Non-Single-Answer Constraint
it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer
Epistemic and ethical constraint establishing that for large and complicated engineering problems — such as water-power complexes, highway routing, or major public infrastructure — there may be many technically valid approaches all based on sound engineering principles, prohibiting the treatment of any single engineering conclusion as the uniquely correct answer and prohibiting ethics bodies or reviewing authorities from characterizing an engineer's professionally grounded alternative approach as inherently incorrect or unethical solely because another qualified engineer reached a different conclusion, as established by the BER's recognition that 'it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all engineering problems admit of only one correct answer.'
Municipal Advisory Engineer Candid Performance Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal advisory engineer to provide candid, honest, and complete professional assessments of contractor performance deficiencies to the municipal client — including calling to the client's attention when a retained contractor has failed to meet contract standards — while ensuring that such assessments are not influenced by any secondary private commercial interest the engineer may hold in obtaining the same work, and that nothing said constitutes malicious or false injury to the evaluated engineer's professional reputation.
Municipal Advisory Engineer Legitimate Performance Criticism State
Engineer A did have an affirmative obligation as town engineer to call to the attention of the city Engineer A's opinion that Engineer B had failed to meet the standards required to complete the local road project
State in which a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal or town engineer has formed and communicated to the municipal authority a professional opinion that another engineer retained for a specific project has failed to meet the required professional standards — where such criticism is within the scope of the advisory engineer's duties, is not malicious or false, and is consistent with professional code obligations, even though the advisory engineer subsequently stands to benefit commercially if the criticized engineer is displaced.
Municipal Advisory Engineer Performance Evaluation Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers serving in a municipal advisory or town/city engineer capacity to fulfill their affirmative obligation to advise the municipality of their professional opinion regarding a contractor's failure to meet required performance standards — recognizing that the advisory role creates a duty of candid professional assessment that supersedes any reluctance arising from collegial relationships with the evaluated contractor, provided the evaluation is grounded in professional judgment and does not constitute malicious or false injury to the contractor's professional reputation
Municipal Advisory Engineer Self-Review Prohibition Design Contract Acceptance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal advisory engineer — who has advised on and concurred in the selection of a contractor and subsequently evaluated that contractor's performance — to refrain from accepting the design contract for the same project after the contractor's termination, recognizing that: (1) NSPE Code Section II.4.e prohibits such acceptance as a matter of code language irrespective of procurement law compliance; (2) acceptance would place the engineer in the position of reviewing their own work in their advisory capacity; and (3) disclosure of further circumstances is insufficient to cure this structural conflict of interest.
Municipal Advisory Role Self-Review Prohibition
contrary to the situation in BER Case 01-11, the performance of such services by Engineer A potentially places him in the situation of reviewing his own work
Domain-specific principle prohibiting engineers serving in municipal advisory or city/town engineer roles from accepting design or construction contracts for the same municipality when doing so would place the engineer in the position of reviewing or approving their own work in their advisory capacity — recognizing that the structural impossibility of objective self-review in a dual advisory-design role creates an irreconcilable conflict that cannot be cured by disclosure alone
Municipal Airport Improvement Grant Recipient
A municipality that receives state DOT grant funding for airport improvement projects (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) and independently retains private engineering consultants for design work, subject to FAA qualifications-based selection guidelines, while also interacting with the state DOT on highway matters.
A local government ordinance establishing construction or safety requirements applicable to buildings and structures within a municipality, including retrofit mandates for existing or in-progress construction projects
Municipal Client Directly Soliciting Firm Staff
A municipal or public-sector client that, upon learning which individual engineers within a firm performed work on its behalf, directly approaches and solicits those engineers to provide consulting services independently outside the employing firm, bearing obligations to conduct procurement fairly and to respect the firm's legitimate business interests while exercising its right to retain engineers of its choice.
Municipal Client Informed City Engineer Appointment Decision Facilitation Capability
City H officials are currently considering whether to replace Engineer B with another full-time city engineer or, as a cost cutting and efficiency measure, to hire a consultant (such as WXY Engineers) as the city engineer
Capability of a municipal client — and of the engineering firm being considered for appointment — to ensure that the municipal decision-making process for city engineer appointment is informed by complete and accurate conflict-of-interest information, including the self-oversight implications of the firm's existing contracts, so that the municipality can make a genuinely informed appointment decision that serves the public interest.
Municipal Client Informed City Engineer Appointment Decision Facilitation Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm being considered for appointment as a municipal city engineer — and of the municipal officials conducting the appointment deliberation — to ensure that the municipal client has access to complete, accurate, and unfiltered information about the structural conflict of interest implications of the appointment, including the self-oversight risk arising from active contracts, so that the municipality can make a genuinely informed appointment decision that serves the public interest of its residents rather than the commercial interests of the prospective appointee.
Municipal Client Procurement Integrity Non-Complicity Obligation
Following the termination of Engineer B under the terms and conditions of his contract with the town, Engineer A offers, and Smithtown agrees, that Engineer A's firm should perform the design work for the local road project for Smithtown.
Duty of a municipal government client — acting through its administrative agents — to refrain from accepting an offer by its own part-time town engineer to perform design work on a project for which that engineer previously advised on contractor selection and evaluated the terminated contractor's performance, recognizing that acceptance of such an offer makes the municipality complicit in a conflict of interest that undermines procurement integrity, harms the professional standing of the terminated contractor, and erodes public trust in municipal engineering procurement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a municipal client — acting through its administrative agents — to conduct consulting engineering contract renewal and selection processes with integrity, including refraining from soliciting competing engineers to evaluate and critique the incumbent engineer's work during the active contract period or pending renewal process, recognizing that such solicitation compromises the fairness of the competitive process, creates conflicts of interest for the solicited competitor, and undermines the incumbent engineer's professional standing without due process.
Municipal Client Procurement Self-Dealing Offer Declination Capability
Capability of a municipal government client — acting through its administrative agents — to recognize and decline an offer by its own part-time town engineer or advisory engineer to perform design services for a project on which that engineer previously served in an advisory or oversight capacity, understanding that accepting such an offer constitutes complicity in a conflict of interest and undermines the integrity of the public procurement process.
Municipal Client Self-Review Waiver Dual-Capacity Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a municipality retains a part-time city engineer who also prepares plans and specifications for the same municipality, the municipality has the right to waive independent review of the engineer's own plans — and that when such a waiver is exercised, the engineer's dual capacity as both designer and reviewing city engineer is rendered ethically permissible, provided that the advisory function remains undivided and the engineer does not exploit the dual role — establishing that the absence of a mandatory independent review requirement in the NSPE Code means that client waiver transforms a potentially conflicted self-review situation into an ethically permissible dual-capacity arrangement, as established by BER Case 63-5.
Municipal Client Self-Review Waiver Right Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a dual advisory-design capacity for a municipal client to recognize that the NSPE Code does not require that an engineer's plans for a client be reviewed by an independent engineer retained by the client — and that the client retains the right to waive independent review of the engineer's own plans, thereby permitting the engineer to act in a dual capacity (as both plan preparer and advisory engineer) without this constituting an impermissible divided loyalty, provided the advisory role remains uninfluenced by the design interest.
Municipal Client Self-Review Waiver Right Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a dual advisory-design capacity for a municipal client to recognize and respect the municipal client's right to waive independent review of the engineer's own plans — and to proceed ethically under such a waiver — while understanding that the waiver does not eliminate the engineer's duty of undivided loyalty in the advisory role. The engineer must not exploit the client's waiver of independent review as license to compromise advisory objectivity, and must ensure the client's waiver is informed and voluntary.
Municipal Client Structural Conflict Full Disclosure Pre-Appointment Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineering firm being considered for appointment as a municipal city engineer must proactively and fully disclose to the appointing municipality all circumstances that create or could create a conflict of interest — including the existence of active contracts with the municipality, the self-oversight implications of those contracts, the absence or presence of private developer work, and any other factors bearing on the structural conflict — before the appointment decision is made, so that the municipality can make a fully informed appointment decision with independent advice, and prohibiting the firm from allowing the appointment process to proceed without such complete disclosure.
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm
A city government client role that retains a private consulting engineering firm under a multi-year contract for ongoing engineering services, bearing authority over contract renewal decisions and coordination of the engineer's work through a designated administrative official, while subject to obligations of fair procurement and impartial evaluation of competing firms.
Municipal Engineer Capital Project Follow-On Retention Expectation State
The municipal engineer's firm is thereafter usually retained for engineering services for capital improvement projects needed by the municipality.
State in which a consulting firm whose principal serves as municipal engineer operates under the established expectation — arising from the structural arrangement itself — that the same firm will be retained for capital improvement projects needed by the municipality, creating an ongoing financial incentive that may compromise the municipal engineer's objectivity in advising on project scope, consultant selection, and project necessity.
Municipal Engineer Consultant-Retention Advisory Scope Boundary Constraint
advising on the retention of consultants for project requirements
Ethical constraint establishing that when a consulting firm principal serving as municipal engineer is tasked with advising on the retention of consultants for project requirements, this advisory function must be exercised with complete impartiality and without self-interested distortion — specifically constraining the engineer from using the advisory role to steer consultant retention decisions toward the engineer's own firm, from making recommendations that are colored by the prospect of the firm's own retention, and from participating in any decision-making process regarding the selection of the engineer's own firm for capital project work.
Municipal Engineer Consulting Recommendation Approval-by-Municipal-Process Constraint
the engineers, in many instances, are paid for these services on a fee or retainer basis and as such are acting in the traditional and accepted role as consultants whose recommendations are approved or disapproved by the appropriate municipal processes
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when a consulting engineer serves as municipal engineer on a fee or retainer basis, the engineer's recommendations must be subject to approval or disapproval by the appropriate municipal processes — establishing that the consulting engineer does not exercise final decision-making authority but rather provides professional recommendations that municipal authorities independently evaluate and act upon, and that this approval-by-process structure is a necessary condition for the ethical permissibility of the dual consulting-and-service-provision arrangement, as established by BER Case 74-2.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that under the amended NSPE Code Section II.4.d, a licensed professional engineer serving simultaneously in multiple public advisory and administrative roles (such as county engineer, city engineer, airport authority project administrator, and block grant administrator) does not violate the conflict-of-interest prohibition when the engineer's activities are limited to reviewing, recommending, formulating, and overseeing plans — rather than actually participating in 'decisions' with respect to services solicited or provided by the engineer or the engineer's organization — establishing that the critical distinction between permissible dual-role advisory activity and impermissible conflict-of-interest participation turns on whether the engineer exercises final decision-making authority or merely provides recommendations to decision-making bodies, as established by BER Case 82-4.
Municipal Engineer Dual Role Ethics Standard
it is ethical for a professional engineer retained by a community on a part-time basis as a city engineer to prepare plans and specifications for a project for the same community, but in so acting the engineer must be scrupulously careful that his advice is not influenced by his secondary interest
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conditions under which a professional engineer or engineering firm serving as a municipal or city engineer may also perform design and other engineering services for the same municipality, including the limits of such dual roles, conflict of interest constraints, disclosure obligations, and the prohibition on reviewing one's own work in a public advisory capacity.
Municipal Engineer Statutory Duty Scope Comprehension Capability
The duties of the municipal engineer vary by size and nature of the municipalities but generally consist of attending meetings of public bodies of the municipality, providing general advice on engineering matters, maintaining tax maps, reviewing site plans and subdivision maps, preparing cost estimates for proposed facilities, handling complaints from citizens on engineering-related problems (drainage, roads, and the like), and advising on the retention of consultants for project requirements.
Capability of a consulting engineering firm principal appointed as statutory municipal engineer to understand, internalize, and competently perform the full range of duties that constitute the municipal engineer role — including attending public body meetings, providing general engineering advice, maintaining tax maps, reviewing site plans and subdivision maps, preparing cost estimates, handling citizen complaints on engineering-related problems (drainage, roads, etc.), and advising on consultant retention — and to calibrate performance of these duties to the size and nature of the specific municipality.
Municipal Engineering Contracting Authority
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award (consultant and construction) and senior-level review of major project issues
A senior licensed professional engineering role within a municipal government that serves as the primary point of contact and decision-maker for contract negotiation, award, and senior-level review of major project issues involving AE firms and contractors, bearing obligations of impartiality, public stewardship, and avoidance of conflicts of interest in procurement decisions.
Municipal Engineering Service Continuity Competence Assurance Permissibility Constraint
Continuity of municipal engineering services tends to insure the best services to the municipality, assuming that the best available are utilized
Ethical constraint establishing that continuity of municipal engineering services through the same qualified consulting firm tends to ensure the best services to the municipality — and that this continuity justification supports the ethical permissibility of retaining the same consulting firm principal as both municipal engineer and capital project engineer — provided that the best available qualified firm is utilized, establishing that continuity is an ethically recognized value that weighs in favor of the dual-role arrangement rather than against it, as established by BER Case 74-2.
Municipal Engineering Service Continuity Public Interest Recognition Obligation
Duty of consulting engineers, municipal clients, and ethics adjudicators to recognize that continuity of municipal engineering services — achieved by retaining the same qualified consulting engineer or firm across multiple engagements — tends to ensure the best engineering services to the municipality, and that this public interest in service continuity constitutes a legitimate justification for permitting the designated municipal engineer-consultant to furnish complete engineering design services through their own organization, provided the engineer is qualified and the arrangement does not create an impermissible conflict of interest through self-review or divided loyalty.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and municipal clients to recognize that the public interest is best served by providing small municipalities — which cannot afford full-time engineering staff — with access to the most competent engineering services available, and to structure part-time municipal engineering arrangements in a manner that achieves this public welfare objective while maintaining ethical boundaries on dual-role service, recognizing that the competitive disadvantage imposed on part-time municipal engineers who are precluded from design work is an acknowledged ethical cost that does not override the conflict-of-interest prohibition but should be minimized through careful role structuring.
Municipal Engineering Service Continuity Public Interest Value Recognition Capability
Capability of consulting engineers, municipal clients, and ethics adjudicators to recognize that continuity of municipal engineering services — provided by the same qualified consulting firm over time — tends to ensure the best engineering services to the municipality, and to correctly weigh this public interest value when assessing the ethical permissibility of dual-role arrangements in which a consulting firm principal serves as both statutory municipal engineer and design service provider, understanding that this continuity value supports permissibility of such arrangements when the best available firm is utilized and structural conflict conditions are satisfied.
Municipal Environmental Compliance Engineer
employed as the city engineer/director of public works with responsibility for disposal of plants and beds associated with poultry processing facilities
A licensed professional engineering role held by a city engineer or director of public works with statutory responsibility for environmental compliance reporting (e.g., wastewater overflow to state pollution control authorities), bearing an obligation to escalate known legal violations to appropriate state regulatory authorities when municipal supervisors and elected officials have demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law and have failed to act on internal reports.
Engineer M is retained by the City as the lead engineer
A city government client role that retains engineering services for major public infrastructure projects, bearing authority over project scope, routing decisions, and public engagement requirements, while subject to obligations of equitable community engagement, non-discrimination, and faithful stewardship of public resources and affected community interests.
Municipal Infrastructure Client with Environmental Justice Obligations
A city government client role that retains engineering services for public flood control infrastructure, bearing authority over design approach selection and stakeholder engagement requirements, while subject to obligations of equitable community protection, climate resilience policy compliance, and non-discriminatory infrastructure decision-making even when cost and urgency considerations are present.
Municipal Official Infrastructure Route Critic
An official of a city located close to the proposed route publicly criticized the proposed route 'B' because he felt it would endanger the city's water supply and be a detriment to the development of a lake as a proposed recreation area.
A non-engineer municipal government official who publicly criticizes a proposed public infrastructure routing decision on grounds of harm to the city's water supply, environmental resources, or community development interests, and who endorses alternative routes proposed by technical experts, bearing obligations of public accountability and community welfare advocacy without professional engineering obligations.
Municipal Ordinance Retrofit Compliance Knowledge Capability
Capability to understand, retrieve, and apply the requirements of municipal ordinances mandating retrofitted safety systems — including sprinkler ordinances applicable to projects under construction that have not yet received occupancy permits — including knowledge of which projects are subject to the ordinance, what installation standards apply to retrofitted systems, and how compliance is verified, sufficient to assess whether an observed installation meets the ordinance's requirements.
The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J
A licensed professional engineering role within a municipal government responsible for reviewing and approving private development plans for conformance with city policies and regulations, bearing obligations of impartiality, conflict-of-interest avoidance, technical competence, and protection of public welfare in the approval process.
Municipal Road Project Design Contractor
Smithtown selects Engineer B to provide design services for a local road project
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm is selected by a municipality to provide design services for a local road project under a formal contract, bearing obligations of competent performance consistent with contractual standards, and subject to termination under contract terms when performance is found deficient by the reviewing municipal engineer.
Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor who agrees to look into the matter, but no action is taken
A municipal government official or supervisory authority role that receives verbal notification of a structural safety concern from a licensed engineer but fails to take corrective action within a reasonable period, thereby triggering the engineer's obligation to escalate the safety concern to additional authorities.
A local municipality stakeholder role whose water utility infrastructure is affected by a state DOT highway reconstruction project, bearing a financial interest in the cost allocation of water main replacement or upgrade work, and whose financial constraints create the context in which improper design manipulation may be contemplated to shift costs from the municipality to the state DOT project budget contrary to agency policy.
Municipality-Retained Litigation Testing Engineer
the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a municipal client involved in litigation to supervise and report on physical testing (e.g., test pile driving) intended to evaluate disputed design or construction claims, bearing obligations of completeness, objectivity, consultation with all relevant parties, and full disclosure of all material findings including equipment failures, anomalous test conditions, and alternative analytical methods — even when such findings are unfavorable to the retaining client.
Mutual Competitive Disparagement Independent Ethical Responsibility Obligation
The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
Duty of each party in a competitive solicitation dispute to bear independent ethical responsibility for their own disparaging communications about the other party's capability, regardless of which party initiated the disparagement or what the other party said — recognizing that neither party's disparaging conduct excuses or justifies the other's, that ethics adjudicators cannot and should not speculate about which party 'threw the first stone,' and that each engineer must independently comply with the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation even when provoked by the other party's prior violations; the symmetry of mutual violation does not reduce the culpability of either party.
Mutual Competitive Disparagement Symmetry Principle
Engineer A has protested the action of the four engineers on ethical grounds, alleging that they violated the rule against supplanting.
Professional virtue principle establishing that when competing engineers each cast doubt on the other's capability to serve former clients, both parties are equally subject to the prohibition on reputation injury through competitive critique — the ethical violation is not cured by the fact that the other party also disparaged, and neither party may invoke the other's misconduct as a defense or justification for their own; the principle applies symmetrically regardless of which party initiated the disparagement
A licensed professional engineer engaged in competitive solicitation of former clients who, motivated by personal or business interest, makes adverse comments about a competing engineer's or firm's capability or quality of service, where such comments are not objective but are cast purely to injure the other's professional prospects and secure personal competitive advantage, in violation of professional codes prohibiting malicious or self-interested criticism of other engineers.
Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Compliance Obligation
Duty of each party in a competitive solicitation dispute to recognize that the other party's disparaging conduct does not excuse or justify one's own disparaging conduct — specifically, that Engineer A's disparagement of Firm B does not excuse Firm B's disparagement of Engineer A, and vice versa — and that each party bears independent ethical responsibility for their own communications regardless of the other party's violations; neither party may invoke the other's misconduct as a defense or mitigation for their own.
Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Recognition Capability
Further, he was told by the clients that Firm B had cast doubt on the ability of A to provide quality services.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in competitive solicitation to recognize that the ethical prohibition on disparaging a competitor's qualifications or capabilities applies independently and symmetrically to each competing party — such that one party's disparaging conduct does not excuse, justify, or mitigate the other party's disparagement — and to apply this symmetry principle to self-assess compliance with non-disparagement obligations regardless of whether the opposing party has itself violated those obligations.
Mutual Disparagement Symmetry Non-Excuse Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when two competing engineering parties have both engaged in disparaging conduct toward each other's professional capacity, neither party's violation excuses or mitigates the other party's independent ethical obligation to refrain from disparagement — prohibiting each party from invoking the other's misconduct as a justification, defense, or excuse for its own disparaging communications, and establishing that each engineer or firm is independently and fully bound by the prohibition on injuring a competitor's professional reputation regardless of whether the competitor has engaged in equivalent or worse conduct.
Mutual Reciprocal Competitor Capacity Disparagement State
State in which two competing engineering firms — a former employer and a newly formed competing firm composed of former employees — are simultaneously making disparaging statements about each other's capacity to provide quality services to shared prospective clients. Both parties are engaged in the same conduct: casting doubt on the other's professional competence in the marketplace. This state raises ethical questions about whether such mutual disparagement constitutes improper conduct under professional codes prohibiting false or malicious criticism, and whether the symmetry of the conduct affects the ethical evaluation of either party.
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Obligation
Sections II.2.a., II.2.b., and II.2.c. address many of the issues related to the facts of this case
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicators to read and apply NSPE Code provisions that address the same factual situation not in isolation but as mutually dependent provisions whose combined meaning governs the ethical analysis — recognizing that provisions such as Sections II.2.a (competence), II.2.b (direction and control), and II.2.c (technical segment sealing) are interdependent and that reading any one in isolation from the others produces an incomplete and potentially misleading ethical standard.
[Case 163] Professional principle establishing that when multiple ethics code provisions address the same factual situation from complementary angles, the engineer must read and apply those provisions together as an integrated whole rather than in isolation. Each provision derives its full meaning only in relation to the others, and selective application of any single provision without regard to the others produces an incomplete or distorted ethical analysis. In the responsible charge context, Sections II.2.a (competence), II.2.b (direction and control), and II.2.c (technical segment attribution) are mutually dependent and must be applied conjunctively.
Mutually Dependent Code Provision Integrated Reading Sealing Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.2.b, and II.2.c must be read together as mutually dependent provisions when analyzing a professional engineer's sealing practices — prohibiting any interpretation that treats one provision in isolation from the others, because the obligations to accept only work within one's qualifications (II.2.a), to seal only work within one's cognizance and direction-and-control (II.2.b), and to ensure each technical segment is sealed by its qualified preparer (II.2.c) are interdependent and collectively define the ethical standard for responsible charge sealing in engineering firms.
NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness Capability
The Board noted that with the increase in international engineering practice as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), engineers are being exposed to differing design selection methods.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and understand the international trade and services agreement context — including NAFTA, GATS, and similar multilateral frameworks — that governs cross-border engineering practice, and to identify how these frameworks expose engineers to differing design selection methods, procurement customs, and cultural expectations while simultaneously requiring consistent application of professional ethics standards. This capability includes awareness that increased international practice opportunities under trade agreements do not alter or relax professional ethics obligations.
The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'
Model rules of professional conduct developed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, serving as a template that state licensing boards may adopt or adapt for their own rules governing engineering practice and professional conduct
NSPE Code Antitrust Constraint Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
NSPE and other engineering organizations (as well as medical, legal, dental, and accounting professional societies) have been required to remove or modify Code of Ethics provisions.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of professional engineering organizations to recognize the precise scope of antitrust-imposed constraints on NSPE ethics code guidance — understanding that while NSPE is prohibited from issuing ethical or policy guidance on professional selection, compensation, competitive bidding, advertising, and related practices, this prohibition does not affect or diminish the force of federal, state, and local procurement laws, which remain fully operative and binding on engineering practice.
NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before public bodies on technical matters affecting public health, safety, and welfare to self-assess whether the manner, content, and framing of that testimony conforms to the NSPE Code of Ethics — including the obligations to be objective and truthful, to avoid deceptive statements, and to serve the public interest — recognizing that the engineer's public role carries heightened ethical responsibilities because testimony may significantly affect public policy decisions.
NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Public Safety Exception Clause Activation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize, retrieve, and correctly apply the Section II.1.c. exception clause of the NSPE Code of Ethics — which permits and requires disclosure of information obtained in a professional capacity without client consent when authorized by the Code or required by law — specifically in the context of imminent public health and safety threats, including the ability to determine that the public safety exception is activated by the facts, that the engineer has not merely the right but the ethical responsibility to disclose, and that state board rules may independently require such disclosure.
NSPE Code Section II.1.c. Safety Exception Clause Confidentiality Override Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.c. creates an explicit, code-authorized exception to the engineer's general obligation not to reveal facts, data, or other information obtained in a professional capacity without the client's prior consent — permitting and requiring disclosure when public health and safety is endangered or when disclosure is required by law — prohibiting engineers from treating the general confidentiality obligation as absolute when the Section II.1.c. exception conditions are met, and establishing that engineers not only have the right but also the ethical responsibility to reveal such facts to the proper persons when public health and safety is endangered, with state board rules of professional conduct potentially independently requiring such disclosure.
NSPE Code Section III.1.b Safety-Inclusive Project Success Notification Constraint
Section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful
Ethical and professional constraint arising from NSPE Code Section III.1.b establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to inform a client when a project will not be 'successful' encompasses not merely structural and economic success but also safety success — requiring the engineer to notify the client when proceeding without a professionally required safety measure means the project cannot be considered successful from a safety standpoint, and prohibiting the engineer from treating the notification duty as discharged by a single communication while then proceeding without insistence or withdrawal.
NSPE Code Section III.1.f Dignity Non-Discrimination Constraint
This demonstrates the relevance of the newest addition to the NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f.: 'Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.'
Ethical constraint established by NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f requiring that all engineers — including employers, supervisors, clients, and professional bodies — treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination, constraining adverse employment actions, professional characterizations, and ethics determinations that are grounded in bias against engineers with disabilities or other protected personal characteristics, and establishing that this non-discrimination obligation is directly relevant to cases involving engineers with ADA-protected conditions who have not disclosed those conditions to employers or clients.
NSPE Code Sustainable Development Provision
the NSPE Board of Directors approved a change to the NSPE Code of Ethics to add Section III.2.d.
The specific provision added to the NSPE Code of Ethics (Section III.2.d.) in January 2006 and subsequently modified in July 2007, establishing that engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations, along with the accompanying footnote defining sustainable development.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A formal provision within a professional code of ethics that encourages or requires engineers to adhere to principles of sustainable development, including protection of the environment for future generations and conservation of natural resources, representing the codification of sustainability as a professional ethical obligation.
NSPE Extraterritorial Ethics Jurisdiction Self-Application Capability
Capability of an engineer holding NSPE International Membership to recognize that NSPE Code of Ethics provisions apply to all of the engineer's professional activities regardless of geographic location, host-country customs, or the absence of U.S. legal jurisdiction — including the ability to identify which NSPE provisions are triggered by international government contracting activities and to apply them as binding self-regulatory norms in non-U.S. practice environments.
NSPE International Member Extraterritorial Ethics Compliance Obligation
Duty of an engineer holding NSPE International Membership to comply with all applicable NSPE Code of Ethics provisions in their international engineering practice, recognizing that NSPE membership obligations apply extraterritorially and are not limited to practice within the United States, and that the engineer's non-U.S. residency and licensure do not exempt them from NSPE ethical requirements.
NSPE International Member Uniform Ethics Standard Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that an engineer holding NSPE International Membership is bound by the same uniform NSPE Code of Ethics standards as domestic U.S. members, prohibiting the application of a relaxed or context-adjusted ethics standard based on the engineer's geographic location, home-country legal environment, or local business customs — and establishing that voluntary acceptance of NSPE membership constitutes acceptance of the full Code of Ethics without geographic or jurisdictional carve-outs, as established by BER Cases 76-6, 96-5, and the principle that situational ethics adjustments are categorically prohibited.
NSPE Membership Ethics Obligation Extraterritorial Applicability Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that an engineer's NSPE membership obligations — including prohibitions on bribery, kickbacks, and corrupt payments to obtain work — travel with the engineer and apply to their international practice regardless of whether the host country's laws permit or even incentivize such payments, because NSPE membership is a voluntary professional commitment that is not geographically bounded by the laws of any particular jurisdiction
NSPE Policy 52 Ethics-Conditioned Mobility Right Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly apply NSPE Professional Policy No. 52 — which affirms the right to seek and accept other employment while conditioning that right on consistency with the Canons of Ethics as they pertain to relations with clients and employers — including the ability to recognize that the mobility right is fundamental and protected, that contractual provisions unreasonably limiting it are disfavored, and that the right must be exercised in a manner fully consistent with ethical obligations regarding faithful agency, confidentiality, conflict of interest, and competitive fairness.
NSPE defines 'Responsible Charge' in NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 as 'being actively engaged in the engineering process, from conception to completion.'
Official policy statements issued by the National Society of Professional Engineers that define key professional concepts, standards, and positions on engineering practice issues, providing authoritative interpretive guidance for professional obligations
NSPE Sustainable Development Code Provision Application Capability
Wasser points to NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d, 'Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development,' and claims the proposed lawn irrigation system does not conform to sustainability principles
Capability to identify, interpret, and apply NSPE Code of Ethics provisions relating to sustainable development — specifically NSPE Code III.2.d ('Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development') — including understanding the normative weight of 'encouraged' versus mandatory provisions, the scope of sustainable development principles in engineering practice, and how to invoke this provision in formal professional objections or advisory communications.
NSPE Voluntary Higher Standard Commitment Self-Application Capability
engineers have the desire and commitment to 'go the extra mile,' and voluntarily commit themselves to a higher standard of conduct
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of NSPE to recognize that voluntary membership in and commitment to the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes a higher standard of professional conduct than the minimum required by state engineering registration board rules of professional conduct — and to correctly apply that higher standard to professional decisions, understanding that the Code was developed precisely because engineers desire and commit to 'go the extra mile' beyond legal minimums in protecting public health and safety.
Narrow Application Question Exploitable Omission State
there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?'
State in which an employment or professional application contains a question that is narrowly scoped to a specific license type or domain, and the applicant possesses material adverse information (such as a revocation, discipline, or finding of wrongdoing) in a related but technically excluded domain, such that a literal negative answer is technically accurate but materially misleading — activating the ethical obligation to either disclose the excluded information voluntarily or to clarify the answer to avoid creating a false impression of a clean professional record.
Narrow Application Wording Non-Exculpation for Material Adjudicated Misconduct Constraint
there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer cannot invoke the narrow or technically limited wording of an employment application question as a justification for omitting disclosure of an adjudicated finding of professional misconduct — prohibiting the engineer from treating a question scoped to 'engineering license' discipline as a license to conceal revocation of a contractor's or other occupational license when the underlying conduct reflects on the engineer's integrity, honesty, or fitness for professional practice, and requiring the engineer to interpret application questions consistent with the reasonable intent of the employer rather than in the most self-favorable literal sense.
Narrow vs. Broad Code Interpretation Active Dispute State
State in which the ethics body must resolve whether a code provision should be read literally and narrowly — applying only to the specific act described (e.g., signing or sealing plans) — or broadly and purposively — applying to all engineering participation in the underlying unsafe activity. The state activates when a literal reading of code language would permit conduct that the purpose and spirit of the code is designed to prohibit, requiring the ethics body to articulate a principled basis for the broader interpretation.
National Franchise Engineering Services Client
Engineer A is retained by a major franchiser to provide engineering design services for a chain of stores throughout the United States
A commercial client role borne by a major national franchiser that retains engineering design services for a chain of facilities across multiple jurisdictions, bearing obligations of fair dealing with incumbent engineers during contract transitions, including refraining from directing successor engineers to conceal their engagement from the incumbent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A private engineering firm operating in a national partnership or franchise arrangement with a commercial client, providing comprehensive site engineering services from conceptual layout through final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex commercial sites, bearing obligations of technical competence, public safety, regulatory compliance, and responsiveness to public concerns raised during approval processes.
National Franchise Site Engineering Firm
Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop
A private engineering firm operating in a national partnership or franchise arrangement with a commercial client, providing comprehensive site engineering services from conceptual layout through final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex commercial sites, bearing obligations of technical competence, public safety, regulatory compliance, and responsiveness to public concerns raised during approval processes.
Necessity-Lapsed Risk Transfer Mechanism Continuation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from continuing to employ a contractual risk-transfer mechanism — such as a client indemnification clause — that was originally adopted as a necessity-based substitute for unavailable professional liability insurance, once the professional liability insurance that the mechanism was designed to substitute has become available on the market, establishing that the ethical permissibility of necessity-based risk transfer is strictly conditional on the persistence of the underlying necessity, and that the cyclical nature of professional liability insurance markets imposes an ongoing monitoring and re-evaluation obligation on engineers who rely on necessity-based contractual provisions.
Negligence Liability Non-Transfer to Client Principle
Professional accountability principle establishing that an engineer may not contractually require a client to indemnify and hold harmless the engineer for damages arising from the engineer's own negligence in the performance of professional services, because such provisions fundamentally undermine the engineer's personal professional responsibility, misalign incentives for careful practice, and subordinate client interests to the engineer's self-protection — particularly when the original justification (unavailability of insurance) no longer obtains.
Negligent-Origin Actual-Knowledge Inaction Non-Excuse Recognition Capability
While there is no indication that what has occurred under these facts is anything other than an negligent oversight, continued inaction by the firm in light of actual knowledge of the error could easily raise questions of improper and unethical conduct.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, firm principal, or marketing director to recognize that the inadvertent or negligent origin of a misrepresentation in promotional materials does not excuse continued inaction after actual knowledge of the error has been obtained — understanding that once a responsible party has been informed of the inaccuracy, the ethical obligation to correct it arises immediately and independently of how the error originated, and that continued inaction in the face of actual knowledge transforms a negligent oversight into potentially intentional or reckless misconduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that certain categories of professional misconduct — particularly the use of government-branded materials in private consulting testimony — are ethically impermissible regardless of whether the conduct was negligent (careless error) or intentional (deliberate credibility enhancement), and to correctly determine that the ethical violation exists in either case without needing to resolve the question of intent, while also understanding that intentional misconduct may carry greater culpability.
Negligent-Origin Inaction Non-Excuse After Actual Knowledge Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm and its responsible personnel to recognize that the inadvertent or negligent origin of a marketing material inaccuracy does not excuse continued inaction once actual knowledge of the inaccuracy has been obtained; the ethical character of the conduct shifts from excusable oversight to potentially improper and unethical conduct when the firm possesses actual knowledge of the error and nonetheless fails to take corrective action within a reasonable period. This obligation requires firms to treat actual knowledge as a triggering event that resets the ethical analysis, regardless of whether the original error was intentional.
Negligent-Origin Misrepresentation Actual-Knowledge Non-Excuse Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the inadvertent or negligent origin of a misrepresentation in firm marketing or promotional materials does not excuse continued inaction once the firm or responsible personnel have acquired actual knowledge of the error — prohibiting the firm from treating the absence of malicious intent as a justification for indefinite delay in correction, and establishing that continued inaction after actual knowledge independently raises questions of improper and unethical conduct regardless of how the error originally arose.
Negligent Marketing Oversight Without Corrective Action State
the firm's marketing director has been informed by the engineer in question that the firm's marketing brochure contains inaccurate information that could mislead and deceive a client or potential client
State in which a firm's promotional or marketing materials contain inaccuracies that arose through oversight rather than intentional misrepresentation, but the firm has been made aware of the inaccuracy and has failed to take expeditious corrective action within a reasonable period, converting an initially non-culpable oversight into an ethically problematic continuing omission that risks misleading clients and potential clients.
Negligent Oversight Non-Excuse for Prolonged Inaction After Actual Knowledge
Professional virtue principle establishing that while an initial inadvertent or negligent oversight in marketing or professional materials does not automatically constitute an ethical violation requiring the same culpability as intentional misrepresentation, the characterization of conduct as 'negligent oversight' ceases to be an ethical defense once the responsible party has received actual knowledge of the inaccuracy; from the moment of actual knowledge, continued inaction is no longer attributable to oversight and independently raises questions of improper and unethical conduct — the negligent-oversight defense is temporally bounded by the moment of actual notice.
Negligent vs. Intentional Government Credential Misuse Non-Exculpation Constraint
An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's use of government-branded or government-attributed materials in private consulting testimony is ethically impermissible regardless of whether the use was negligent (careless error) or intentional (deliberate effort to enhance credibility) — prohibiting the engineer from invoking negligence or inadvertence as a defense to the ethical violation arising from the conflation of government credentials with private consulting testimony, and establishing that the ethical impropriety attaches to the conduct itself rather than to the mental state with which it was performed, as established by BER Case 07-12's analysis that 'in either case it was entirely inappropriate.'
Negligent vs Intentional Misconduct Ethical Equivalence Recognition Capability
An obvious question to ask is whether Engineer A negligently or intentionally used the presentation with the U.S. DOE representation, since it could be viewed as a careless error or an intentional effort to provide greater credibility to his testimony. However, in either case it was entirely inappropriate since it appears that Engineer A was not testifying in an official capacity on behalf of the U.S. DOE
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that certain categories of professional misconduct — particularly the use of government-branded materials in private consulting testimony — are ethically impermissible regardless of whether the conduct was negligent (careless error) or intentional (deliberate credibility enhancement), and to correctly determine that the ethical violation exists in either case without needing to resolve the question of intent, while also understanding that intentional misconduct may carry greater culpability.
Negotiation Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who faces a stalled or slow-moving business negotiation — including situations where the counterparty is deliberately delaying — may not invoke the pressure of the negotiation context, the legitimate business interest in closing the transaction, or the counterparty's stalling behavior as justification for making false, misleading, or deceptive statements about the competitive landscape, including misrepresenting the interest or status of third-party potential buyers, and establishing that the duty of honesty and non-deception in professional dealings is not suspended or relaxed by the adversarial or commercially pressured nature of a negotiation, as established by NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness and non-deception in professional dealings and BER precedent on misrepresentation in business contexts.
Negotiation Competitive Urgency Fabrication Prohibition Recognition Capability
In an effort to move the negotiations forward, referring to Engineer C's earlier interest, Engineer A tells Engineer B, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer acting as a negotiator to recognize that manufacturing or implying false competitive urgency — such as invoking a third party's interest that has definitively lapsed — to pressure a counterparty into accelerating a transaction constitutes an ethical violation under professional codes prohibiting deceptive statements and misrepresentation, and to refrain from such conduct even when motivated by legitimate business goals such as closing a stalled deal.
Negotiation Counterparty Material Harm Awareness Heightened Honesty Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in professional negotiations — including firm acquisitions, contract negotiations, or partnership arrangements — to exercise heightened honesty and full disclosure when the engineer's statements or representations have the potential to cause material harm to the counterparty, recognizing that the presence of potential material harm to an interested party elevates the ethical weight of the honesty obligation and reduces the tolerance for artfully misleading or selectively framed communications that might otherwise be treated as mere negotiating tactics.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as a negotiator or representative in professional business transactions — including firm acquisitions, contract negotiations, or partnership arrangements — to disclose the full and accurate circumstances underlying any factual representation made to the counterparty, including the current status of any third-party interest, offer, or condition referenced in support of a negotiating position, so that the counterparty can make decisions based on complete and accurate information rather than on a misleading partial account.
Negotiation Material Harm Heightened Honesty Self-Activation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in professional negotiations — including firm acquisitions, contract negotiations, or business transactions — to recognize when the potential for material harm to the counterparty from misleading statements elevates the applicable standard of honesty beyond ordinary professional dealings, and to activate a heightened duty of full and accurate disclosure in response to that recognition, understanding that the presence of potential material harm to an interested party is a key factor that distinguishes impermissible artful misrepresentation from permissible negotiation conduct.
New Draft Standard Awareness Additional Testing Recommendation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has designed safety-critical software that passes existing standards but who becomes aware of new draft standards — not yet in force — that the software may not meet, to recommend to the employer that additional testing be undertaken to evaluate compliance with those emerging standards, even when such testing is costly, causes competitive delay, and creates financial pressure on the employer and clients, recognizing that the public health and safety implications of safety-critical software override business convenience considerations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes safety concerns about a product that has already completed and passed standard safety testing to recognize that the completion of standard testing — and the product's compliance with existing safety parameters — does not preclude or extinguish the obligation to report additional, unique safety concerns that the standard testing did not capture, particularly when the engineer's specialized competence identifies performance inconsistencies that raise concerns beyond the scope of the completed testing protocol.
New Facility Owner Retaining Inspection Engineer
The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
A client role borne by a new owner of a facility who, upon acquiring the property, retains a professional engineer to inspect existing building systems and evaluate the adequacy of original design work performed by a prior engineer, bearing authority to direct the scope of inspection and receive the resulting report.
New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Capability
in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency in a property to recognize that the current owner of the property — who may be unaware of the risk — should be notified of the structural concern before or in conjunction with notifying governmental officials, so that the owner has the opportunity to take protective action and is not blindsided by regulatory intervention without prior notice, consistent with the principle that the owner has the most immediate ability to take protective measures.
New Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency in a property to notify the current property owner of the perceived deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying public officials, recognizing that the owner is the party most immediately affected by the risk and most capable of taking prompt protective action, and that notifying officials without first informing the owner fails to give the owner the opportunity to act voluntarily.
New Owner Priority Notification Before Town Supervisor Escalation Obligation
it would have been more appropriate for Engineer A to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency in a property to notify the current property owner of the perceived deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying public officials — recognizing that the owner is the party most immediately affected by the risk and most capable of taking prompt protective action — and that notifying officials without first informing the owner fails to give the owner the opportunity to act voluntarily.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency in a property to notify the current property owner of the perceived deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying public officials, recognizing that the owner is the party most immediately affected by the risk and most capable of taking prompt protective action, and that notifying officials without first informing the owner fails to give the owner the opportunity to act voluntarily.
New Property Owner Priority Notification Before Official Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency in a property must notify the current property owner of the perceived deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying governmental officials — establishing that the property owner's direct interest in the safety of their own property creates a priority notification right that precedes or accompanies official escalation, and prohibiting the engineer from escalating directly to governmental authorities without first ensuring the property owner has been informed and given the opportunity to take corrective action, as established by BER Case 07-10.
[Case 132] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency in a property must notify the current property owner of the perceived deficiency before or in conjunction with notifying governmental officials — establishing that the property owner's direct interest in the safety of their own property creates a priority notification right that precedes or accompanies official escalation, and prohibiting the engineer from escalating directly to governmental authorities without first ensuring the property owner has been informed and given the opportunity to take corrective action.
Newly Released Climate Algorithm Application Competence Obligation
Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer performing coastal risk assessment to apply newly released climate data and recently developed modeling algorithms — including newly identified historic weather data — when those tools are available and material to the accuracy of the risk assessment, recognizing that reliance on outdated datasets when superior tools exist constitutes a failure of technical currency that may result in underestimation of storm surge risk and inadequate design standard recommendations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in infrastructure design to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic, evolving 'moving target' rather than as fixed historical baselines, incorporating current scientific understanding of changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and other climate-driven variables into engineering assessments of public health, safety, and welfare impacts — and to refrain from relying solely on historical climate datasets when current evidence indicates those datasets no longer accurately represent future conditions.
Newly Released Climate Algorithm Competence Currency Constraint
Competence constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer performing coastal risk assessment apply newly released climate data and recently developed storm surge modeling algorithms — including newly identified historic weather data — to the professional analysis, prohibiting reliance on outdated datasets or superseded modeling methods when current professional knowledge establishes that newly released algorithms produce materially different and more protective safety standard determinations, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to maintain professional competence currency extends to newly released technical tools that have become available since the engineer's initial training.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer practicing in a domain with known hazard sensitivity — such as severe weather structural design — to actively monitor and incorporate newly published technical literature containing improved design methods and parameters, even when that literature has not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards, prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of formal standardization as a complete justification for non-adoption when the literature is reasonably accessible and the engineer generally attempts to maintain professional currency; while simultaneously recognizing that failure to adopt pre-standardization literature does not automatically constitute an ethical violation absent evidence that the literature had achieved sufficient professional consensus to define the applicable standard of care at the time of design.
No-Alternative-Site Municipal Waste Disposal Crisis Competing Obligation Balancing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a municipal client to recognize and navigate the heightened ethical tension that arises when a community faces an imminent waste disposal crisis — with no alternative disposal site available — and the only technically feasible solution involves a higher-intensity use of an existing site that carries environmental risks, including the ability to: (1) acknowledge the genuine urgency of the waste disposal need as a legitimate public good, (2) simultaneously identify and disclose the environmental risks of the higher-intensity design, (3) verify state environmental law compliance as a non-negotiable constraint, and (4) present the competing obligations to the client in a manner that enables informed decision-making without subordinating either the faithful agent duty or the public safety paramount obligation.
No-Black-and-White-Standard Fact-Specific Safety Escalation Calibration Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer confronting a public safety situation cannot apply a single universal escalation standard to all cases — requiring instead that the engineer calibrate the scope, urgency, and form of response to the specific facts and circumstances of each situation, including the imminence of danger, the breadth of potential harm, the engineer's employment context, and the availability of responsible parties — prohibiting both mechanical application of the most aggressive escalation standard to all situations and mechanical application of the most deferential standard, as established by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review's recognition that 'there is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.'
No-Choice Defense Rejection and Ethical Alternative Identification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and reject the 'no choice' or 'had to go along' defense — the argument that participation in corrupt or unethical practices was compelled by competitive necessity, peer behavior, or the risk of losing contracts — and to correctly identify that a genuine ethical choice always exists, specifically the choice to decline participation in corrupt procedures even at the cost of lost business, and to articulate why the 'no choice' rationalization fails both ethically and professionally.
No-Code Jurisdiction Climate Risk Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer performing coastal risk assessment in a geographic area with no applicable building code to proactively disclose to the client, local government officials, and relevant stakeholders that the absence of a building code means there is no minimum enforceable standard protecting future residents from storm surge risk — and that the engineer's professional judgment establishes a safety-based design standard that exceeds any regulatory minimum — so that decision-makers are not misled into believing that proceeding without a code-mandated standard is equivalent to proceeding safely.
No-Code Jurisdiction Engineer Safety Standard Self-Imposition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer performs coastal risk assessment in a jurisdiction with no applicable building code — establishing that the absence of a regulatory floor does not relieve the engineer of the obligation to recommend and advocate for the professionally determined safety standard (here, 100-year storm surge elevation), prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of a code as implicit permission to accept a lower standard that the engineer's own technical analysis has determined to be inadequate for public safety.
No-Code Jurisdiction Proactive Safety Standard Recommendation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer performing coastal risk assessment or similar hazard evaluation in a geographic area with no applicable building code to recognize that the absence of a mandatory code does not relieve the engineer of the professional obligation to recommend appropriate safety standards, and to proactively recommend the applicable safety standard — such as a 100-year storm surge design elevation — to the client and relevant local government officials, based on professional judgment and available technical data, even when no regulatory requirement compels the recommendation.
No-Compete Agreement Absence Ethical Obligation Persistence Recognition Capability
There was no 'no-compete agreement' between Engineer A and ABC Engineering Company.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the absence of a formal no-compete agreement between the engineer and a former employer does not eliminate or diminish the ethical obligations arising from the employment relationship — including faithful agent duties, confidentiality obligations, honest representation requirements, and the prohibition on exploiting employer-proprietary information — and to correctly apply the principle that legal permissibility (absence of contractual restriction) does not establish ethical permissibility, so that the engineer's conduct is governed by professional ethics standards independently of contractual constraints.
No-Confidentiality-Agreement Conflict Persistence Recognition Capability
No confidentiality agreement exists on the project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the absence of a formal confidentiality agreement on a peer review engagement does not eliminate or diminish the conflict of interest that arises from having conducted the peer review — including understanding that the ethical conflict arises from the informational and competitive advantage gained during the review, not from any contractual confidentiality obligation, and that the absence of a confidentiality agreement may actually heighten rather than resolve the conflict by leaving the proprietary knowledge unprotected.
No-Confidentiality-Agreement Heightened Culpability Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that, unlike engineers who act under express or implied confidentiality agreements when suppressing hazardous safety information, an engineer who suppresses such information solely to preserve a business relationship — without any confidentiality obligation — bears heightened ethical culpability, and to correctly identify that the absence of a confidentiality agreement removes the only partial mitigating factor that might otherwise reduce the severity of the ethical violation.
No-Confidentiality-Agreement Peer Review Conflict Management Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who conducted an independent external peer review under no confidentiality agreement — and who is therefore not bound by contractual confidentiality restrictions — to recognize that the absence of a confidentiality agreement does not eliminate the ethical obligation to manage conflicts of interest arising from the peer review role, and to apply the same conflict disclosure and non-exploitation standards that would apply regardless of whether a confidentiality agreement was in place, because the ethical obligations derive from the nature of the independent review role rather than from contractual terms.
No-Confidentiality-Agreement Peer Review Ethical Obligation Persistence Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the absence of a formal confidentiality agreement governing a peer review engagement does not eliminate or reduce the professional engineer's ethical obligations arising from access to non-public project information — including the obligation to avoid exploiting insider knowledge for competitive advantage in subsequent procurements — prohibiting engineers from treating the absence of a signed confidentiality agreement as implicit permission to use privileged review-acquired information for personal or firm commercial benefit.
No-Confidentiality-Agreement Reduced Client Confidentiality Expectation Assessment Capability
in the present case, it is difficult for this Board to conclude that the client or the public agency could have had a genuine expectation of confidentiality, since nothing of a confidential nature was directly conveyed by the client or the public agency to Engineer A.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics reviewing bodies — to assess and correctly determine that a client's expectation of confidentiality is materially reduced or absent when: (a) no explicit confidentiality agreement was executed between the parties; (b) the safety-relevant information was discovered through the engineer's own professional inspection and observation rather than being directly conveyed in confidence by the client; and (c) the information concerns public infrastructure rather than private business affairs — thereby distinguishing the present case from precedents involving explicit confidentiality agreements and client-conveyed confidential information.
No-Confidentiality-Agreement Reduced Client Confidentiality Expectation Recognition Obligation
it is difficult for this Board to conclude that the client or the public agency could have had a genuine expectation of confidentiality, since nothing of a confidential nature was directly conveyed by the client or the public agency to Engineer A.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics reviewing bodies — to recognize that the strength of a client's legitimate expectation of confidentiality over information discovered by the engineer during professional services is materially diminished when: (a) no explicit confidentiality agreement exists between the parties, and (b) the information was not directly conveyed by the client but was instead discovered through the engineer's own professional inspection and observation; and to calibrate the engineer's disclosure obligations accordingly, recognizing that the absence of a confidentiality agreement and the observation-based (rather than client-conveyed) source of information together reduce the ethical weight of the confidentiality interest relative to the public welfare interest.
No-Confidentiality-Promise Affirmative Suppression Aggravated Culpability Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who suppresses or minimizes mandatory regulatory reporting of a hazardous condition without any confidentiality agreement or promise — acting solely to preserve a business relationship — bears greater culpability than an engineer who suppresses under an express or implied confidentiality obligation, prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of a confidentiality agreement as a neutral factor and establishing that conscious, affirmative suppression motivated purely by commercial interest is an aggravated ethical violation relative to the BER 89-7 and BER 90-5 precedents where confidentiality obligations were present.
No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Direct Safety Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — or the engineer's employer firm — who has observed potential safety issues on a third party's property with whom no contractual relationship exists, and where no other party in the engagement has taken or is positioned to take corrective action, to notify that third-party property owner directly of the observed safety risk in writing, so that the owner can take informed protective action, notwithstanding the complete absence of any contractual, professional, or prior relationship with that party.
No-Contractual-Nexus Third-Party Safety Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the complete absence of any contractual, professional, or prior relationship with a third-party property owner does not extinguish or diminish the professional duty to disclose observed safety hazards affecting that third party — distinguishing this from scope-of-work limitations (which concern contracted tasks) by focusing on the relational nexus question: whether the engineer owes a safety disclosure duty to a party with whom neither the engineer, the employer firm, nor the client has any direct relationship, and correctly determining that the paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare creates that duty regardless of the absence of any contractual nexus.
No-Current-Client-Relationship Public Safety Action Obligation
Four years later, Engineer A sells the property, including the barn, to Jones.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to take affirmative safety action — including notifying the property owner, relevant public authorities, and following up in writing — upon learning of a credible structural safety risk, even when the engineer has no current client relationship, contractual nexus, or ongoing professional engagement with the property or its owner, grounded in the paramount duty to protect public health and safety that survives the termination of any prior professional relationship.
No-Current-Client-Relationship Safety Action Recognition Capability
Engineer A's professional obligation to act on the structural safety concern was not extinguished by the absence of any current client relationship
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the absence of any current client relationship with a property owner — including when the engineer previously owned and sold the property — does not extinguish the professional obligation to take affirmative safety action when the engineer possesses unique knowledge of a structural risk, and to act on that obligation by notifying the current owner and relevant authorities despite having no contractual nexus or ongoing engagement with the property.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the complete absence of any contractual, professional, or prior relationship with a third-party property owner does not extinguish or diminish the professional duty to disclose observed safety hazards affecting that third party — distinguishing this from scope-of-work limitations (which concern contracted tasks) by focusing on the relational nexus question: whether the engineer owes a safety disclosure duty to a party with whom neither the engineer, the employer firm, nor the client has any direct relationship, and correctly determining that the paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare creates that duty regardless of the absence of any contractual nexus.
No-Explicit-Agreement Commissioned Work Product Implicit Confidentiality Constraint
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.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to maintain the confidentiality of a written report or work product commissioned by a fee-paying client persists even in the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement, prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of a formal confidentiality clause as implicit permission to distribute the commissioned work product to third parties, and establishing that the client's payment for and commissioning of the work product creates an implicit proprietary right and confidentiality expectation that is enforceable as an ethical obligation regardless of whether it is memorialized in a written agreement.
No-Finite-Answer Environmental Trade-Off State
State in which a professional engineering decision involves an irreducible, case-by-case balancing between society's legitimate need for infrastructure or services and an unavoidable level of environmental degradation, where no governing regulation, technical standard, or ethical rule provides a definitive pre-determined answer, and where professional judgment — informed by applicable guidelines but not controlled by them — is the final arbiter. This state arises when regulatory frameworks (federal, state, local) establish criteria but explicitly acknowledge that compliance is a site-specific determination, leaving engineers with both the authority and the obligation to exercise independent judgment on the appropriate balance for each project.
No-Incident No-Standard Good Faith Safety Reporting Threshold Recognition Capability
although no incidents have been reported
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the absence of reported incidents and the absence of a specific regulatory standard governing the identified safety concern do not extinguish the professional obligation to report a good-faith engineering judgment that a product poses a danger to public health and safety, and to correctly identify the threshold at which good-faith professional judgment alone is sufficient to trigger escalation obligations.
No-Incident No-Standard Safety Concern Good Faith External Reporting Threshold Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a good-faith professional judgment that a product poses a potential safety risk — even in the absence of confirmed incidents, applicable regulatory standards, or domain-specific expertise — is sufficient to trigger the obligation to report to an appropriate governmental or regulatory authority after internal escalation has failed, and that the absence of incidents or standards does not extinguish or defer the reporting obligation when the potential harm is severe and the affected population is vulnerable.
No-Personal-Relationship Reporting Duty Non-Diminishment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes a serious violation of professional conduct rules by another engineer whom the observing engineer does not know personally to recognize that the absence of a personal relationship with the alleged violator does not diminish, qualify, or excuse the reporting obligation — and that the reporting duty arises from professional responsibility to the public and the integrity of the licensure system, not from any personal relationship with or loyalty to the alleged violator.
No-Prior-Precedent Charitable Interpretation Leniency Constraint
In the absence of any previous decisions on this section of the code, however, and under the circumstances stated, we are inclined to the more charitable view that his action can be condoned as something less than an 'exaggeration' in that it more nearly might be considered a degree of emphasis.
Defeasible ethical constraint establishing that when a professional ethics reviewing body is called upon to interpret and apply a code provision for the first time — in the absence of any prior BER decisions or established precedent on that provision — the body may adopt a more charitable interpretation of the engineer's conduct, giving the benefit of the doubt where the conduct falls in a gray area between clearly prohibited and clearly permissible behavior; establishing that the absence of prior precedent is a relevant factor that may modulate the severity of the ethical finding, permitting a finding of non-violation or lesser violation where the conduct might otherwise be characterized as a violation under a stricter reading, provided the conduct does not clearly and unambiguously violate the code's protective purpose; this leniency does not apply once the ethics body has issued a definitive ruling establishing the applicable standard.
No-Relationship Third-Party Safety Escalation Channeling Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who observes a potential safety hazard on adjacent property belonging to a third party with whom neither the engineer, the employer firm, nor the client has any direct relationship must channel the safety concern through the employer firm as the appropriate intermediary — rather than acting unilaterally — before any direct notification to the third-party owner, prohibiting the engineer from bypassing the employer's coordination role when the employer is the prime consultant and the appropriate first point of escalation.
No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Non-Override Constraint
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.
Ethical constraint establishing that when no public safety, health, or welfare exception is triggered by the facts of an engineering engagement — specifically when the inspection findings reveal no imminent danger, no code violations posing risk of injury, and no hazardous conditions requiring regulatory notification — the engineer's confidentiality obligation to the client remains fully operative and undiminished, prohibiting the engineer from invoking or implying a safety rationale to justify unauthorized disclosure of client-commissioned work product to third parties, and establishing that the absence of a genuine safety trigger forecloses the safety-override pathway to disclosure.
No-Safety-Exception-Triggered Confidentiality Primacy Recognition Obligation
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Inapplicable Here — No Safety Exception Triggered
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when a commissioned inspection or investigation report does not reveal any imminent public danger, life-safety threat, or condition that would trigger the paramount public safety exception to client confidentiality under NSPE Code Section I.1., the confidentiality of the client's commissioned report remains fully intact and unqualified — and that the absence of a safety exception means the engineer has no basis for distributing the report to third parties, including adverse parties, without client consent, so that the client's proprietary right under Section II.1.c. is the controlling provision.
No-Storage Solar Transition Faithful Agent Risk Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a proposed solar energy system without battery storage cannot guarantee continuous electric supply during extreme weather events or grid rolling blackout conditions — and who has learned from utility resource planners that the transition may increase the probability of such events — to advise the organizational client in writing of these identified risks to the project's success and to the organization's energy reliability, so that the client can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the solar transition, invest in storage capacity, or maintain the existing generation capability.
No-Written-Non-Compete Post-Departure Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that in the absence of a written non-compete agreement or other contractual restriction, a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer firm is not ethically prohibited from soliciting the former employer's clients for competitive work — provided the solicitation does not involve supplanting (where a contract or active negotiation exists), disparagement of the former employer, or exploitation of specialized project-specific knowledge — and that the free and open competition framework governing engineering services permits post-departure competitive solicitation as a matter of professional right, as established by NSPE BER precedent and the principle that at-will employment symmetry includes competitive mobility.
State in which a proposed construction project is located in a geographic area that has no applicable building code in force, such that there are no minimum regulatory standards governing design parameters — including storm surge elevation, structural loads, or climate resilience requirements — leaving the engineer without a regulatory floor to reference and placing the full burden of safety determination on professional judgment and ethical obligation rather than code compliance.
No Ethical Course of Action Available in Incompetent Fixed Role State
we do not see any way in which Engineer A could be in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts because whatever course of action he took would result in unethical conduct
State in which a licensed professional has accepted or is considering a fixed public employment role that requires domain-specific competence the professional entirely lacks, and in which the structural characteristics of the role — fixed statutory duties, absence of subcontracting authority, inability to restructure the workforce, and the nature of the oversight function itself — foreclose every available competence-remediation pathway, such that no course of action the professional could take would be consistent with the applicable ethics code. The professional cannot perform the role competently, cannot delegate the core duties, cannot supplement their competence through hiring, and cannot reframe the role as purely administrative without violating the substantive oversight obligations the role entails. This state represents the convergence of domain incompetence, structural inflexibility, and role-essential judgment requirements into a condition of inescapable ethical impermissibility.
No Formal Revolving Door Prohibition State
The facts of the case specifically note Engineer A's employment contract with the City did not include a revolving door prohibition such as Engineer P faced in Case 15-8. Thus, on the face of the matter, it would seem there is no legal barrier to Engineer A accepting employment with Firm AE&R
State in which a professional engineer who has left public employment to join a private firm does so without any contractual or statutory revolving-door prohibition in their prior employment agreement, such that no formal legal barrier to the transition exists, but ethical obligations under the spirit of professional codes continue to apply and must be independently evaluated.
No Formal Revolving Door Provision Gap Constraint
Of significance is that the City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
Ethical constraint arising when a public agency's employment contracts for senior officials lack explicit revolving door provisions, establishing that the absence of contractual restrictions does not relieve the engineer of the independent ethical obligations arising from the NSPE Code of Ethics — including conflict of interest avoidance, faithful agency, and honorable conduct — and prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of formal restrictions as implicit permission to exploit prior public authority for private gain.
No Specialized Knowledge Employment Restriction State
it does not appear that Engineer C has obtained any particular specialized knowledge as an employee of Firm X that would restrict her ability to go to work for Firm Y and eventually compete against Firm X
State in which a departing engineer has not acquired particular or specialized knowledge during their employment with a firm that would ethically restrict their ability to compete against that former employer or work on similar projects for a competitor — distinguishing this engineer from cases where specialized project knowledge creates a consent or restriction obligation. The absence of this restriction enables full competitive freedom in the post-employment context.
no formal written agreement between Engineer C and Firm X would address the issue of whether and under what terms Engineer C could compete with Firm X after departing from Firm X
State in which no formal written agreement exists between a departing engineer and their former employer that would restrict the engineer's post-employment competitive activities — including solicitation of clients, employment of former colleagues, or establishment of a competing practice. The absence of such a written instrument means that the engineer's post-employment conduct is evaluated solely against general ethical obligations rather than contractual restrictions, and the employer cannot invoke contractual enforcement mechanisms.
Nominal Capability Misrepresentation Prohibition in Procurement Responses
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineering firms responding to public solicitations for specialized services must not represent themselves as capable of providing substantial contributions to a project when, in actuality, their intended role is nominal or brokerage-only in nature — particularly when the firm's substantive capability rests entirely on a named sub-consultant whose expertise constitutes the entire technical substance of the engagement. Affirming capability while intending only to pass work to a specialist misrepresents the firm's genuine contribution and misleads the procuring agency.
Nominal Prime Broker Interposition Prohibition Constraint
Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise and that they would themselves furnish all other services involved.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineering firm from interposing itself as a prime contractor in a government procurement when its actual contribution would be nominal — consisting solely of administrative or brokerage functions — while the substantive technical work would be performed entirely by a specialist sub-consultant, establishing that such interposition misrepresents the firm's capability, undermines the integrity of qualification-based selection, and deprives the government agency of the ability to engage the most qualified firm directly; derived from NSPE Code provisions on honest qualification representation, honorable competitive conduct, and the prime professional responsibility standard.
Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm responding to a government solicitation for highly specialized services to refrain from representing itself as a capable prime contractor when, in actuality, the firm's own contribution to the work would be nominal — limited to brokerage or administrative coordination — while all substantive technical work would be performed by a single sub-consultant. This obligation prohibits the firm from creating a false impression of substantive team capability by listing a specialist sub-consultant as if the firm itself would furnish meaningful complementary services, when those 'other services' are nominal in nature. The obligation integrates the honesty-in-solicitation principle with the competence principle: a firm that cannot independently perform a material portion of the solicited work must not represent that it can.
Nominal Prime Contractor Engineering Firm
A licensed professional engineering firm role in which a firm responds to a public solicitation for highly specialized services by arranging for a recognized external specialist to provide the core technical expertise while the firm itself contributes only nominal or peripheral services, thereby misrepresenting the substantive nature of its own contribution and using the specialist's credentials to secure a contract it could not independently fulfill. Bears obligations of honest representation of qualifications, competence, and the actual distribution of work.
Nominal Prime Contribution Self-Assessment and Broker-Role Transparency Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm responding to a government solicitation to honestly assess whether its own planned contribution to the work is substantive or merely nominal (brokerage/administrative), and — upon recognizing that its contribution would be nominal — to transparently disclose that fact to the soliciting agency rather than representing itself as a capable prime contractor, including the ability to recommend that the agency engage the specialist directly when the specialist's firm can perform all required work without the interposing firm.
Nominal Prime Contribution Substantiality Threshold Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing a minimum substantiality threshold for a licensed professional engineering firm's contribution when serving as prime contractor in a government procurement — prohibiting a firm from accepting or retaining a prime role when its actual technical contribution would be nominal, administrative, or brokerage-only in nature, and establishing that the prime professional responsibility standard requires the prime firm to perform a genuine, substantive portion of the technical work commensurate with the prime role, not merely to coordinate or administer the work of a specialist sub-consultant who performs all substantive technical services.
Nominal Prime Interposition Public Procurement Harm Recognition Capability
In actuality, these other services would be nominal in nature.
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm to recognize that interposing itself as a nominal prime contractor between a government agency and a specialist who can perform all required work independently causes concrete harm to the public procurement process — including increased cost to the public, reduced direct accountability, diluted quality oversight, and subversion of the agency's ability to engage the most qualified firm directly — and to use this recognition to refrain from such interposition even when it would be financially advantageous to the firm.
Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement Misrepresenting Prime Capability State
State in which a firm responding to a government solicitation represents that it can provide required services by arranging for a recognized expert to serve as a subconsultant, while the firm's own contribution would be nominal or token in nature — creating a misrepresentation of the firm's substantive capability to the procuring authority and raising questions about whether the arrangement constitutes a fraudulent qualification submission.
Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the faithful agent and trustee obligation owed to a client or employer does not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity — specifically, that an engineer may, in subsequent unrelated engagements, take positions or provide services adverse to the interests of a former client without violating the NSPE Code, provided the new engagement does not involve confidential information gained from the former client, does not involve the same specific project or proceeding, and does not otherwise trigger the consent-prerequisite rule — preserving the engineer's professional autonomy and independence while maintaining appropriate boundaries.
Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing in a matter not involving any aspect of the earlier patent litigation.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional loyalty obligations to a former client are not absolute and do not create a perpetual bar to adverse engagement — including the ability to correctly identify that former client loyalty is bounded by subject-matter relatedness (loyalty obligations are strongest when the new matter involves the same or substantially related subject matter as the prior engagement), to distinguish between loyalty obligations that persist (confidentiality of information obtained during prior service) and those that do not (categorical prohibition on ever serving adverse parties), and to apply this bounded loyalty framework when evaluating the permissibility of accepting engagements adverse to former clients in unrelated matters.
Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Perpetuity Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's faithful agent and trustee obligation to a former client does not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity — prohibiting the misapplication of the faithful agent standard as a basis for claiming that an engineer can never take a position adverse to a former client's interests in any matter, while simultaneously preserving the engineer's obligation to refrain from adverse participation in matters directly related to prior specialized knowledge gained on behalf of that client, as established by NSPE Code Section II.4 and BER Case No. 98-4.
Non-Accredited Credential Nature Disclosure Constraint
In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization which awarded degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and was regarded by state authorities as a 'diploma mill.' The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from listing any academic credential, degree, or certification awarded by an institution or organization that does not meet recognized accreditation standards — including degrees awarded by correspondence without attendance or study, diploma mills, or analogous non-accredited sources — in resumes, brochures, correspondence, or professional self-presentations without affirmatively disclosing the nature and source of the credential in a manner that prevents a prospective employer, client, or public from being misled about its academic or professional standing, establishing that the omission of the credential's non-accredited nature constitutes a misleading, deceptive, or false statement regarding professional qualifications under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, as applied in BER Case No. 79-5 to an engineer who listed a diploma-mill PhD among academic qualifications without indicating its nature.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from acquiescing to client directives that would result in the omission of safety-relevant technical analysis — including specialized hydrologic, hydraulic, or structural analysis — when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material risks to public safety or third-party welfare, even when the client's rationale is cost management and the regulatory minimum does not require the analysis
[Case 87] Professional principle prohibiting engineers from acquiescing to client directives that would result in the omission of safety-relevant technical analysis or the adoption of inadequate design standards, when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that such analysis or standards are necessary to identify and characterize material risks to public safety or third-party welfare, even when the client's rationale is cost management and the regulatory minimum does not require the analysis
[Case 88] Professional principle prohibiting engineers from acquiescing to client directives that would result in the omission of safety-relevant technical analysis — including specialized hydrologic, hydraulic, or structural analysis — when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material risks to public safety or third-party welfare, even when the client's rationale is cost management and the regulatory minimum does not require the analysis.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project'
Constraint prohibiting an engineer from continuing work on a project when a client's refusal to fund required safety measures — driven by economic concerns — would cause the engineer to abandon the primary ethical duty to public safety, as established by BER Case 84-5 precedent.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.' The BER, in discussing BER Case 84-5, felt that 'Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns. For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Code section II.1.a.'
Duty of an engineer to refuse to continue work on a project when a client insists on proceeding without adequate safety measures that the engineer has identified as necessary, and to not subordinate public safety obligations to client economic concerns.
Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection
Professional principle establishing that when an engineer has identified safety concerns that in the engineer's professional judgment warrant additional testing, and the employer rejects that recommendation on cost or schedule grounds, the engineer's professional obligation is not discharged by the rejection — the engineer must consider further escalation options, including resignation if the employer's refusal creates an unacceptable public safety risk, and must not treat the employer's business decision as a professional endorsement of the safety adequacy of the product
[Case 150] Professional principle establishing that when an engineer has identified safety concerns that in the engineer's professional judgment warrant corrective action, and the employer fails to act on cost or schedule grounds, the engineer's professional obligation is not discharged by the employer's inaction — the engineer must consider further escalation options, including external reporting, and must not treat the employer's business decision as a professional endorsement of the safety adequacy of the product.
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work on the project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
Professional principle requiring engineers to refuse to continue work on a project when a client insists on proceeding without adequate safety measures that the engineer has identified as necessary, prohibiting the engineer from subordinating public safety obligations to client economic concerns or preferences
[Case 140] Professional principle requiring engineers to refuse to continue work on a project when a client or employer insists on proceeding without adequate safety measures that the engineer has identified as necessary, prohibiting the engineer from subordinating public safety obligations to client economic concerns or preferences
Non-Aiding Unlawful Engineering Practice Obligation
Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of potential unlawful engineering practices — including procurement law violations or unlicensed practice — to refrain from aiding, abetting, or facilitating the continuation of those unlawful practices, and to take affirmative steps consistent with professional ethics to address them.
Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Boundary Maintenance Capability
Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A 'shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…'
Capability to recognize the precise boundary between permissible professional collaboration and impermissible aiding or abetting of unlawful engineering practice — including understanding that revising signed and sealed documents at the direction of an unlicensed reviewer constitutes aiding unlawful practice under NSPE Code II.1.e — and to maintain that boundary in practice by refusing to take actions that would constitute such aiding, even under institutional or client pressure.
Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from taking any action — including revising sealed documents, implementing review directives, or continuing professional association — that aids, abets, or facilitates the unlawful practice of engineering by an unlicensed individual, arising from NSPE Code Section II.1.e and state engineering practice acts, and establishing that the licensed engineer's obligation to refuse facilitation of unlicensed practice is non-negotiable regardless of institutional hierarchy, client direction, or employment pressure.
Non-Association with Corrupt Procurement Enterprise Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a procurement system or business venture operates through covert corrupt payments — including gift-conditioned contract awards — and to refrain from associating the engineer's firm in that enterprise, including the ability to assess when participation in a procurement process that is structurally dependent on corrupt payments constitutes association with a fraudulent enterprise, and to decline participation even when the underlying engineering work would be legitimate.
Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Constraint
Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from permitting the use of their name or continuing association in business ventures with any person or firm that the engineer believes is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise, arising from NSPE Code Section II.1.d, and requiring the engineer to actively evaluate whether continued project association constitutes implicit endorsement of fraudulent conduct by a subconsultant or partner firm.
Non-Association with Fraudulent Enterprise Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from permitting the use of their name or associating in business ventures with any person or firm that the engineer believes is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise, including refusing to continue professional association when a subcontractor or partner has produced materially false or misleading reports.
Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure Constraint
No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice—allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint or allegation — which has not yet been adjudicated — is not automatically compelled to disclose that complaint to current clients or prospective employers, because a complaint is a mere allegation that does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law, and because no engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations that could be false, baseless, or maliciously motivated — while requiring that the engineer weigh all relevant factors and, depending on the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action that may include providing appropriate background information, as established by BER Case 97-11.
Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, upon departing from an employer firm, makes an explicit representation to that firm that the engineer will not compete with it — including by limiting the new venture to a one-person practice or otherwise characterizing the scope of future activity — to honor that representation in good faith and to refrain from immediately engaging in direct competitive solicitation of the former employer's clients, recognizing that a deliberate or near-immediate breach of such a representation constitutes a violation of the engineer's duty of honesty and integrity in professional dealings.
Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Self-Monitoring Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has made an explicit representation to a former employer about the scope or nature of a future competing practice — such as a promise to operate only as a one-person firm and not to compete — to continuously monitor their own subsequent conduct against that representation, recognize when planned or actual actions contradict the representation, and either honor the representation or proactively disclose the change before acting contrary to it.
Non-Competition Representation Integrity Obligation
Professional honesty principle establishing that when an engineer makes an explicit representation to a former employer that they will not compete — such as by stating they are starting a one-person firm and will not be in competition — that representation creates an ethical obligation of fidelity to the stated intent; departing from the represented course of conduct through direct competitive solicitation of the former employer's clients and staff constitutes a violation of professional honesty norms, regardless of whether the representation was legally binding
Non-Competitor No-Personal-Relationship Reporting Duty Non-Diminishment Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to report a peer's serious violation of state board rules of professional conduct is not diminished, excused, or qualified by the absence of a personal relationship with the reported engineer or by the absence of competitive motivation — prohibiting the engineer from treating unfamiliarity with the reported engineer as a basis for non-reporting, and establishing that the reporting obligation arises from professional duty to the self-regulating profession and the public rather than from personal knowledge of or competitive interest in the reported engineer.
Non-Competitor Peer Conduct Reporting Obligation State
State in which a licensed professional engineer observes what they believe to be a serious violation of the state licensing board's rules of professional conduct by another engineer with whom they have no competitive relationship and no personal acquaintance, creating a condition in which the reporting obligation is evaluated free from competitive motivation concerns or personal loyalty considerations — the absence of both competitive and personal ties removes the two most common rationalizations for non-reporting, leaving the professional obligation to report misconduct to the licensing board as the primary ethical imperative.
Client W noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations
State in which engineering design documents generated with AI-assisted tools have been identified as containing errors, misaligned dimensions, or omissions of safety features required by applicable regulations, and the client has formally raised concerns and directed revision to meet professional and regulatory standards.
[engineering-ethics] Problematic state requiring immediate corrective action
Non-Contractual Safety Observation Scope Boundary Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, ethics reviewing bodies, and the engineering profession to recognize that the scope of an engineer's mandatory public safety obligation is bounded by the professional engagement context — specifically, that the paramount duty to protect public health and safety does not automatically extend to every incidental safety observation made outside the contracted scope of work, and that the key factual distinction between cases generating mandatory safety obligations and cases generating only discretionary responses is whether the unsafe condition is within the professional scope of responsibility of the engineer.
Non-Contractual Third-Party Safety Observation Duty
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that an engineer's professional obligation to address observed safety hazards extends beyond the boundaries of contractual relationships, such that when an engineer incidentally observes a potential safety risk affecting a third party with whom neither the engineer, the employer, nor the client has any contractual relationship, the engineer retains an affirmative duty grounded in public welfare to take reasonable steps to alert appropriate parties — including the employer, client, or the third party directly — regardless of the absence of any formal engagement with the affected property or owner.
Non-Degreed Licensed Personnel Title Eligibility State
State in which personnel who lack a formal engineering degree have nonetheless satisfied state licensing requirements, thereby acquiring legal standing to use the title 'engineer' regardless of their academic credentials. This state distinguishes between degree-based and licensure-based pathways to title eligibility, activating obligations to accurately represent the basis of title use and to recognize that licensure — not degree alone — is the legally operative qualification standard.
Non-Degreed Licensed Personnel Title Entitlement Exception Application Capability
Capability to correctly identify and apply the exception under state licensing act provisions whereby non-degreed personnel who have satisfied state licensure requirements — including passing the relevant examinations — are entitled to use the title 'Engineer' regardless of their formal academic credentials, and to distinguish this legitimate exception from the impermissible use of engineering titles by non-degreed, non-licensed personnel.
Non-Degreed Licensure-Qualified Personnel Title Eligibility Exception Constraint
Regulatory constraint establishing a limited exception to the general prohibition on non-degreed personnel using the title 'engineer' — providing that individuals who lack a formal engineering degree but have nonetheless satisfied state licensing requirements are entitled to use the title 'engineer,' and that this exception is grounded in the state's own determination of qualification sufficiency rather than in industry custom or employer discretion — constraining firms and licensed engineers to recognize this exception as the sole legitimate basis for non-degreed personnel to carry engineering titles.
Non-Disclosing Client-Solicited Departing Staff Engineer
Engineer A still declined an apparent offer of work by Clover City, decided not to compete directly with his former employer, ABC, and waited for a period of over a year before deciding to go into competition with his former employer
A licensed professional engineer employed (as staff, not partner or principal) by a firm who is approached by the firm's major client expressing interest in independent services, who departs without formally disclosing the client's interest to the employer, voluntarily refrains from competing for a self-imposed period, and only later solicits the former client's business, bearing obligations of honest dealing, avoidance of misuse of specialized knowledge, and fair competition with the former employer.
Non-Disclosing Client-Solicited Departure Contextual Permissibility Principle
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who departs from an employer to establish independent practice in response to client interest, without disclosing that client interest to the employer prior to departure, does not necessarily commit an ethical violation — provided that: (1) the engineer's decision to depart is independently motivated by factors beyond the client relationship; (2) the engineer did not actively solicit the client's interest; (3) no formal agreement or guarantee existed between the engineer and the client at the time of departure; and (4) the engineer conducted the transition in a manner otherwise consistent with professional obligations — distinguishing cases where disclosure was made but consent not sought from cases where disclosure was entirely absent
Non-Discrimination and Equal Dignity in Professional Engineering Relations
Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers to treat all persons — including colleagues, employees, clients, and members of the public — with dignity, respect, and fairness, and without discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics including disability, thereby extending the general professional dignity norm into an affirmative anti-discrimination obligation grounded in NSPE Code Section III.1.f
Non-Discrimination in Design Impact Obligation
Under Code section III.1.f, professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to treat all persons and communities with dignity, respect, and fairness in the design of public infrastructure, including the duty to identify and disclose when a proposed design alternative would impose disproportionate burdens or risks on particular communities — particularly underserved or vulnerable communities — and to actively seek design modifications that reduce or eliminate such disparate impacts.
Non-Endangered Threatened Species Environmental Risk Disclosure Obligation
The bird species was not an 'endangered species,' but it was considered a 'threatened species' by federal and state environmental regulators.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing environmental analysis for a development project to recognize that the professional obligation to disclose environmental risks to public authorities extends to species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators — not only to species classified as 'endangered' — and to include credible professional assessments of threatened species risk in reports submitted to public authorities, without limiting disclosure to only the most severe classification of environmental harm.
Non-Endangered Threatened Species Regulatory Classification Knowledge Capability
The bird species in not an 'endangered species,' but it is considered a 'threatened species' by federal and state environmental regulators
Capability of a licensed professional engineer conducting environmental assessments to correctly understand and apply the regulatory distinction between 'endangered species' and 'threatened species' classifications under federal and state environmental law — recognizing that 'threatened' species carry independent regulatory significance and trigger professional reporting obligations even when not classified as 'endangered,' and that the absence of 'endangered' status does not diminish the professional duty to disclose threatened species findings in written reports submitted to public authorities.
Non-Endangered Threatened Species Written Report Completeness Obligation
The bird species is not an 'endangered species,' but it is considered a 'threatened species' by federal and state environmental regulators
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing a written environmental report for submission to a public regulatory authority to recognize that the professional obligation to include material environmental risk findings extends to species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state regulators — not only to species classified as 'endangered' — and to refrain from omitting threatened species risk findings on the basis that the species does not meet the higher 'endangered' classification threshold, when those findings were reported by a qualified firm specialist and are material to the public authority's decision.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing environmental analysis for a development project to recognize that the professional obligation to disclose environmental risks to public authorities extends to species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators — not only to species classified as 'endangered' — and to include credible professional assessments of threatened species risk in reports submitted to public authorities, without limiting disclosure to only the most severe classification of environmental harm.
Non-Engineer Administrative Authority Engineering Communication Channeling Non-Compliance Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from complying with a non-engineer administrative superior's directive to channel all engineering safety communications exclusively through that superior — when the effect of such channeling is to suppress mandatory regulatory reporting or prevent escalation of imminent public safety hazards to proper authorities — establishing that administrative communication protocols cannot override the engineer's statutory and ethical reporting obligations.
Non-Engineer Authority Directed Reopening of Engineer-Closed Infrastructure State
A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
State in which a non-engineer authority (e.g., public works director) unilaterally directs the reopening of infrastructure that was closed on engineering safety grounds, substituting a non-engineer evaluation for the professional engineering judgment that justified closure.
[Case 137] State in which a non-engineer authority (public works director, elected body, or other non-licensed official) has directed or authorized the reopening of infrastructure that was closed on engineering safety grounds, substituting non-engineering judgment for professional engineering assessment.
Non-Engineer Authority Directing Engineering Safety Decision State
A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
State in which a non-engineer official (such as a public works director or administrator) exercises decision-making authority over a structural or safety matter that falls within the professional domain of licensed engineers — directing a course of action (e.g., installing crutch piles and reopening a condemned bridge) without engineering credentials or licensure — thereby creating tension between administrative authority and professional engineering judgment, and triggering obligations for the responsible engineer to escalate concerns through appropriate channels.
Non-Engineer Authority Directing Post-Closure Reopening State
A nonengineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit.
State in which a non-engineer official (such as a public works director) directs a structural reopening or modification of a previously closed or condemned structure by commissioning an evaluation from an unlicensed individual (such as a retired bridge inspector) and authorizing a remedial measure (such as crutch piles) without engineering licensure or credentials — thereby bypassing the professional engineering judgment that led to the original closure and creating compounded public safety risk through both unlicensed practice and unauthorized reopening.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a non-engineer official (such as a public works director or administrator) exercises decision-making authority over a structural or safety matter that falls within the professional domain of licensed engineers — directing a course of action (e.g., installing crutch piles and reopening a condemned bridge) without engineering credentials or licensure — thereby creating tension between administrative authority and professional engineering judgment, and triggering obligations for the responsible engineer to escalate concerns through appropriate channels.
Non-Engineer Authority Engineering Integrity Circumvention Resistance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer whose engineering authority over a safety-critical matter has been circumvented and overruled by a non-engineer administrator or supervisor to recognize this circumvention as an ethically impermissible abrogation of engineering authority, to resist the circumvention by maintaining the professional safety determination, and to report the occurrence to proper authorities — including state regulatory bodies — as an independent ethical obligation separate from and in addition to the underlying safety reporting obligation.
Non-Engineer Authority Safety Override Resistance Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency from acquiescing to a non-engineer official's override of a professionally grounded safety determination — including bridge closures, load restrictions, or structural safety assessments — requiring instead that the engineer resist the override by escalating to supervisors, regulatory authorities, and other officials with jurisdiction, and establishing that the non-engineer's institutional authority does not supersede the engineer's professional safety obligation, as established by BER Case 00-5 and the principle that engineers must not bow to employment situations when great dangers are present.
Non-Engineer Firm Management Boundary Capability
Engineer B's wife took over management of the business
Capability to recognize the professional and legal boundaries that constrain a non-licensed, non-engineer individual who assumes operational management of a licensed professional engineering firm — including understanding that a non-engineer manager may not authorize, direct, or enable the performance of engineering services that require licensed professional oversight, and that enabling a firm to continue operating engineering practice without adequate licensed supervision constitutes facilitation of unlicensed practice regardless of the manager's good intentions or financial necessity.
Non-Engineer Firm Management Prohibition
Engineer B's wife who assumed management of Engineer B's structural engineering firm following his stroke, enabling the continuation of engineering services
Domain-specific principle prohibiting non-licensed, non-engineer individuals from assuming operational management or control of licensed professional engineering firms in ways that enable or facilitate the continuation of engineering practice under conditions the licensed engineer of record cannot genuinely supervise — recognizing that firm management by non-engineers, when it substitutes for or enables the circumvention of licensed engineering oversight, undermines the public protection rationale of engineering licensure
A non-licensed, non-engineer individual who assumes operational management of a licensed professional engineering firm following the incapacitation of the licensed engineer-owner, bearing no engineering licensure but exercising business management authority over a firm whose work product requires licensed engineering oversight, creating conditions under which engineering work may proceed without adequate professional supervision.
Non-Engineer Firm Principal Engineering Report Control Prohibition Obligation
Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports to indicate that the residential property damage was not hurricane-related but due to a pre-existing structural condition.
Duty of engineering firms and licensed professional engineers to ensure that non-licensed, non-engineer principals or supervisors within an engineering firm do not exercise operational control over signed and sealed engineering reports — including directing alterations to findings, transmitting altered reports to clients, or substituting commercially motivated conclusions for the engineer's technically grounded findings — recognizing that such control constitutes both unlicensed engineering practice and a fundamental violation of the integrity of the professional seal.
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision-Maker Authority Boundary Challenge Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has unilaterally made substantive structural engineering decisions — such as directing remediation of a condemned bridge and authorizing its reopening — to formally challenge that official's authority to make such decisions, document the challenge in writing, and escalate to appropriate supervisory and regulatory authorities, on the grounds that engineering safety determinations for public infrastructure must be made by or under the responsible charge of a licensed professional engineer.
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision-Maker Authority Boundary Formal Challenge Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to formally challenge — through written documentation, supervisory escalation, and governing authority notification — a non-engineer official's assertion of authority to make substantive structural engineering decisions about safety-critical public infrastructure, including the authority to direct unlicensed personnel to assess condemned structures and to authorize reopening of restricted infrastructure without licensed engineering review.
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Maker
A non-licensed public works or administrative official who makes substantive engineering determinations — such as directing structural remediation methods for compromised infrastructure — without holding a professional engineering license, thereby engaging in or directing unlicensed engineering practice and creating public safety risks that trigger reporting obligations for licensed engineers in the vicinity.
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Override Recognition and Resistance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize when a non-engineer official — such as a public works director — has unilaterally overridden a professional engineering safety determination by directing non-engineering personnel to assess infrastructure and authorizing reopening of safety-restricted infrastructure, and to resist that override by escalating to supervisors, regulatory authorities, and other officials with authority to enforce professional engineering standards, rather than acquiescing to the non-engineer's decision.
Non-Engineer Infrastructure Decision Override Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations establishing the limits of authority that non-licensed public works officials may exercise over engineering safety determinations, including the prohibition on non-engineers unilaterally overriding a licensed engineer's structural closure decision or authorizing reopening of condemned infrastructure without licensed engineering review.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical obligations establishing the limits of authority that non-licensed supervisors or principals of engineering firms may exercise over the professional engineering judgments of licensed engineers, including the prohibition on directing licensed engineers to alter technical findings without factual or technical basis, and the prohibition on non-engineers unilaterally modifying sealed engineering documents.
Non-Engineer Legislative Body Safety Override Recognition and Response Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a non-engineer legislative body — such as a city council — has voted to proceed with an action that violates established engineering standards and state law requirements despite professional and legal objections, and to correctly identify the professional obligations triggered by that legislative override, including the obligation to escalate beyond the legislative body to state regulatory authorities, professional organizations, and other parties with jurisdiction.
Non-Engineer Manager Safety Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A brings the issue and his proposed solution to the attention of the appropriate manager, who is not an engineer
Capability of a non-engineer manager in a manufacturing organization to recognize the limits of non-engineering authority over safety-critical engineering determinations — specifically, the recognition that a manager without engineering licensure or expertise cannot substitute managerial judgment for professional engineering safety findings, and that the appropriate response to an engineer's safety concern is to facilitate corrective action rather than to delay or dismiss the concern.
Non-Engineer Manager Safety Decision Finality Prohibition Constraint
the manager indicates that the matter is still being looked into by a design team
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from treating a non-engineer manager's unilateral decision to delay, defer, or continue investigating a safety-critical engineering concern as a final or authoritative resolution of that concern — establishing that non-engineer managerial authority does not supersede the engineer's professional safety obligation, and that the engineer must continue escalating until a qualified engineering determination is made or corrective action is taken.
Non-Engineer Manager Safety Inaction State
State in which a licensed professional engineer has formally escalated a safety concern to a non-engineer managerial authority within the organization, and that authority has failed to take corrective action within a reasonable timeframe, leaving the safety risk unresolved and expanding in scope as additional defective products enter the market.
Non-Engineer Manufacturing Safety Decision Authority
A non-licensed, non-engineer manager within a product manufacturing company who receives safety-critical engineering findings from a professional engineer employee, bears authority over the decision to halt production and implement corrective measures, and fails or delays to act on those findings — creating a conflict between organizational commercial interests and the engineer's paramount public safety obligations.
Non-Engineer Principal Engineering Authority Boundary Recognition Capability
Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes to some of the reports
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a firm whose principals include non-licensed, non-engineer individuals to recognize the precise boundary of engineering authority held by those non-engineer principals — specifically, that non-engineer principals may not direct alterations to signed and sealed engineering reports, may not exercise operational control over the technical conclusions of licensed engineers, and may not transmit altered sealed documents as if they represented the engineer's professional findings — and to act on that recognition by refusing directives that cross this boundary and reporting violations to appropriate authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize the professional and legal boundaries that constrain a non-licensed, non-engineer individual who assumes operational management of a licensed professional engineering firm — including understanding that a non-engineer manager may not authorize, direct, or enable the performance of engineering services that require licensed professional oversight, and that enabling a firm to continue operating engineering practice without adequate licensed supervision constitutes facilitation of unlicensed practice regardless of the manager's good intentions or financial necessity.
Non-Engineer Principal Report Falsification Direction State
State in which a principal or supervisor of an engineering firm who does not hold a professional engineering license explicitly directs a licensed engineer to alter the technical conclusions of a sealed professional report to favor the client's financial interest — without any factual or technical basis for the requested change — and, upon the engineer's refusal, takes unilateral action to submit the reports in an altered form, thereby engaging in the unauthorized practice of engineering and suborning professional fraud.
Non-Engineer Principal Sealed Report Alteration Prohibition Constraint
Absolute ethical, legal, and regulatory constraint prohibiting a non-licensed, non-engineer principal or supervisor of an engineering firm from altering, modifying, or causing to be altered the signed and sealed professional reports of a licensed professional engineer — without factual or technical basis and without the engineer's authorization — establishing that such alteration constitutes the unlawful practice of engineering, falsification of professional documents, and a fundamental violation of the integrity of the engineering licensure system, and prohibiting the firm from transmitting altered sealed reports to clients as if they represented the engineer's actual professional findings.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from taking any action — including revising sealed documents, implementing review directives, or continuing professional association — that aids, abets, or facilitates the unlawful practice of engineering by an unlicensed individual, arising from NSPE Code Section II.1.e and state engineering practice acts, and establishing that the licensed engineer's obligation to refuse facilitation of unlicensed practice is non-negotiable regardless of institutional hierarchy, client direction, or employment pressure.
Non-Engineer Public Infrastructure Client
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods
A public agency client role held by a non-licensed administrative official who retains or solicits engineering advisory services for public infrastructure procurement decisions, bearing authority over project delivery method selection and subject to reliance on engineer expertise, establishing heightened engineer obligations of completeness, objectivity, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Non-Engineer Public Works Director Directing Bridge Remediation
A non-licensed public works director who, without holding a professional engineering license, makes substantive structural engineering decisions — specifically directing the installation of crutch piles and authorizing reopening of a condemned bridge — thereby engaging in unlicensed engineering practice and creating public safety risks that trigger reporting and escalation obligations for licensed engineers who observe the conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A non-licensed public works or administrative official who makes substantive engineering determinations — such as directing structural remediation methods for compromised infrastructure — without holding a professional engineering license, thereby engaging in or directing unlicensed engineering practice and creating public safety risks that trigger reporting obligations for licensed engineers in the vicinity.
Non-Engineer Public Works Director Structural Engineering Decision Challenge Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer public works director has unilaterally made substantive structural engineering decisions — including directing an unlicensed retired inspector to assess a condemned bridge and authorizing installation of crutch piles and reopening without licensed engineering verification — to formally challenge that official's authority to make such decisions, document the challenge in writing, and escalate to appropriate supervisory and regulatory authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has unilaterally made substantive structural engineering decisions — such as directing remediation of a condemned bridge and authorizing its reopening — to formally challenge that official's authority to make such decisions, document the challenge in writing, and escalate to appropriate supervisory and regulatory authorities, on the grounds that engineering safety determinations for public infrastructure must be made by or under the responsible charge of a licensed professional engineer.
Non-Engineer Safety Decision Authority Limitation Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that non-licensed, non-engineer managers within product manufacturing companies lack the professional authority to make final determinations on safety-critical engineering matters, and that their failure to act on engineer-identified safety concerns does not discharge the engineer's professional obligation — requiring engineers to escalate beyond non-engineer management when safety concerns are not addressed.
[Case 137] Domain-specific principle establishing that non-licensed, non-engineer managers lack the professional authority to make final determinations on safety-critical engineering matters, and that their decisions to override or bypass licensed engineering judgment do not discharge the engineer's professional obligation — requiring engineers to escalate beyond non-engineer management when safety concerns are not addressed.
[Case 137] Domain-specific principle establishing that non-licensed, non-engineer managers or public officials lack the professional authority to make final determinations on safety-critical engineering matters, and that their unilateral decisions to reopen condemned infrastructure do not discharge the engineer's continuing professional obligation to escalate and resist.
Non-Engineer Safety Override Resistance and Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize when a non-engineer supervisor or manager has unilaterally overridden a safety-based engineering determination — such as a bridge closure — without engineering authority or licensure, and to resist that override by immediately escalating to supervisors, governing authorities, and regulatory bodies rather than acquiescing to the non-engineer's decision, on the basis that engineering safety determinations require engineering authority and cannot be superseded by administrative fiat.
Non-Engineer Safety Override Resistance and Escalation Obligation
A non-engineer public works director decided to have a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge, and a decision was made to install two crutch piles under the bridge and to open it with a five-ton limit. No follow-up inspection was undertaken.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has overridden a professional engineering safety determination — such as a bridge closure — by directing an unlicensed individual to perform an engineering assessment and implementing an inadequate remediation without follow-up inspection, to resist that override by immediately escalating to supervisors and then to external authorities including state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities, rather than acquiescing to the non-engineer's decision.
Non-Engineer Safety Override Resistance with Full-Bore Multi-Authority Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has overridden a professional engineering safety determination — by directing an unlicensed individual to perform an engineering assessment and implementing an inadequate remediation without follow-up inspection — to resist that override by immediately escalating to supervisors and then to a full range of external authorities including state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, state officials, and other appropriate authorities.
Non-Engineer Supervisor Authority Limitation Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations establishing the limits of authority that non-licensed supervisors or principals of engineering firms may exercise over the professional engineering judgments of licensed engineers, including the prohibition on directing licensed engineers to alter technical findings without factual or technical basis, and the prohibition on non-engineers unilaterally modifying sealed engineering documents.
Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Prohibition
Professional principle prohibiting non-licensed, non-engineer supervisors or principals within an engineering firm from altering, modifying, or directing the alteration of signed and sealed engineering reports without factual or technical basis, recognizing that the professional seal represents the licensed engineer's personal professional judgment and legal accountability, which cannot be overridden by persons who bear no equivalent legal or ethical responsibility and who lack the professional qualifications to make technical engineering determinations
Non-Engineer Supervisor Report Alteration Refusal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and refuse a non-licensed, non-engineer supervisor's or principal's direction to alter signed and sealed professional engineering reports — including the ability to identify that the requested alteration lacks factual or technical basis, that the directing party lacks professional engineering authority, and that compliance would constitute an ethical and potentially legal violation — and to maintain that refusal under institutional and employment pressure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when the integrity of a professional engineer's signed and sealed documents is threatened by directives from unqualified or unlicensed parties to make revisions, and to defend that integrity by refusing to make revisions directed by unlicensed reviewers, understanding that the professional seal represents the engineer's personal certification of the document's technical adequacy and that compliance with unlicensed directives would compromise both the seal's meaning and the engineer's professional responsibility.
Non-Engineer Supervisor Safety Override Engineering Authority Preservation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose engineering authority over a safety-critical matter has been circumvented or overruled by a non-engineer supervisor or administrator, to resist that circumvention by asserting professional authority, escalating to appropriate authorities, and refusing to permit the non-engineer's override to stand unchallenged — recognizing that allowing a non-engineer to override professional engineering safety determinations under circumstances involving public safety constitutes an independent ethical failure that compromises professional integrity.
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services
A licensed professional engineer who provides expert consulting or testimony services in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed, but does so strictly in a non-engineering capacity—relying on qualifications other than engineering education, experience, and examination—bearing obligations to avoid claiming engineering titles or credentials that would bring them under the purview of state licensing laws and to accurately represent the basis of their expertise.
Non-Engineering Expert Credential Engineering Title Exclusion Constraint
Engineer A was careful to exclude the P.E. designation from the signature block of the report. Unfortunately, by claiming the credential of Board-certified Diplomate of Forensic Engineering, Engineer A claimed the 'E' word, 'Engineer'
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to provide non-engineering expert services in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed must ensure that all credential designations used in signing reports, opinions, or professional submissions in that jurisdiction exclude any title incorporating the word 'Engineer' or 'Engineering' — including board certification titles that presuppose PE licensure — prohibiting the use of engineering-implying credential titles as a substitute for or alongside the omitted PE designation, on the grounds that such titles independently invoke the jurisdiction's engineering practice act and constitute unlicensed practice, as established by BER Case 04-11 situation (3) and the present case analysis.
Non-Engineering Expert Engagement Credential Boundary Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer is retained to provide expert services that are framed as non-engineering in nature, establishing that the engineer must ensure that all credential presentations, report signatures, and professional representations in connection with that engagement are consistent with the non-engineering framing — prohibiting the use of engineering-implying credential titles that would bring the engagement within the purview of the jurisdiction's engineering practice act when the engineer is not licensed in that jurisdiction, and requiring that the engineer either obtain the required licensure, use only non-engineering credentials, or decline the engagement.
Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Maintenance Capability
Engineer A was retained to provide non-engineering expert services. So long as Engineer A was qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications (education, experience, and examination), Engineer A is not precluded or restricted by the NSPE Code of Ethics from providing those non-engineering expert services.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to provide non-engineering expert services in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed to correctly identify and maintain the boundary between permissible non-engineering expert testimony — which does not rely on engineering qualifications, education, experience, or examination — and impermissible engineering practice, including recognizing when credential designations, signature blocks, or opinion content cross that boundary and bring the engagement within the scope of the jurisdiction's engineering licensing law.
Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility in Unlicensed Jurisdiction
Professional principle recognizing that a licensed engineer who is not licensed in a particular jurisdiction may nonetheless provide non-engineering expert services in that jurisdiction, provided the engineer does not rely on engineering qualifications (education, experience, and examination) to establish expertise, does not offer opinions directly related to engineering science or mathematics, and does not incorporate engineering titles or designations into their professional identification in connection with those services
Non-Engineering Expert Services Scope Maintenance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to provide non-engineering expert services in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed — relying on qualifications other than engineering education, experience, and examination — to strictly maintain the non-engineering character of those services throughout the engagement, including in credential presentations, report signature blocks, and testimony, refraining from any invocation of engineering qualifications, titles, or certifications that would bring the services within the scope of the jurisdiction's engineering licensing statute, so that the permissibility of non-engineering expert services in unlicensed jurisdictions is not forfeited by engineering credential invocation.
Non-Engineering Expert Services in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State
State in which a licensed professional engineer provides expert services in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed, but those services are characterized as non-engineering in nature — creating a conditional ethical permissibility that depends entirely on whether the engineer's credentials, title, and testimony actually remain within non-engineering bounds, and where any invocation of engineering credentials or titles collapses the non-engineering characterization and triggers unlicensed practice obligations.
Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm. Previously, Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm, which was required to have a contractor's license.
Duty of a professional engineer completing an employment application that asks about prior disciplinary history in professional practice to disclose the revocation or suspension of any professional license — including contractor licenses, business licenses, or other non-engineering professional licenses — held in connection with activities related to engineering practice, when the revocation resulted from an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing, recognizing that the scope of the disclosure obligation is not limited to the engineering license itself but extends to any professional credential whose revocation reflects on the engineer's professional character and fitness for practice.
Non-Engineering License Revocation Employment Disclosure Scope Capability
Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm
Capability of a professional engineer completing an employment application that asks about prior disciplinary history in professional practice to recognize that the scope of required disclosure extends beyond engineering licensure actions to include revocations or suspensions of non-engineering professional licenses — such as contractor's licenses — when those revocations reflect adjudicated professional misconduct, and to understand that the spirit of such questions encompasses all professional license discipline regardless of the specific license type.
Non-Engineering Professional License Revocation Character Disclosure Obligation
the Board of Ethical Review determined that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license.
Obligation of a professional engineer completing an employment application that asks about prior disciplinary history to disclose the revocation or suspension of any professional license — including contractor licenses and other non-engineering professional licenses — when the revocation resulted from an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing, recognizing that the employer's inquiry seeks information about the engineer's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional, not merely about the engineering license itself. The obligation applies even when the application question appears facially limited to engineering licensure, because the engineer must interpret the employer's intent to elicit character-relevant information broadly.
Non-Expert Domain Threshold Safety Identification Permissibility Constraint
although not an expert on respirators, Engineer A determines that a relief valve intended to protect against overpressure being applied to the infant's lungs may have been incorrectly placed
Competence constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is not a domain expert in a specific product type is nonetheless competent and professionally obligated to identify and escalate a potential safety defect that is apparent from general engineering principles — prohibiting the engineer from declining to raise or act on a safety concern solely on the basis of not being a specialist in the product domain, while simultaneously establishing that the engineer's non-expert status appropriately limits the depth of technical analysis the engineer can independently provide.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Competence constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer — who is not a specialist in a related technical discipline such as hydrodynamic modeling, coastal engineering, or hydraulic analysis — nonetheless possesses sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding to form a reasonable professional judgment that a proposed project creates sufficient potential for harm to merit specialized evaluation, establishing that this threshold competence triggers an obligation to recommend specialized subconsultant engagement and prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of specialist credentials as a basis for declining to form or act on that threshold judgment.
Non-Expert Medical Device Safety Concern Identification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is not a domain specialist in a particular product type (e.g., respirators) to nonetheless apply general engineering principles to identify a potentially dangerous design flaw — such as a misplaced relief valve — and to recognize that general engineering competence is sufficient to trigger an internal escalation obligation, even in the absence of product-specific expertise or prior incident reports.
Non-Expert Non-Involved Engineer Internal Escalation Proportionality Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a potential safety concern in a product or process in which the engineer was not personally involved in the engineering decision-making and does not possess domain-specific expertise to calibrate the scope and urgency of escalation proportionally — recognizing that the engineer's epistemic limitations (lack of direct involvement, absence of specialized expertise, and possible incomplete information) require a more measured internal escalation approach than would be required of an engineer with direct design responsibility, and that the appropriate response is to make additional inquiries, engage internal mechanisms, and allow competent internal personnel to investigate before escalating externally.
Non-Expert Safety Concern Identification and Internal Escalation Obligation
Engineer A determines that a relief valve intended to protect against overpressure being applied to the infant's lungs may have been incorrectly placed
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while not an expert in the specific product domain under review, identifies a potential safety defect through cross-disciplinary engineering judgment to formally raise that concern internally to the appropriate manager and pursue corrective action — recognizing that non-expert status does not extinguish the obligation to identify and escalate credible safety risks, and that the engineer's general engineering competence is sufficient to trigger the reporting duty even absent domain-specific expertise.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to maintain sufficient understanding of related engineering disciplines — including hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling — to form a reasonable professional judgment about whether a proposed project raises technical questions that merit detailed, specialized evaluation for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, even when the engineer is not an expert in those disciplines; the engineer need not be capable of performing the specialized analysis but must be competent to recognize when the threshold for requiring it has been crossed.
Non-Expert Safety Evaluation Triggering Competence Boundary State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, while not a domain expert in the specific product or technology under review, conducts an evaluation and identifies a potential safety defect, creating a dual tension: the engineer's findings may be technically valid despite limited domain expertise, yet the engineer must acknowledge the limits of that expertise while still acting on the safety concern identified.
Non-Immediate Reporting Restraint for Inadvertent Licensure Violation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of what appears to be a violation of state engineering licensure laws or regulations by a professional colleague to refrain from immediately filing a report with the licensing board — unless there is an imminent public danger — and instead to first take steps to resolve what might be an oversight or misunderstanding, recognizing that most state engineering licensure boards impose a reporting obligation but do not require immediate reporting absent imminent danger, and that premature reporting without first seeking clarification may unjustly injure the colleague's professional reputation and violates the collegial norms of the profession.
Non-Imminent Licensure Violation Immediate Reporting Non-Compulsion Constraint
most state engineering licensure boards impose an obligation upon engineers to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state board, this duty does not require the engineer to do so immediately (unless there is an imminent public danger) or to refrain from taking steps to resolve what might otherwise be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the general duty of a licensed professional engineer to report violations of state engineering licensure laws or regulations to the state licensing board does not require immediate reporting in the absence of imminent public danger — permitting the engineer to first take reasonable steps to resolve what may be an oversight or misunderstanding by a professional colleague before filing a formal complaint, prohibiting the interpretation of the reporting duty as an absolute obligation to report instantaneously upon discovery of a potential violation when no imminent public danger exists.
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Proportionate Multi-Step Response Obligation
Although not imminent, collapse of the building is a danger, Engineer A believes.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a structural collapse risk assessed as real but not imminent to calibrate the response proportionately — advising the client, notifying the relevant building authority, providing actionable remedial guidance to the property owner, and following up in writing — without either suppressing the concern as insufficiently urgent or triggering a maximum-emergency multi-authority campaign disproportionate to the non-imminent risk profile.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a structural collapse risk assessed as real but not imminent to calibrate the response proportionately — advising the client, notifying the relevant building authority, and providing actionable remedial guidance to the property owner — without either suppressing the concern as insufficiently urgent or triggering a maximum-emergency multi-authority campaign disproportionate to the non-imminent risk profile.
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Proportionate Response Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a structural collapse risk assessed as real but not imminent to calibrate the response proportionately — advising the client, notifying the relevant building authority, and providing actionable remedial guidance to the property owner — without either suppressing the concern as insufficiently urgent or triggering a maximum-emergency multi-authority campaign disproportionate to the non-imminent risk profile.
Non-Imminent Structural Collapse Risk State
State in which a building or structure is assessed by a qualified engineer as being at risk of collapse, but the collapse is not considered imminent — creating an intermediate-urgency condition that still triggers safety notification and remediation obligations while allowing some deliberation time.
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Client Collaboration Continuation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a non-imminent but real structural safety risk must continue working collaboratively with the client to pursue resolution of the safety concern alongside escalation to regulatory authorities — prohibiting the engineer from treating escalation to authorities as a substitute for continued client engagement, and establishing that the non-imminent nature of the risk permits a graduated collaborative approach rather than immediate unilateral multi-authority escalation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a potential public safety impact calibrate the scope and intensity of corrective action pursuit to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified danger — establishing that non-imminent, localized risks require proportionate graduated escalation (client notification, written follow-up, supervisor escalation) rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent, widespread dangers, and prohibiting both under-response (treating non-response as discharge) and over-response (treating every structural concern as requiring immediate multi-authority mobilization).
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a non-imminent but real structural safety risk to continue working collaboratively with the client to pursue resolution of the safety concern alongside escalation to regulatory authorities — recognizing that client collaboration and regulatory escalation are complementary rather than mutually exclusive obligations, and that the engineer's duty to the client as faithful agent persists alongside the duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Non-Imminent Structural Risk Persistent Client Collaboration Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a non-imminent but real structural safety risk to continue working collaboratively with the client — in addition to escalating to regulatory authorities — to pursue resolution of the safety concern, recognizing that client collaboration and regulatory escalation are complementary rather than alternative obligations.
Non-Involved Non-Expert Engineer Epistemic Humility Safety Escalation Calibration Capability
Engineer A is faced with a situation where, in his personal opinion, a serious risk may exist and the failure to adequately address the risk could result in tragic consequences.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a potential safety concern in a product or process in which they were not personally involved in the engineering decision-making, and who lacks domain-specific expertise in the relevant product type, to recognize that their epistemic limitations — including possible absence of full information — require calibrating the urgency and form of safety escalation proportionally, and to refrain from escalating directly to external regulatory threats before internal mechanisms have been exhausted, while still fulfilling the obligation to raise the concern internally.
Non-Involved Non-Expert Engineer Premature External Threat Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who (a) was not personally involved in the engineering decision-making process giving rise to the safety concern, (b) does not possess domain expertise in the relevant technical area, and (c) has not exhausted internal escalation mechanisms — from issuing a threat to report the matter to governmental or regulatory authorities, establishing that the combination of non-involvement, non-expertise, and unexplored internal pathways renders such a threat unreasonable and ethically impermissible regardless of the engineer's good faith.
Non-Key-Employee Departed Engineer Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Obligation
After reviewing the facts, the Board concluded that it was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.
Obligation of an engineering firm to recognize that the ethical analysis of continued brochure listing of a departed or departing engineer is contextually sensitive to the significance of that engineer's role within the firm: where the departed engineer is not a 'key employee' — in the sense that their departure does not materially alter the firm's overall qualifications or capacity in the relevant practice area — continued listing may not constitute an overt misrepresentation of a pertinent fact, provided the listing does not create a false impression of the firm's expertise level. This obligation requires firms to assess the materiality of each named individual's departure to the firm's overall qualification profile before determining whether continued listing constitutes a misrepresentation.
Non-Key-Employee Departure Brochure Listing Materiality Threshold Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a departing engineer is not a 'key employee' — i.e., their expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work and they are not a principal reason clients engage the firm — the continued listing of that engineer in firm brochures and resumes during and after the notice period does not automatically constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts of clear and decisive relevance, because the departure of a non-key employee is less likely to be material to prospective clients' qualification assessments; constraining the ethical analysis to require a case-by-case materiality assessment rather than automatic application of the stricter key-employee prohibition, while still prohibiting continued listing once the non-materiality threshold is crossed or the listing is used with intent to enhance firm qualifications.
Non-Key-Employee Departure Notice-Period Brochure Conditional Permissibility Assessment Capability
Capability of an engineering firm principal to assess whether continued distribution of existing printed brochures listing a voluntarily departing non-key employee during the active notice period (e.g., two weeks) is conditionally permissible under the totality of circumstances — evaluating factors including whether the departing engineer is designated as a key employee, whether their expertise constitutes a significant portion of firm services, whether the listing is highlighted or emphasized, and whether distribution is motivated by intent to enhance qualifications — and to recognize that such continued distribution may be permissible during the notice period but triggers an expeditious correction obligation upon actual departure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer, firm principal, or ethics reviewer to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether a specific personnel listing inaccuracy in a firm's promotional brochure constitutes a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts' — evaluating factors including whether the listed engineer is designated as a key employee, whether their expertise is unique within the firm, whether the area of practice constitutes a significant portion of firm services, and whether the listing was accompanied by highlighting or emphasis — and to calibrate corrective obligations proportionately to this pertinence determination rather than applying a categorical rule.
Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
Professional virtue principle requiring that an engineer whose work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review refrain from refusing consent to or obstructing that review, recognizing that peer review serves the public interest in engineering quality and safety, and that the engineer's professional obligation to public welfare supersedes any personal or reputational interest in avoiding scrutiny of prior work
[Case 169] Professional virtue principle requiring that an engineer whose work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review refrain from refusing consent to or obstructing that review, recognizing that peer review serves the public interest in engineering quality and safety, and that the engineer's professional obligation to public welfare supersedes any personal or reputational interest in avoiding scrutiny of prior work.
Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Obligation
When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review — particularly following discovery of significant design errors — to refrain from obstructing, refusing consent to, or otherwise impeding the peer review process, recognizing that the client's right to obtain independent technical verification of engineering work product is legitimate, that the public welfare interest in identifying and correcting design errors outweighs the engineer's interest in avoiding scrutiny, and that refusal to consent to peer review after known errors have been discovered constitutes a failure of professional accountability.
Non-PE License Revocation for Integrity-Relevant Conduct State
State in which a professional engineer has had a non-engineering professional license (such as a contractor's license) revoked due to conduct that reflects on professional integrity — specifically, conduct such as allowing an unlicensed individual to use the license number, which constitutes a form of license fraud or facilitation of unlicensed practice — where the revocation, while not in the PE domain, is ethically material to assessments of the engineer's fitness, honesty, and professional character, and may trigger disclosure obligations even absent an explicit requirement.
Non-Principal Employee Departure Competitive Conduct Proportionality Constraint
the Board believes that Engineer A's conduct in hiring Engineer C is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of Firm X and not a partner or principal of the firm
Ethical constraint establishing that the organizational status of a departing engineer — specifically whether the engineer was a principal, partner, or mere employee of the former firm — is a relevant mitigating factor in assessing the ethical permissibility of post-departure competitive conduct, such that an engineer who was a non-principal employee (rather than a partner or principal) is held to a somewhat less stringent standard regarding the goodwill-preservation obligations owed to the former firm, while remaining fully subject to all prohibitions on misrepresentation, disparagement, and exploitation of specialized knowledge, as established by NSPE BER precedent recognizing that the degree of trust, access, and fiduciary responsibility varies with organizational role and that this variation appropriately calibrates the ethical obligations of the departing engineer.
Non-Principal Employee Departure Mitigating Status State
Engineer A's conduct in hiring Engineer C is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of Firm X and not a partner or principal of the firm
State in which a departing engineer who establishes or joins a competing firm held only an employee (non-partner, non-principal) position at the former employer — a status that mitigates the ethical severity of competitive conduct because the departing engineer did not hold fiduciary or ownership responsibilities toward the former firm, did not have authority over firm strategy or client relationships at a principal level, and therefore has a stronger claim to individual professional mobility rights relative to a partner or principal who would owe heightened loyalty obligations.
Non-Prominent Personnel Listing Materiality Exculpation Principle
Professional honesty principle establishing that when an engineering firm's brochure or resume lists a departing or departed engineer who is not highlighted as a key employee and whose specialty does not constitute a significant portion of the firm's work, the continued listing — while still inadvisable — may not rise to the level of an ethical violation under the pertinent-fact misrepresentation standard, because the listed individual's presence is not clearly and decisively relevant to a prospective client's selection decision; the principle distinguishes between cases where a departing engineer is prominently featured as a key credential (high materiality, clear violation) and cases where the engineer appears incidentally in a general personnel list (lower materiality, potentially non-violative), calibrating ethical culpability to the degree of reliance the listing is likely to induce.
Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Recognition Capability
In BER Case 82-5 ... the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing bodies to correctly recognize that when an engineer's concern relates to matters of public interest — such as excessive costs, time delays, or unjustified expenditure of public funds — that do not rise to the level of a direct danger to public health or safety, the engineer does not have a mandatory ethical obligation to continue escalation efforts after employer rejection, but retains an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, understanding that exercising this right may result in loss of employment and that the ethics code does not compel but does permit such action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing bodies to correctly distinguish between situations in which an engineer has an ethical right to escalate concerns — including whistleblowing on employer misconduct related to public concerns — as a matter of personal conscience, versus situations in which a mandatory ethical duty to escalate exists, recognizing that the absence of a mandatory duty does not eliminate the permissibility of voluntary escalation, and that the engineer may exercise the right to escalate at personal cost (including potential loss of employment) without that right constituting a professional obligation.
Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Recognition Obligation
the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
Duty of professional ethics bodies and the engineering profession to recognize that when an engineer's concern relates to unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds — rather than a direct danger to public health or safety — the engineer does not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy or report to external authorities after employer rejection, and that any such continued action is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right, not professional duty; while simultaneously recognizing that the engineer may have to accept the consequence of loss of employment if they choose to exercise that right.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of professional ethics bodies and the engineering profession to recognize that when an engineer's safety or public welfare concern does not rise to the level of a direct danger to public health and safety — such as a claim of unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds — the engineer does not have a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy campaigns or to report concerns to external authorities after the employer has rejected the engineer's reports, and that any such continued action is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right rather than professional duty, so that engineers are not unjustly censured for declining to continue advocacy beyond the point of employer rejection.
Non-QBS Fee-Based Competitive Procurement Active State
a few public bodies have adopted the method described in the facts above
State in which a public body has adopted a fee-based competitive bidding method for selecting engineering services rather than the qualification-based selection (QBS) process mandated by the Brooks Act and most state/local laws, creating a procurement environment where engineers compete on price rather than qualifications, and where the ethical obligations of competing firms must be evaluated against both the non-standard procurement context and the paramount duty to public safety.
Non-Registered Engineer Seal Delegation State
Engineer A also seals plans prepared by non-registered, graduate engineers working under his general supervision
State in which a licensed professional engineer affixes their seal to plans prepared by non-registered (graduate, unlicensed) engineers working under the PE's supervision, thereby assuming full professional and legal responsibility for work produced by individuals who cannot independently seal or certify engineering documents.
Non-Registered Engineer Subordinate Sealing Direct Supervision Prerequisite Constraint
At times Engineer A also seals plans prepared by non-registered, graduate engineers working under his general supervision.
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer may only affix their seal to plans prepared by non-registered (graduate, unlicensed) engineers when the sealing engineer has provided direct control and personal supervision — not merely general direction — over the preparation of that work; the non-registered status of the subordinate heightens the supervision standard because the subordinate cannot independently assume professional responsibility, making the sealing engineer's direct involvement in the work product a prerequisite rather than a discretionary practice.
Non-Registered Graduate Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparer
A graduate engineer who holds an engineering degree but is not yet licensed (registered), working under the general supervision of a chief engineer in a large firm, preparing engineering plans that are sealed by the supervising chief engineer rather than by the graduate engineer.
Non-Registered Subordinate Direct Control Personal Supervision Sealing Prerequisite Capability
whereas in the instant case the work is being performed by individuals who are not licensed professional engineers, the firm has an ethical obligation that this work be performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who would seal the document.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of engineering firms to recognize and fulfill the heightened obligation that attaches when engineering work is performed by non-registered (non-licensed) graduate engineers — specifically, that such work must be performed under the direct control and personal supervision of a registered engineer who will seal the document, and that the firm bears an ethical obligation to ensure this standard is met; including the ability to distinguish this heightened standard from the supervision standard applicable to registered subordinates, and to restructure work assignments or supervisory arrangements to ensure compliance.
Non-Registered Subordinate Work Direct Control Personal Supervision Sealing Constraint
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that when engineering work is performed by individuals who are not licensed professional engineers (non-registered graduate engineers), the engineering firm has an ethical obligation to ensure that such work is performed under the direct control and personal supervision of registered engineers who will seal the document — prohibiting sealing arrangements where non-registered personnel perform engineering work under only general direction or managerial oversight, because the non-registered status of the subordinate eliminates the subordinate's independent professional accountability and places the entire burden of responsible charge on the sealing registered engineer.
Non-Safety Concern Mandatory Escalation Non-Compulsion Constraint
In BER Case 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by sub-contractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
Ethical constraint establishing that when an engineer's documented concern relates exclusively to financial impropriety, wasteful expenditure, or unsatisfactory plans — and does not involve a danger to public health or safety — the engineer does not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy campaigns, escalate to external authorities, or make the matter one for public discussion after the employer has rejected the engineer's reports, though the engineer retains a personal conscience right to do so and must accept the professional consequences of that choice, as established by BER Case 82-5 and the principle that the mandatory duty to escalate is triggered by public health and safety risk rather than financial or administrative impropriety alone.
Non-Safety Public Expenditure Welfare Scope Non-Dismissal Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting professional ethics review bodies from dismissing an engineer's ethics case on the narrow ground that no public health or safety danger is alleged, when the case involves unjustified or wasteful expenditure of substantial public funds — including defense expenditures — that relate to public welfare as set forth in the Code's welfare provisions; establishing that the Code's welfare scope is broad enough to encompass substantial public expenditure concerns even absent a direct public health or safety endangerment allegation, while simultaneously recognizing that the mandatory escalation threshold (withdrawal and report to proper authority) is still confined to public health and safety endangerment.
Non-Safety Public Fund Waste Reporting Discretion State
the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds
State in which an engineer has documented and reported to an employer concerns about unjustified expenditure of public funds or unsatisfactory plans — where the concern does not involve danger to public health or safety — and the employer has rejected those reports, leaving the engineer with a discretionary (not mandatory) ethical right to pursue the matter further, including public disclosure, without a Code-mandated obligation to do so.
Non-Safety Public Funds Concern Post-Rejection Advocacy Permissibility Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies and the engineering profession to recognize that when an engineer's concern relates to unjustified expenditure of public funds or unsatisfactory plans — rather than a direct danger to public health or safety — the engineer does not bear a mandatory professional obligation to continue internal advocacy campaigns or escalate to external authorities after management has rejected the engineer's reports; and that any continued advocacy, including requesting an ethics review, is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right rather than mandatory professional duty, while simultaneously recognizing that the engineer may face employment consequences for exercising that right.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of professional ethics bodies and the engineering profession to recognize that when an engineer's concern relates to unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds — rather than a direct danger to public health or safety — the engineer does not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy or report to external authorities after employer rejection, and that any such continued action is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right, not professional duty; while simultaneously recognizing that the engineer may have to accept the consequence of loss of employment if they choose to exercise that right.
Non-Safety Whistleblowing Blanket Mandatory Duty Non-Imposition Constraint
we are not willing to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue his campaign within the company, and make the issue one for public discussion.
Ethical constraint prohibiting professional ethics bodies from making a blanket statement that engineers have a mandatory ethical duty — in all cases involving employer conduct related to public concerns — to continue internal advocacy campaigns and make the issue one for public discussion; establishing that when the underlying concern does not involve endangerment of public health, safety, and welfare, the ethical duty or right of the engineer is a matter of personal conscience rather than a categorical mandatory obligation, and that the Code's mandatory withdrawal-and-report requirement is confined to situations involving actual endangerment of public health, safety, and welfare.
Non-Self-Interested Code Violation Mitigating Context State
State in which an engineer has violated a professional code obligation — specifically, a client confidentiality or faithful-agent duty — but the violation is demonstrably not motivated by personal advantage or self-interest, creating a mitigating ethical context in which the violation is still found to be unethical but the absence of self-interested motive is acknowledged as a relevant factor in the ethical analysis, distinguishing the case from violations driven by personal gain.
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit, the conduct constituted both incomplete and self-serving information
Professional principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations to clients to ensure that their recommendations are not structured or filtered to serve the engineer's own commercial interests, prohibiting the presentation of partial analyses, selective comparisons, or skewed recommendations that advantage the engineer's own firm or practice at the expense of the client's informed decision-making
[Case 58] Professional principle requiring engineers who provide advisory recommendations or design decisions affecting resource allocation to ensure that those decisions are not structured to serve interests other than the public interest, prohibiting the manipulation of technical design decisions to achieve financial outcomes that benefit a favored stakeholder at the expense of proper policy compliance
Non-Subordination of Public Safety Obligation to Political or Budgetary Bargaining
Engineer A met with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns. The chairman indicated a willingness to hire additional code inspectors, if Engineer A will concur with a proposed ordinance that would permit buildings already under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older code requirements
Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from agreeing to compromise public safety standards — including building code enforcement, inspection adequacy, or safety reporting — as consideration for political or budgetary concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints that make full compliance difficult
[Case 112] Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from agreeing to compromise public safety standards — including engineering study requirements, safety code enforcement, or inspection adequacy — as consideration for political or budgetary concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints or political pressure that makes full compliance difficult
[Case 132] Professional principle prohibiting engineers from agreeing to compromise public safety standards as consideration for political or budgetary concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints.
[Case 137] Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from allowing public safety standards to be compromised as a result of political pressure, community relations considerations, or budgetary convenience, even when the engineer faces genuine institutional constraints.
[Case 137] Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from allowing public safety standards — including inspection adequacy, structural certification, or safety reporting — to be compromised as consideration for political or budgetary concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints or political pressure.
[Case 140] Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from agreeing to compromise public safety standards — including building code enforcement, inspection adequacy, or safety reporting — as consideration for political or budgetary concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints that make full compliance difficult.
[Case 175] Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from agreeing to compromise public safety standards as consideration for political or economic concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine institutional pressure that makes full compliance difficult.
[Case 58] Professional principle prohibiting engineers in public agency roles from agreeing to compromise public safety standards or lawful policy requirements as consideration for political, budgetary, or stakeholder concessions, even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints or sympathetic stakeholder circumstances that make compliance difficult
Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining Capability
The Board determined that it was not ethical either for Engineer A to agree to concur with the chairman's proposal or to sign inadequate inspection reports.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency inspection or regulatory role to recognize when a political or institutional authority is attempting to condition resource allocation — such as hiring additional inspectors — on the engineer's agreement to compromise safety reporting standards or concur with inadequate regulatory measures, and to refuse such bargains, maintaining the integrity of safety reporting and inspection standards regardless of the institutional pressures or resource constraints involved.
Non-Subordination of Safety Reporting to Political Bargaining Obligation
The chairman indicated a willingness to hire additional code inspectors, if Engineer A will concur with a proposed ordinance that would permit buildings already under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older code requirements.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency inspection or regulatory role to refuse to concur with, sign, or endorse inadequate inspection reports, grandfathering ordinances, or other safety-compromising measures as part of a political or budgetary bargain — even when the bargain offers tangible benefits such as additional staff or resources — recognizing that public safety obligations cannot be traded against political or administrative concessions.
Non-Subordination of Sealed Document Authority to Unlicensed Direction
In light of the fact that Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review, Engineer A is working in association with B.
Professional principle requiring that a licensed engineer who has signed and sealed engineering documents refuse to revise those documents based solely on the technical direction of an unlicensed individual, because the seal represents the engineer's personal professional judgment and legal accountability, which cannot be delegated to or overridden by persons who bear no equivalent legal or ethical responsibility
Non-Supplanting Direct Contract Accepting Specialist Engineer
We find no grounds in the code which would prevent Engineer X and his firm from accepting the contract on a direct basis if so desired by the client and the firm.
A licensed professional engineering role in which a recognized technical specialist, having been arranged as a sub-consultant by competing firms during a procurement process, is subsequently contacted directly by the procuring agency and accepts a prime contract on a direct basis. Bears obligations to evaluate whether accepting the direct engagement violates any prior arrangement with the firms that introduced them to the client, and to ensure that no 'definite steps' toward another engineer's engagement have been taken before accepting, consistent with anti-supplanting provisions of professional codes.
Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
Engineer A, while not bound by U.S. law, has made a voluntary and conscious decision to be a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers
A professional engineering role borne by a licensed engineer who resides and practices under the laws and customs of a non-U.S. nation but has voluntarily joined NSPE, thereby accepting the full obligations of the NSPE Code of Ethics regardless of local legal permissibility of practices such as gift-giving or kickbacks to public officials. This role generates a tension between local legal norms and universal NSPE ethical standards, with NSPE obligations taking precedence.
Notice-Period Active-Negotiation Key-Employee Departure Disclosure Obligation
We do believe that during the interim period between Engineer A's being given notice of termination and his actual cessation of employment, Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination.
Duty of an engineering firm principal who has issued a termination notice to a named key employee to inform prospective clients — during active negotiations with those clients occurring between the date of termination notice and the date of actual departure — of the key employee's pending termination, recognizing that: (1) the firm's continued distribution of a brochure listing the engineer as a key employee during this interim period may mislead prospective clients into believing the engineer will be available for future projects; (2) the obligation is triggered by active negotiation with a prospective client, not merely by passive brochure distribution; and (3) while inserting a formal addendum in every brochure copy is impracticable and not required, verbal or written disclosure during active client negotiations is both practicable and ethically required. This obligation is distinct from and less demanding than the absolute post-departure prohibition on continued brochure use.
Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
Relational principle establishing that an engineering firm's continued distribution of existing printed brochures listing a named engineer during that engineer's active notice period is conditionally permissible — not automatically violative — provided that: (1) the listed engineer is not highlighted as a key employee whose presence is a material inducement to client selection, and (2) the firm does not act with the intent and purpose of enhancing its qualifications through the listing; the principle recognizes the practical reality that firms cannot instantaneously reprint all marketing materials upon receipt of departure notice, while preserving the obligation to disclose the pending departure when the engineer's credentials are pertinent to the engagement being sought.
Notice-Period Brochure Personnel Prospective Client Appraisal Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that during the period after an engineer has received or given notice of termination but before actual departure, a firm that continues to distribute promotional materials listing that engineer as a key employee is constrained to affirmatively apprise each prospective client — during negotiation — of the engineer's pending termination, so that the prospective client can make an informed decision about whether the firm's qualifications remain adequate for their needs; prohibiting the passive distribution of materials that imply continued availability of a key employee who is known to be departing, without contemporaneous oral or written disclosure of the pending departure, as established by BER Case 83-1.
Notice-Period Faithful Agent Continued Performance Boundary Maintenance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has received a termination notice and is serving out a notice period — continuing to work for the employer — to maintain faithful agent conduct throughout that period by continuing to perform assigned duties diligently, refraining from actions that would harm the employer's business interests, and correctly identifying the boundary between permissible competitive preparation (e.g., announcing intent to start a new firm) and impermissible conduct (e.g., actively diverting employer clients, misusing employer resources, or failing to perform assigned work) during the notice period.
Notice-Period Key-Employee Brochure Distribution Heightened Disclosure Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm principal who has issued a termination notice to a named key employee to take affirmative steps — including errata sheets, cover letters, or verbal disclosure — to apprise prospective clients receiving the firm's marketing brochure that the named key employee's status has changed and that the individual will be departing, where: (1) the engineer is specifically identified as a 'key employee' (not merely listed among general staff); (2) the firm continues to actively distribute the brochure during the notice period; and (3) the firm has reason to believe prospective clients may rely on the named individual's availability when making selection decisions. This obligation is heightened relative to non-key-employee listings because the 'key employee' designation signals to prospective clients that the individual's expertise is central to the firm's qualifications, making the personnel change material to client selection decisions. The obligation does not require immediate cessation of brochure distribution during the notice period but does require proactive disclosure of the changed status to prevent client misunderstanding.
Notice-Period Prospective-Client Pending-Departure Oral Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that during the interim period between an engineer's receipt of a termination notice and the engineer's actual cessation of employment, the employing firm is obligated — when actively negotiating with a prospective client — to orally inform that prospective client of the named key employee's pending termination, even though the firm is not required to insert a written addendum or amendment into every printed brochure distributed during that period; establishing a calibrated middle-ground obligation that is less burdensome than universal written correction of all printed materials but more demanding than complete silence, and grounding this obligation in the principle that prospective clients who are actively selecting a firm based on named key employees have a material interest in knowing of that employee's impending departure before committing to the engagement, as established by BER Case 82-5.
Notification Timing Reasonableness Assessment State
Engineer B's delay in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client and the preliminary results of his review was not a violation of Section III.8.a
State in which the timeliness of an engineer's notification to an incumbent engineer — required under professional code obligations when reviewing that engineer's work — is under evaluation to determine whether a delay between the establishment of the reviewing relationship and the actual notification constitutes a violation of the notification obligation or falls within a reasonable period, with the assessment turning on whether the incumbent's rights or interests were prejudiced by the delay.
Objective Adverse Comment Proper Circumstances Discrimination Capability
We do not entirely foreclose the right or duty of an engineer to offer adverse comments on the capacity of another engineer or firm to a prospective client in proper circumstances where the adverse comment is objective and not tinged by self-interest.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the distinction between (a) permissible adverse comment on another engineer's or firm's capacity — when such comment is objective, not tinged by self-interest, and offered in proper circumstances — and (b) prohibited disparagement motivated by competitive self-interest or the purpose of hindering the other engineer's prospects, enabling the engineer to correctly identify the narrow circumstances in which adverse professional comment is ethically permissible and to refrain from adverse comment when those circumstances are not met.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has agreed to provide evaluative opinions about another engineer's work — despite the existence of a competitive conflict of interest — to provide only objective, technically grounded, and factually accurate assessments, refraining from criticism motivated by competitive advantage, and ensuring that any opinions offered are consistent with what the engineer would provide in a non-competitive context, consistent with professional obligations of objectivity, truthfulness, and fairness.
Objective Advisory Report Integrity Capability
Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
Capability to maintain the integrity and objectivity of a professional advisory report or recommendation by refraining from commingling self-promotional firm materials — including experience summaries, project references, and marketing content — with objective technical analysis, and by ensuring that the advisory communication is structured and presented in a manner that a reasonable client would recognize as independent professional advice rather than a sales pitch, consistent with professional obligations to be objective and truthful.
Objective Complete Environmental Report Public Authority Submission Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing a written environmental assessment report for submission to a public regulatory authority to ensure that the report is objective, truthful, and includes all relevant and pertinent environmental risk findings — including findings that may be adverse to the developer client's interests — recognizing that the public authority's role as decision-maker on a development proposal creates an independent obligation to provide complete information regardless of client preferences.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to identify when a professional report omits material facts — including session locations, times, participation barriers, comment submission restrictions, and evidence supporting claimed community positions — that are necessary for stakeholders to make informed decisions, and to recognize that such omissions constitute violations of professional obligations to issue statements in an objective and truthful manner, consistent with BER precedent requiring inclusion of relevant and pertinent information.
Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare written reports or analyses that will be submitted to a public authority for regulatory decision-making to include all relevant and pertinent information — including information that may be adverse to the client's interests — so that the public authority can exercise genuinely informed judgment, recognizing that the engineer's duty of objectivity and truthfulness to the public decision-making process supersedes the client's preference to suppress unfavorable findings
[Case 83] Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare written reports or analyses that will be submitted to a public authority for regulatory decision-making to include all relevant and pertinent information — including information that may be adverse to the client's interests — so that the public authority can exercise genuinely informed judgment, recognizing that the engineer's duty of objectivity and truthfulness to the public decision-making process supersedes the client's preference to suppress unfavorable findings.
[Case 94] Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare written reports or analyses that will be submitted to a public authority for regulatory decision-making to include all relevant and pertinent information — including information that may be adverse to the client's interests — so that the public authority can exercise genuinely informed judgment, recognizing that the engineer's duty of objectivity and truthfulness to the public decision-making process supersedes the client's preference to suppress unfavorable findings.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare advisory reports for non-engineer decision-making bodies — such as organizational boards or public commissions — to include all information that is relevant and pertinent to the decision at hand, so that the decision-making authority can exercise genuinely informed judgment; the principle is violated when a report's omissions, however well-intentioned, would leave the decision-maker unable to evaluate material trade-offs
Objective Credential Investigation Before Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
We believe that Engineer A has an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience and training to perform the required structural design services.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who suspects that a co-project engineer lacks competence for a specific assigned task to conduct an objective, evidence-based investigation of the other engineer's credentials — including educational background, degree discipline, and relevant experience — before concluding that a reasonable basis exists to challenge the other engineer's competence, so that the challenge is grounded in verified fact rather than speculation, and so that the engineer does not unjustly injure the other engineer's professional reputation through an unfounded challenge.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reason to believe that a competing engineer or firm is engaged in unlicensed practice or other professional misconduct to verify the relevant facts — including confirming the current licensure or certificate of authority status of the competitor through authoritative sources — before filing a report with a licensing board or other authority, so that the report is grounded in verified fact rather than assumption, rumor, or incomplete information, and so that the engineer does not unjustly injure the competitor's professional reputation through a report based on erroneous information.
Objective Non-Self-Interested Adverse Competitor Comment Permissibility Boundary Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing the narrow boundary conditions under which an engineer may permissibly offer adverse comments about a competitor's capacity or qualifications to a prospective client — requiring that such comments be (a) objective, (b) not tinged by self-interest, and (c) made in proper circumstances — and prohibiting adverse competitor commentary that fails any of these conditions, particularly where the commenting engineer stands to benefit competitively from the adverse assessment; establishing that the right or duty to offer adverse comments about a competitor is not entirely foreclosed but is strictly conditioned on objectivity and absence of self-interested motivation.
Objective Truthful Public Statement Issuance Capability
the engineer has a fundamental obligation to issue public statements in a objective and truthful manner (Code Section I.3.)
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to issue public statements — including promotional materials, marketing brochures, qualification submissions, and public communications — in an objective and truthful manner, recognizing that the obligation to issue truthful public statements applies not only to technical opinions but also to representations about firm personnel, qualifications, and engineering disciplines, and that this obligation operates in conjunction with the prohibition on misleading solicitation conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer reporting public health, safety, or welfare concerns to appropriate authorities to ensure that all reporting is honest, truthful, complete, and objective — presenting all relevant technical information including findings that may not be well-received by the public or public officials — and to maintain this reporting integrity regardless of political pressure, public sentiment, or institutional resistance, consistent with the professional obligation to be honest and truthful in all professional reports.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
The BER noted that Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
Duty of an engineer to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony submitted to public authorities, and to include all relevant and pertinent information — including findings that may be adverse to client interests — in such reports.
Principle requiring engineers to render professional opinions and evaluations based on objective technical assessment rather than personal interest, bias, or self-serving motivation
[Case 172] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to provide technically accurate, complete, and unbiased analysis regardless of the interests of retaining parties
[Case 177] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to maintain impartial, unbiased professional judgment free from conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of their technical assessments and recommendations
[Case 73] Principle requiring engineers to render professional opinions and evaluations based on objective technical assessment rather than personal interest, bias, or self-serving motivation, including resistance to stakeholder pressure that would skew the technical analysis.
[Case 88] Principle requiring engineers to render professional opinions and evaluations based on objective technical assessment rather than personal interest, bias, or self-serving motivation — including the obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports, statements, and testimony.
[Case 94] Principle requiring engineers to render professional opinions and evaluations based on objective technical assessment rather than personal interest, bias, or self-serving motivation.
Observed Illegal Third-Party Conduct Creating Worksite Hazard State
State in which a professional engineer, through personal observation outside the formal scope of their engagement, has identified a pattern of illegal conduct by third parties — such as commercial vehicles illegally using a restricted roadway — that creates a foreseeable and specific safety hazard for workers and the public at a planned inspection or construction worksite, where the illegal conduct is ongoing, not subject to the engineer's control, and not formally documented or reported to authorities, triggering obligations to assess and communicate the risk before proceeding with design.
Occupied Building Electrical-Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Risk Escalation Obligation
the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware — whether through direct observation or client disclosure — that an occupied residential building contains electrical or mechanical system deficiencies that violate applicable codes and standards and could cause injury to current occupants, to escalate that safety concern beyond mere client notification to appropriate public enforcement authorities (such as building code officials, fire marshals, or housing authorities), recognizing that the occupants' ongoing exposure to injury risk creates an immediacy that requires affirmative escalation rather than passive reliance on client action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as an expert witness by an attorney who discovers structural defects or safety conditions constituting an immediate threat to building occupants to notify appropriate public authorities of the danger notwithstanding the attorney's instruction to maintain confidentiality, recognizing that any attorney-imposed duty of confidentiality is superseded by the immediate and imminent danger to the building's tenants, and that the paramount public welfare obligation pre-empts attorney-client privilege instructions when the safety risk is immediate and serious.
Occupied Building Tenant Occupant Direct Safety Notification Consideration Capability
Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60 year old occupied apartment building
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of code violations posing injury risk to current occupants of an occupied building to consider and evaluate whether the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare requires directly notifying those occupants of the hazard — beyond notifying only the client or public authorities — particularly when the occupants are the immediate at-risk population, the client has declined remediation, and the building is occupied during the period of risk, ensuring that the engineer evaluates all available notification pathways proportionate to the imminence and severity of the risk.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural defects constituting an immediate threat to building occupants during a forensic inspection to recognize the obligation to directly notify those occupants of the danger — beyond notifying only the retaining attorney or public authorities — ensuring that the at-risk parties have actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures, even when the occupants are adverse parties in the litigation that prompted the inspection.
Occupied Residential Building Electrical-Mechanical Code Violation Occupant Injury Escalation Constraint
Safety and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware — whether through direct observation or client disclosure — of electrical and mechanical code violations in an occupied residential building that could cause injury to current occupants must escalate those violations to appropriate public authorities, prohibiting the engineer from treating the combination of a confidentiality agreement, an out-of-scope discipline, and a client's non-remediation directive as a complete discharge of the safety escalation obligation when the violations pose a genuine risk of occupant injury in an actively occupied building.
Off-Contract Covert Gift Condition Transparency Violation Constraint
while the condition is not to be included in the contract
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from acquiescing to a gift or payment demand that is deliberately excluded from the written contract and kept covert — establishing that the off-contract, covert nature of the gift condition independently violates the engineer's professional obligation of openness and transparency, regardless of whether the gift itself would otherwise be permissible, because the deliberate concealment from the written record signals the transactional impropriety of the arrangement and conflicts with the engineer's duty to avoid deceptive or dishonest conduct in professional dealings.
Off-Contract Implicit Gift Condition Non-Acquiescence Obligation
Roe is further advised that while the condition is not to be included in the contract, his failure to make the gifts will result in no further work being awarded to the firm and to expect poor cooperation in performing the first contract.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refuse to acquiesce to an implicit or off-contract condition requiring personal gifts to government officials as a prerequisite for contract award or continued work, recognizing that the deliberate exclusion of the gift condition from the written contract does not diminish the ethical prohibition — the covert, off-contract nature of the arrangement heightens rather than reduces the ethical violation, as it reflects an intentional effort to conceal corrupt conduct behind a facade of contractual legitimacy.
Off-Contract Implicit Gift Condition Recognition and Refusal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a contract award is conditioned on an implicit, off-contract requirement — such as a personal gift obligation communicated verbally but deliberately excluded from the written contract — and to correctly identify this as an improper condition that must be refused, including the ability to distinguish between explicit contractual obligations and covert side-conditions that operate outside the formal agreement, and to refuse acquiescence even when refusal carries the consequence of lost future work or poor cooperation.
Office-Licensure Jurisdiction Differentiation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who maintains offices or a residence in a state where the engineer is not licensed to clearly differentiate on business cards and marketing materials between the state where offices are located and the state(s) where the engineer actually holds a PE license, so that recipients are not misled into believing the engineer is licensed to practice engineering in the office-location state.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who distributes business cards or marketing materials in jurisdictions where they may or may not hold a license to present licensure status information with sufficient clarity to avoid creating confusion or the appearance of deception — including correctly identifying the states in which a license is held, ensuring that the physical address listed does not imply licensure in the address state when no such license is held, and recognizing that the absence of a physical address creates ambiguity about licensure status that constitutes an ethical deficiency.
Official Performance Review Competitive Displacement Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A, in his role as town engineer, reviews Engineer B's preliminary work and becomes convinced that Engineer B's performance on the contract does not meet the standards
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving in a public official capacity — such as part-time town engineer — from conducting a performance review of an incumbent contractor's work and then using the adverse outcome of that review to displace the contractor and capture the successor design contract for the reviewing engineer's own private firm, establishing that the use of official review authority as a mechanism for competitive displacement constitutes an irresolvable conflict of interest and a violation of the prohibition on improper competitive conduct, regardless of whether the adverse performance finding was technically justified.
Official Review Authority Used to Displace Peer Professional State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, acting in an official public capacity (such as town engineer), conducts a performance or quality review of a peer professional's work on a public project, and the findings of that review — whether accurate or not — lead to the peer's termination and the reviewing engineer's private firm subsequently filling the vacated role, creating a structural appearance of impropriety in which official review authority has been used, intentionally or not, to displace a competitor and capture public work for private benefit.
Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
Engineer Intern explained to a prospective employer the intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, but was not asked and did not disclose two previous failures to pass the PE exam.
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's failure to volunteer information not specifically requested constitutes an unethical omission only when that information is material — meaning it would have affected the decision-making of the party to whom disclosure was owed — and that omissions of non-material facts, even if potentially relevant, do not independently generate an ethical disclosure obligation
One-Year Cooling-Off Period Assessment for Post-Review Competitive Participation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that completed an independent external peer review of a public agency project to assess whether the approximately one-year interval between completion of the peer review and issuance of the design-build RFP constitutes a sufficient cooling-off period to eliminate or adequately mitigate the conflict of interest arising from the prior review role — recognizing that the sufficiency of the cooling-off period depends on the nature and depth of the privileged access obtained, the degree to which peer review findings were incorporated into the RFP, and applicable legal and ethical standards — and to seek agency guidance or legal counsel if the sufficiency of the interval is uncertain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a senior public agency role with contracting authority over private AE firms to refrain from accepting employment at a private AE firm that has benefited from contracts awarded or supervised during the engineer's public tenure, unless and until a sufficient cooling-off period has elapsed or adequate conflict-of-interest safeguards have been established and disclosed, so that the engineer's public authority is not converted into private competitive advantage.
One-Year Post-Employment Temporal Attenuation of Confidentiality Constraint
Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the passage of approximately one year between an engineer's resignation from an employer and the engineer's consideration of public testimony about safety concerns observed during employment is a relevant but not dispositive factor in assessing the scope of residual confidentiality obligations — establishing that temporal distance may attenuate but does not eliminate post-employment confidentiality duties, and that the engineer must assess whether the information to be disclosed remains competitively sensitive, proprietary, or protected, or whether it has become sufficiently general or publicly relevant through the government hearing process to permit disclosure in the public interest.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that the ethical significance of a conflict of interest arising from prior employment be assessed in light of the temporal proximity of the transition — establishing that conflicts arising from very recent transitions (less than one year) carry heightened ethical weight requiring recusal or disclosure, while conflicts arising from transitions of greater temporal distance may be assessed as sufficiently mitigated to permit continued participation, subject to the absence of direct project involvement during the prior employment period.
Ongoing Employer Investigation Deference With Active Monitoring Capability
As the facts indicate, Engineer A has properly raised the public safety issue, and it appears that MedTech was in the process of investigating the matter and determining whether a basis exists for those concerned.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has raised a safety concern internally and learned that the employer is conducting an ongoing internal investigation — conducted by personnel competent in the relevant domain — to correctly calibrate the professional response by deferring to that investigation process for a reasonable period while actively monitoring its progress, making additional inquiries to verify that meaningful action is being taken, and recognizing that deference is conditional on the investigation being conducted in good faith by competent personnel and producing meaningful results within a reasonable timeframe.
Ongoing Internal Investigation Deference and Monitoring Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has raised a safety concern internally and learned that the employer is actively investigating the matter through personnel competent in the relevant domain to defer to that ongoing internal investigation process while actively monitoring its progress — making additional inquiries to assess whether meaningful corrective action is being taken — and to refrain from treating the existence of an ongoing investigation as either a final resolution or as a justification for immediate external escalation, recognizing that the investigation represents a legitimate internal mechanism that must be allowed to proceed while the engineer remains vigilant.
Ongoing Internal Investigation Non-Discharge of Safety Escalation Constraint
When the manager indicates that the matter is still being looked into by a design team
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's safety escalation obligation is not discharged by an employer's representation that the matter is 'still being looked into' or is under active internal investigation — prohibiting the engineer from treating an open-ended, unresolved internal review as a substitute for concrete corrective action, and requiring the engineer to continue escalating when no timeline, commitment, or engineering determination has been provided.
Opposing-Party Retention Motivated by Prior Confidential Access Non-Acceptance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is approached by an opposing party in an adversarial proceeding for retention — where the opposing party's motivation for seeking that retention is transparently linked to the engineer's prior access to the original client's confidential information, case strategy, or analytical conclusions — must recognize this motivational structure as itself constituting an ethical bar to acceptance, prohibiting the engineer from treating the new client's framing of the engagement as 'independent' as sufficient to override the constructive awareness that the retention is sought precisely because of the prior confidential access, as established by BER Case No. 85-4.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who accepts retention by an opposing party in an adversarial proceeding — after having been terminated by the original retaining party — cannot invoke naivety about the opposing party's motivations as an exculpatory defense, establishing that the sequence of events (original retention, access to confidential information, termination, and subsequent opposing retention) creates constructive awareness of the motivational basis for the new retention, and prohibiting the engineer from treating subjective unawareness of the opposing attorney's strategic purpose as a sufficient basis for ethical permissibility of the switching-sides engagement, as established by BER Case No. 85-4.
Opposing Counsel Conflict Challenge Weaponization Prohibition
Professional principle prohibiting opposing counsel or adverse parties in litigation from weaponizing an expert engineer's legitimate prior professional relationships — particularly prior engagements in unrelated matters — as a bad-faith tactic to impugn the engineer's integrity or disqualify the engineer from providing objective technical testimony, when those prior relationships do not in fact give rise to a disqualifying conflict of interest under applicable professional ethics standards
Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Professional Independence Assertion Capability
during cross-examination at trial, opposing counsel questions Engineer A's previous relationship both in defense of and in litigation with ABC Manufacturing, implying that by providing those services, Engineer A was acting improperly
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a forensic expert witness to recognize when cross-examination by opposing counsel is designed to imply ethical impropriety from the engineer's prior multi-party service history, and to affirmatively assert and maintain professional independence in response — including the ability to clearly articulate why prior service to multiple parties in unrelated matters does not constitute improper conduct, to resist the rhetorical pressure of impropriety implications, and to defend the legitimacy of the engineer's engagement without compromising objectivity or appearing defensive in a manner that undermines credibility.
Opposing Counsel Impropriety Implication Professional Independence Assertion Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a forensic expert witness, when subjected to cross-examination or adversarial challenge implying that the engineer acted improperly by providing services to multiple parties across unrelated matters, to affirmatively assert and maintain professional independence — including the ethical permissibility of the prior engagements — without capitulating to the implication of impropriety, recognizing that opposing counsel's weaponization of legitimate prior professional relationships to undermine the engineer's credibility constitutes an improper tactic that the engineer is obligated to resist through clear, honest, and technically grounded testimony about the nature and scope of each prior engagement.
Opposing Engineer Concern Response Obligation Constraint
Engineer R's testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R's testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H's testimony was incomplete and misleading.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is presenting engineering work for regulatory approval at a public hearing, and who is confronted with documented technical safety concerns raised by another qualified engineer at that same hearing, must respond to those concerns in one of two professionally adequate ways: (1) explain how the identified issue has already been evaluated and addressed in the design, or (2) offer or agree to re-examine the plans in light of the raised concern — prohibiting the engineer from redirecting conversation away from the raised concern, selectively omitting the concern from testimony, or treating the concern as resolved without substantive engagement, as such non-response renders the testimony incomplete and misleading.
Opposing Expert Shared Committee Leadership State
State in which two licensed professional engineers serving as opposing expert witnesses in the same litigation stand in a direct hierarchical relationship within the same technical standards committee — one as chair and one as a subcommittee member — creating a structural supervisory or authority relationship that goes beyond mere co-membership, requiring disclosure to retaining counsel, imposing heightened constraints on direct communication regarding the pending litigation, and raising questions about whether the authority relationship creates undue influence or the appearance of partiality that may disqualify or constrain participation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which two licensed professional engineers serving as opposing expert witnesses in the same litigation are also simultaneously members of the same technical standards committee within a professional engineering society — one as chair and one as a subcommittee member — creating a structural relationship that requires disclosure to retaining counsel and imposes constraints on direct communication between the experts regarding the pending litigation, while not necessarily creating a disqualifying conflict of interest if each expert exercises independent professional judgment.
Opposing Expert Shared Committee Membership State
Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, while Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees
State in which two licensed professional engineers serving as opposing expert witnesses in the same litigation are also simultaneously members of the same technical standards committee within a professional engineering society — one as chair and one as a subcommittee member — creating a structural relationship that requires disclosure to retaining counsel and imposes constraints on direct communication between the experts regarding the pending litigation, while not necessarily creating a disqualifying conflict of interest if each expert exercises independent professional judgment.
Opposing Expert Supervisory Authority Conflict Non-Participation Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer who chairs or holds supervisory authority over a technical standards-setting committee is simultaneously retained as an expert witness in litigation where a subordinate committee member serves as the opposing expert — establishing that the hierarchical supervisory relationship between the two engineers creates an irresolvable appearance of compromised impartiality that cannot be mitigated by disclosure alone, and requiring that the engineer either recuse from the expert witness engagement, recuse from committee supervisory authority over the opposing expert during the litigation period, or obtain explicit informed consent from all parties after full disclosure — prohibiting continuation of both roles simultaneously without structural mitigation.
Opposing Party Retention Motivated by Prior Access State
It is clear from the facts that the real reason for the defendant's attorney's hiring Engineering A was that he believed Engineer A would provide a report that would be favorable.
State in which a new client's motivation for retaining an engineer is transparently linked to that engineer's prior access to the opposing party's confidential information and documents — rather than independent professional merit — such that the engineer knew or should have known the retention was sought to exploit prior privileged knowledge, making acceptance of the engagement ethically impermissible regardless of the engineer's subjective belief in their own impartiality.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer, having been retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding and having gained access to that party's confidential documents, communications, and strategic information in a cooperative and mutually beneficial manner, is subsequently approached by the opposing party to provide services in the same proceeding — creating a structural prohibition on accepting the cross-side retention because the engineer cannot credibly partition the confidential knowledge gained from the first party, and because the opposing party's motivation for retention is transparently linked to the engineer's prior access rather than independent professional merit.
Ordinance-Scoped Inspection Dual-Interest Structural Conflict State
The ordinance states specifically that these inspection services are solely for the purpose of ensuring the construction of infrastructure within the development
State in which a private engineering firm is retained by a public authority to perform inspection services that are explicitly scoped by ordinance to protect only the public authority's interests (e.g., conformance with city standards), while simultaneously being positioned or solicited to provide separate inspection services to the private developer — creating a structural conflict where the firm's financial interest in attracting the developer as a private client may compromise its impartiality in the public inspection role, and where the developer faces a coercive dynamic in which the firm holding public review authority also offers to serve as the developer's private inspector.
Ordinance-Scoped Public Inspection City-Interest-Only Fidelity Constraint
The ordinance states specifically that these inspection services are solely for the purpose of ensuring the construction of infrastructure within the development, which is to be turned over to the city, is constructed in accordance with the city's design standards.
Ethical and legal constraint establishing that when a local ordinance expressly limits the scope of a retained engineering firm's inspection services to ensuring developer-built infrastructure meets city design standards for city acceptance, the firm is bound to conduct those inspections solely in the city's interest — and is prohibited from allowing any private commercial relationship with the developer to influence, reduce, or redirect the scope or rigor of inspection, regardless of the developer's status as a fee-paying party.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a private engineering firm serving simultaneously as a municipality's city engineer and as a design/service contractor under active municipal contracts is prohibited from performing city engineer functions that include reviewing, approving, or overseeing the work performed under its own active contracts — establishing that the ethical permissibility of the dual arrangement is conditioned on the firm's city engineer services being scoped to exclude self-review, and that the firm must decline or recuse from any city engineer function that would require it to evaluate the adequacy, quality, or compliance of work it performed or is performing under its own contracts with the same municipality.
Ordinary Membership Peer Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility Constraint
On balance we are not inclined to conclude that the mere fact of membership in the local chapter should prevent engineers involved in an otherwise legitimate and ethical question from voicing their views and seeking approval of their findings and conclusions from a larger peer group of the profession.
Ethical constraint establishing that the mere fact of ordinary membership in a professional society chapter does not prevent an engineer who is retained by a private interest group from voicing views and seeking approval of findings and conclusions from that chapter as a peer group — prohibiting the over-extension of the professional affiliation non-exploitation standard to bar ordinary member participation in chapter proceedings on matters where the engineer has a disclosed client retainer, and establishing that ordinary membership without special influence does not create a per se prohibition on endorsement solicitation when the retainer relationship has been fully disclosed.
A non-engineer organizational governance body (such as a board of directors) that receives engineering reports and technical analyses, bears ultimate authority over organizational energy, infrastructure, or policy decisions, and is the primary recipient of the engineer's faithful-agent reporting obligations, including complete disclosure of reliability, public safety, and systemic risk information necessary for informed decision-making.
Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Self-Calibration Capability
Because of the size of the organization and the large number of projects being designed at any one time, Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer in a senior supervisory role within a large engineering firm to recognize and internalize that the size of the organization, the number of concurrent projects, and the resulting practical difficulty of conducting detailed reviews do not constitute ethical or legal justification for sealing plans without having exercised responsible charge — including the ability to identify when organizational scale has created a structural impossibility of meeting the responsible charge standard, and to respond by restructuring supervisory arrangements, delegating sealing authority to qualified subordinates, or declining to seal rather than using scale as a rationalization for inadequate review.
Organizational Scale Non-Excuse for Responsible Charge Review Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves as chief engineer or senior supervisor within a large engineering firm to refrain from using the size of the organization, the volume of concurrent projects, or the resulting practical impossibility of detailed review as a justification for sealing plans without having conducted a detailed review or check of the design — recognizing that organizational scale and workload are self-imposed conditions that do not diminish the legal and ethical requirement that a sealing engineer exercise responsible charge, and that the engineer must either restructure workload, delegate sealing authority to qualified subordinate engineers who do conduct detailed reviews, or decline to seal documents that have not been adequately reviewed.
Organizational Scale Preventing Adequate Supervisory Review State
State in which the size of an engineering organization and the volume of concurrent projects make it practically impossible for the responsible charge engineer to conduct detailed review of each design before sealing, creating structural tension between organizational efficiency and professional licensure obligations.
Organizational Scale Responsible Charge Non-Excuse Constraint
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the size of an engineering organization and the volume of concurrent projects under a chief or principal engineer's oversight do not constitute a valid justification for failing to conduct the detailed review and check required for responsible charge before affixing a professional seal; the impossibility of detailed review created by organizational scale is not a defense to the ethical and legal obligation of responsible charge, and the engineer must either restructure the organization to enable adequate review or refrain from sealing documents that have not received it.
Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who prepared original design documents for a project becomes the subject of a peer review initiated by the client following discovery of significant design errors, bearing obligations to cooperate with legitimate peer review processes, acknowledge errors, and not obstruct independent technical oversight intended to protect public safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who prepared original design documents is confronted with evidence—through actual adverse outcomes and independent third-party analysis—that the design contains errors or fails to meet regulatory requirements, bearing affirmative obligations to verify the findings, acknowledge the errors to the client and affected parties, accept professional responsibility, and collaborate on remediation.
Original Designer Post-Sale Safety Notification Obligation
Engineer A designs and builds a barn with horse stalls on his property.
Domain-specific principle establishing that an engineer who originally designed a structure retains a professional obligation to notify the current owner and/or appropriate authorities when the engineer learns of post-sale modifications that, in the engineer's professional judgment, create a material risk of structural failure — even though the engineer no longer has any contractual relationship with the property, the owner, or the structure, because the engineer's unique design knowledge creates a special epistemic responsibility that survives the sale.
Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who originally designed a structure and subsequently sold the property to recognize that the sale of the property does not extinguish the professional duty to act when the engineer later learns of structural modifications that may create a collapse risk — and to initiate notification to the current owner and relevant authorities based on unique design knowledge that no other party possesses, including knowledge of original load calculations, structural intent, and design assumptions.
Original Designer Post-Sale Structural Safety Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who originally designed a structure and subsequently sold the property to notify the current owner and relevant public authorities when the engineer later learns of structural modifications that may compromise the safety of the original design — recognizing that the original designer retains unique knowledge of load calculations and design intent that creates a professional responsibility to act even absent a current client relationship or contractual nexus.
Original Engineer Awareness of Review Notification Satisfaction Constraint
it is apparent that Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility and that the resulting evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when an original engineer has actual knowledge that a successor engineer has been retained to conduct an inspection or review of the facility — such that the original engineer is aware the review is occurring and that it will necessarily entail evaluation of the original designs — the purpose of the peer review notification requirement is substantially satisfied even if formal written notification was not provided, because the original engineer has the opportunity to seek participation, provide explanations, or submit technical comments; the constraint establishes that actual knowledge of the review engagement can satisfy the notification requirement's underlying purpose when the original engineer's connection with the project has also been terminated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that when a client has formally and completely discharged a predecessor engineer from the project, a successor engineer retained to review and redesign that predecessor's sealed plans is not ethically required under NSPE Code Section III.8.a to notify the discharged engineer before proceeding with the review — because the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated, satisfying the exception clause of Section III.8.a — while simultaneously recognizing that collegial consultation with the discharged engineer before undertaking modifications remains the wiser and more professional course of action even if not strictly mandated.
Original Engineer Seal Integrity Right Upon Discharge
The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A complied, retaining a set of reproducibles.
Relational principle establishing that a licensed engineer who has been discharged by a client after completing and sealing a set of engineering plans retains a professional right and obligation to ensure that their seal is not left intact on materially altered documents — because the seal represents a continuing public certification of the engineer's professional judgment, and the engineer's discharge does not extinguish their accountability for documents bearing their seal, nor does it authorize the client or a successor engineer to use the sealed plans in ways that misrepresent the original engineer's professional conclusions.
Original MEP Design Engineer Subject to Post-Occupancy Critique
Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who originally provided mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineering services for a project, having been fully compensated and with the project long completed, becomes the subject of a post-occupancy inspection report by a subsequently retained engineer that identifies design inadequacies, and who responds by filing a complaint with the state registration board alleging that the reviewing engineer acted improperly and in a self-serving manner.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who prepared original design documents for a project becomes the subject of a peer review initiated by the client following discovery of significant design errors, bearing obligations to cooperate with legitimate peer review processes, acknowledge errors, and not obstruct independent technical oversight intended to protect public safety.
Out-of-Competence Assignment Refusal Obligation
The Board determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official, noting that the competency issues at stake posed a clear and present danger to the public health and safety.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is directed or pressured by an employer or authority to certify, design, or perform engineering work in a specialized technical domain for which the engineer lacks the requisite training, knowledge, and experience — even when comprehensive training programs exist but are unavailable due to resource constraints — to refuse to perform or certify that work, recognizing that resource limitations do not excuse the engineer from the competence requirement and that performing out-of-competence work poses a clear and present danger to public health and safety.
Out-of-Competence Certification Escalation and Qualified Expert Identification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who declines to certify compliance with regulations outside their domain of competence to affirmatively escalate the matter to appropriate authorities — including supervisors and the requesting official — and to assist in identifying or recommending qualified experts or training pathways that would enable the certification to be performed competently, rather than simply refusing without constructive follow-through.
Out-of-Competence Certification Inherent Deception Principle
Because it is clear that such information is clearly beyond the scope of knowledge of Engineer A (since it would be impossible for Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility that would be required), such a statement, if made by Engineer A would be misleading, deceptive and, on that basis, not ethical.
Professional honesty principle establishing that when an engineer certifies compliance with a regulatory framework or technical standard that is beyond the engineer's domain competence, the certification is inherently misleading and deceptive — not merely incompetent — because it represents to the public, regulatory bodies, and relying parties that the engineer has performed the substantive evaluation necessary to support the certification, when in fact the engineer lacks the knowledge and capacity to perform that evaluation. The deceptive character of such a certification is structural and inherent: it arises not from the engineer's intent to deceive but from the impossibility of the engineer performing the inspection and analysis that the certification implicitly represents as having been performed.
An Army official requested that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation were in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is directed or pressured by an employer or authority to certify, approve, or validate technical work in a domain outside their established area of competence, bearing obligations to refuse such certification when the knowledge gap poses a clear and present danger to public health and safety, even when employer or institutional pressures make refusal difficult.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm accepts a design contract in a technical domain outside their established area of competence, providing assurances of adequacy to secure the award, and bearing heightened obligations of honesty regarding qualifications, diligent effort to perform competently, and transparency when problems arise from knowledge gaps.
Out-of-Competence Compliance Certification Deception Prohibition Obligation
even if Engineer A had the ethical competency to perform the services required, it would not have been ethically proper for Engineer A to 'certify' compliance with the military regulations as requested
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from certifying compliance with a regulatory framework, technical standard, or set of rules in a domain outside the engineer's competence, recognizing that a professional certification constitutes a guarantee that the certified statements are correct, and that certifying compliance without the knowledge and ability to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection or analysis required renders the certification inherently misleading, deceptive, and ethically impermissible — regardless of whether the engineer believes the facility or system is likely compliant. This obligation applies even when the engineer might otherwise be deemed to have marginal competence, if the scope and complexity of the regulatory framework make comprehensive verification impossible without domain-specific expertise.
Out-of-Competence Engineering Contractor
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm accepts a design contract in a technical domain outside their established area of competence, providing assurances of adequacy to secure the award, and bearing heightened obligations of honesty regarding qualifications, diligent effort to perform competently, and transparency when problems arise from knowledge gaps.
Out-of-Competence Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Obligation
Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has an objective basis to determine that another engineer retained on the same project lacks the education, training, and experience to perform a specific engineering task to: (1) confront the other engineer directly and recommend withdrawal from the project; (2) if the other engineer refuses, report the competency concern to the client or contractor; and (3) if concerns remain unaddressed, escalate to appropriate authorities and, if necessary, withdraw from the project. This obligation is triggered when the engineer has a reasonable — not merely speculative — basis to conclude the other engineer is unqualified for the specific task assigned.
Out-of-Competence Public Appointment Acceptance Prohibition
Professional principle establishing that a licensed engineer must decline appointment to a statutory public position whose technical duties fall outside the engineer's disciplinary education and experience, even when the appointment is legally permissible by virtue of PE licensure alone. The ethical obligation to practice only within one's area of competence applies with equal or greater force to public statutory roles, because such roles carry public trust responsibilities and the public cannot protect itself from the consequences of incompetent oversight. Acceptance of such an appointment constitutes an ethical violation regardless of the appointing authority's decision or the absence of other qualified candidates.
Out-of-Competence Public Sector Appointee Engineer
the county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E., with experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer accepts a public sector appointment or position whose duties fall substantially outside their established area of engineering competence, bearing obligations to decline such appointments when the competency gap makes it impossible to perform effective oversight or fulfill the position's responsibilities without compromising public safety or acting unethically.
Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Public Authority Reporting Obligation
the client confided in Engineer A and informed him that the building contained deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, in the course of providing services within their area of licensure, becomes aware — through client disclosure or incidental observation — of safety code violations in a discipline outside their own engineering specialty (such as electrical or mechanical systems identified by a structural engineer) that could cause injury to building occupants or the public, to report those violations to the appropriate public authorities, recognizing that the paramount obligation to protect public health and safety is not limited to the engineer's licensed discipline and that awareness of a code-violating hazard, regardless of how it was acquired, triggers the reporting duty.
Out-of-Discipline Safety Code Violation Reporting Duty Activation Capability
While Engineer A was not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he did realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while performing services within their area of licensure, becomes aware of safety code violations in a discipline outside their own expertise — through client disclosure or incidental observation — to recognize that this out-of-discipline knowledge still activates a professional duty to report those violations to the appropriate public authorities, and to correctly understand that the absence of technical expertise in the relevant discipline does not extinguish the reporting obligation when the engineer has been directly informed of the violations and recognizes their potential to cause injury to building occupants or the public.
Out-of-List Direct Agency Solicitation Procurement Integrity Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint governing the permissibility of a government agency's direct solicitation of an engineering firm or specialist not included on the original solicitation list — establishing that such out-of-list contact is ethically permissible when the agency has determined, based on submitted qualifications, that the originally listed firms would not make a substantial contribution to the work and that the specialist is the genuine source of required expertise, but requiring that the agency's decision be grounded in legitimate procurement integrity concerns rather than favoritism, and that the out-of-list contact be documented and transparent to preserve the integrity of the qualification-based selection process.
Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observation Non-Mandatory Response Obligation
in the Board of Ethical Review's opinion, this is a personal judgment and does not constitute an ethical obligation that can be imposed on Engineer A to take immediate or direct action
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes potential safety issues on an adjacent property — entirely outside the contracted scope of work and involving a third party with no contractual relationship to the engineer, the employer, or the client — to recognize that no mandatory ethical obligation exists to take immediate or direct personal action on that observation, and that any response (such as informing superiors or the client) is a matter of personal professional judgment rather than an enforceable ethical duty, so that engineers are not subjected to an unlimited and unreasonable scope of public safety accountability beyond what is professionally reasonable.
Out-of-Scope Adjacent Safety Observer Engineer
the unsafe condition observed by Engineer A is not within the professional scope of responsibility of Engineer A
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer engaged for a specific construction observation or consulting scope observes potential safety hazards arising from work on an adjacent property by parties with whom the engineer, their firm, and their client have no contractual relationship, bearing a discretionary (not mandatory) obligation to bring the matter to the attention of their firm superiors and client for possible notification of responsible parties on the adjacent site, but not bearing a direct personal duty to take immediate independent action.
Out-of-Scope Code Violation Disclosure in Occupied Building Sale State
State in which a professional engineer retained for a specific structural evaluation of an occupied building learns — through client disclosure rather than independent investigation — of code-violating deficiencies in systems outside the engineer's domain expertise (e.g., electrical, mechanical), where the client has explicitly stated the building will be sold 'as is' with no remediation, and the engineer has agreed to a confidentiality obligation, creating a conflict between contractual confidentiality and the paramount obligation to protect occupant safety.
Out-of-Scope Employer-Funded Work Product Competitive Non-Exploitation Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a firm, performed work beyond the contracted scope of engagement — including speculative design elements, funding analyses, or technical sections added on the engineer's own initiative — from exploiting that out-of-scope work product as a basis for competitive advantage against the employer when soliciting the same client independently, establishing that work performed during employment using employer resources, time, and client access belongs to the employer regardless of whether it was within the originally contracted scope, and that the engineer may not leverage the goodwill, technical content, or client relationship generated by that out-of-scope work to displace the employer in subsequent competitive solicitation.
Out-of-Scope Initiative Employer Attribution Non-Self-Serving Motivation Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a firm, undertakes work beyond the contracted scope of a client project on their own initiative, to critically examine and verify that the motivation for that initiative is genuinely client-serving or professionally appropriate — rather than self-serving (e.g., designed to build a personal relationship with the client, create a future competitive advantage, or position for independent work) — and to ensure that the out-of-scope work is properly attributed to the employer firm and does not constitute a covert effort to cultivate independent business opportunities at the employer's expense.
Out-of-Scope Initiative Non-Self-Serving Faithful Agent Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a firm, undertakes work beyond the contracted scope of a client engagement — such as developing additional report sections not covered by the existing contract — to ensure that such initiative is genuinely motivated by the client's and employer's interests rather than by the engineer's own commercial interest in positioning for future independent contracts, and to refrain from using out-of-scope contributions as a basis for claiming preferential selection or entitlement to subsequent project awards.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has provided speculative or at-risk professional services — such as assisting a client with a grant application without guaranteed compensation — to recognize and acknowledge that such contributions do not create an entitlement to subsequent contract awards, and to refrain from treating or representing prior speculative work as a basis for claiming, expecting, or accepting preferential selection on future projects.
Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Builder Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety deficiency in work performed by a builder or contractor — observed incidentally while the engineer is present on site for a separate contracted purpose — to notify the builder of the identified deficiency when the builder is the responsible party for the deficient work, in addition to notifying the property owner, so that the responsible party has the opportunity to correct the deficiency before harm occurs.
Out-of-Scope Safety Finding Reporting Standard
Engineer A's scope of work is solely to identify any pavement damage on the bridge
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers who discover safety-critical defects or hazards that fall outside their contracted scope of work, including whether and how such findings must be reported to clients, public agencies, or authorities, and the limits of client instructions to suppress such findings from formal reports.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes a safety deficiency outside the contracted scope of services — while lawfully present at a client's property — must disclose that deficiency in writing to the client and, where applicable, to the responsible party (such as a builder), prohibiting the engineer from treating the scope boundary as a justification for silence about an observed condition that poses a risk to public health, safety, or welfare.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Discretionary Response Principle
Having said that, the facts in the present case suggest that Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project might cause Engineer A to decide that the matter requires some level of response on Engineer A's part.
Professional principle establishing that when an engineer incidentally observes potential safety issues that are outside the professional scope of the engineer's engagement, the engineer's ethical response is discretionary rather than mandatory — meaning the engineer may, as a matter of personal judgment, choose to bring the matter to the attention of superiors or appropriate parties, but is not ethically obligated to take immediate or direct action, particularly where the safety concern relates to work on adjacent or unrelated properties with no connection to the engineer's contracted responsibilities.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Employer-Channeled Response Permissibility Constraint
One potential response could include bringing the matter to the attention of Engineer A's superiors in ES Consulting and Client X to explore informing appropriate responsible parties on the adjacent site (e.g., project superintendent), particularly if the safety issues involved could cause some disruption and have some bearing on the progress of the work on Client X's property.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer who has incidentally observed a potential safety risk on adjacent property outside the contracted scope of services chooses to respond, one permissible — but not mandatory — response pathway is to bring the matter to the attention of the engineer's superiors in the employer firm and the client, to explore informing appropriate responsible parties on the adjacent site, particularly where the safety issues could cause disruption to or have bearing on the progress of work on the client's property; prohibiting the engineer from bypassing the employer-client coordination pathway as a first response when that pathway is available and appropriate, while simultaneously establishing that this pathway is permissible rather than obligatory.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Permissible Employer Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes potential safety issues on an adjacent property outside the contracted scope of work to recognize that one permissible — though not mandatory — response is to bring the matter to the attention of the engineer's superiors in the employing firm and the client, to explore informing appropriate responsible parties on the adjacent site (such as the project superintendent), particularly where the safety issues could cause disruption to or have bearing on the progress of work on the client's property, so that the employer can coordinate an appropriate organizational response if warranted.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Conscience Discretion State
State in which a licensed professional engineer has observed a potential safety risk that falls entirely outside the professional scope of their current engagement and outside any client relationship, such that no formal ethical obligation to act can be imposed, but the engineer retains a personal ethical right — grounded in conscience — to take some level of responsive action (e.g., notifying superiors, alerting responsible parties on the adjacent site) without incurring unlimited professional or personal liability. The state is distinguished from mandatory-reporting states by the absence of a duty-triggering nexus between the engineer's professional role and the observed hazard.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Conscience Non-Mandatory Action Constraint
However, in the Board of Ethical Review's opinion, this is a personal judgment and does not constitute an ethical obligation that can be imposed on Engineer A to take immediate or direct action.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes a potential safety risk on adjacent or nearby property that falls entirely outside the engineer's contracted professional scope of responsibility — and with whom neither the engineer, the employer, nor the client has any direct professional relationship — is not subject to a mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action, and that any responsive action taken is a matter of personal judgment and personal conscience rather than an enforceable ethical duty, prohibiting professional ethics bodies from characterizing permissible discretionary responses to out-of-scope safety observations as mandatory ethical obligations.
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Personal Judgment Calibration Capability
the facts in the present case suggest that Engineer A's recognition of potential safety issues in connection with the adjacent construction project might cause Engineer A to decide that the matter requires some level of response on Engineer A's part
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes a potential safety hazard entirely outside the professional scope of contracted services to correctly calibrate the personal judgment decision about whether and how to respond — recognizing that no mandatory ethical obligation to take immediate or direct action exists, that a permissible response includes escalating to employer superiors, and that imposing unlimited personal safety accountability for all observed hazards would expose the engineer to unreasonable personal and professional liability — and to exercise sound professional judgment in determining the appropriate level of voluntary response proportionate to the nature of the observed risk and its potential bearing on the contracted work.
Out-of-Scope Work Performed Without Contract State
State in which an engineer employed by a firm performs substantive professional work — including design elements, funding analyses, or technical studies — that falls outside the formally negotiated scope of work and for which no separate contract exists between the firm and the client, creating ambiguity about ownership of the work product, credit attribution, and the ethical permissibility of the engineer subsequently leveraging that work to obtain independent contracts.
Out-of-State Certificate of Authority Pre-Practice Compliance Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who owns or operates an engineering firm to identify, retrieve, and apply the specific certificate of authority requirements imposed by each state in which the firm intends to perform engineering services — including recognizing that a firm's individual PE licensure in one state does not automatically authorize the firm entity to practice in another state — and to verify that the firm has obtained all required certificates of authority before accepting or commencing work in any jurisdiction.
Out-of-State Firm Certificate of Authority Jurisdictional Practice Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint requiring that an engineering firm licensed in one state must obtain a certificate of authority (or equivalent jurisdictional authorization) from any other state in which it intends to provide engineering services before commencing practice in that state, prohibiting the firm from accepting or performing engineering engagements in a jurisdiction where it lacks the required firm-level authorization regardless of whether its individual engineers hold personal licensure in that jurisdiction.
Out-of-State Firm Certificate of Authority Pre-Practice Compliance Obligation
Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who owns or operates an engineering firm in one state to obtain the required certificate of authority — or equivalent firm-level licensure — from any other state in which the firm accepts and performs engineering services, prior to commencing such services, recognizing that individual licensure in the home state does not confer authority for the firm entity to practice in another jurisdiction and that firm-level unauthorized practice violates both the licensing statutes of the host state and the engineer's professional ethics obligations.
Out-of-State Firm Owner Practicing Without Certificate of Authority
A licensed professional engineer who owns and operates an engineering firm in one state and accepts and performs engineering services in another state without obtaining the required certificate of authority (firm licensure) in the practice jurisdiction, bearing obligations to comply with all state licensing laws before offering or performing engineering services and generating concerns about unlicensed firm practice and client protection.
Out-of-State Licensed Design Presentation Engineer
A licensed professional engineer who presents a project for regulatory approval in a jurisdiction where the engineer does not hold a valid professional engineering license, bearing obligations to obtain proper licensure before performing engineering services in the jurisdiction, and generating concerns about unlicensed practice and the validity of representations made to public bodies.
R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O
State in which a professional engineer is performing engineering services and presenting work for regulatory approval in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed, holding licensure only in another state, thereby potentially constituting unlicensed practice of engineering in the jurisdiction where services are being rendered and approvals are being sought.
Out-of-State Practice Licensure Compliance Obligation
Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who provides verbal engineering input at a public regulatory hearing in a jurisdiction other than the state in which they are licensed — where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making — to verify whether such testimony constitutes the practice of engineering under the applicable state statutes and regulations, and to obtain the required licensure in that jurisdiction before providing such input if it does, so that the engineer does not engage in unlicensed engineering practice.
franchiser decides to terminate its relationship with Engineer A and provides Engineer A of notice of its intent not to renew its contract
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm has provided ongoing design services to a client under a long-term contract that the client has elected not to renew, bearing obligations of continued competent performance through the contract expiration, professional dignity, and fair treatment with respect to successor engineers who may be retained during the wind-down period.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm is currently performing services under an active multi-year consulting contract with a public client, while simultaneously being subject to evaluation and potential replacement in an upcoming contract renewal competition, bearing obligations of continued competent performance and professional dignity, and generating protections against improper competitor interference during the active contract period.
Oversight-Competence Minimum Threshold Principle
The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects but do not include actual preparation of engineering or surveying documents
Professional principle establishing that meaningful oversight of technical engineering or surveying work requires the overseer to possess at minimum a threshold level of domain competence sufficient to evaluate the adequacy, accuracy, and safety of the work being overseen — even when the oversight role does not require personal preparation of engineering or surveying documents. An engineer who lacks any educational or experiential background in the domain being overseen cannot discharge an oversight obligation in a professionally responsible manner, because oversight without comprehension is indistinguishable from no oversight at all, and the public interest served by the oversight role is entirely defeated.
Oversight-Negligent Firm Marketing Principal Engineer
the action by Firm Y and Engineer Z appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent
A principal engineer or firm leader who, without malicious intent, allows outdated or inaccurate personnel information (e.g., names of departed engineers) to persist in marketing brochures and resumes through administrative oversight rather than deliberate misrepresentation, bearing obligations to take reasonable and expeditious corrective steps once the inaccuracy is recognized, even absent intent to deceive.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A principal or senior leader of an engineering firm who, upon being informed (or who should be informed) of inaccurate or misleading information in the firm's marketing materials, fails to take expeditious corrective action within a reasonable period, thereby perpetuating a misrepresentation of the firm's personnel or qualifications to prospective clients. This role is the escalation target for staff engineers who have already notified lower-level managers without result, and bears obligations of truthfulness, accuracy in firm representations, and timely correction of known misrepresentations.
Oversight-Only Role Competence Non-Exemption Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a public or institutional position framed as 'oversight only' — explicitly excluding direct preparation of engineering or surveying documents — does not reduce or eliminate the domain competence prerequisite, because meaningful oversight of technical work (surveying reports, highway improvement projects) requires sufficient disciplinary knowledge to evaluate the work being overseen, identify errors, and exercise professional judgment; and therefore to decline such oversight-only positions when the engineer lacks domain competence in the technical area being overseen.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that accepting a professional role whose primary function is oversight of technical work — rather than direct preparation of engineering documents — does not eliminate the competence prerequisite, because effective oversight of technical work requires sufficient domain competence to evaluate the work being overseen, and therefore to decline acceptance of oversight roles in technical domains for which the engineer lacks the requisite education, training, and experience, even when the role does not require personal preparation or approval of engineering documents.
Oversight-Without-Malice Reduced Culpability Principle
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineering firm's inclusion of inaccurate or outdated personnel information in marketing materials results from inadvertent oversight rather than deliberate intent to mislead or enhance qualifications, the ethical culpability is materially reduced relative to cases of deliberate misrepresentation; the principle does not immunize the firm from all ethical responsibility — continued inaction after awareness remains problematic — but it does preclude a finding of full ethical violation where the dual-element test (pertinent fact + intent to enhance) is not satisfied; the principle recognizes that negligence and malice occupy different positions on the ethical culpability spectrum, and that the absence of malicious intent is a relevant mitigating factor in professional ethics adjudication.
Oversight Role Domain Competence Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that accepting a professional role whose primary function is oversight of technical work — rather than direct preparation of engineering documents — does not eliminate the competence prerequisite, because effective oversight of technical work requires sufficient domain competence to evaluate the work being overseen, and therefore to decline acceptance of oversight roles in technical domains for which the engineer lacks the requisite education, training, and experience, even when the role does not require personal preparation or approval of engineering documents.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to decline acceptance of a public sector appointment or position whose duties and responsibilities fall substantially outside the engineer's domain of competence — even when the appointment is made by a legitimate authority and the position requires only oversight rather than direct preparation of engineering documents — recognizing that effective oversight of technical work requires domain competence and that accepting such a position without the requisite expertise renders the engineer unable to fulfill the position's core responsibilities in accordance with the NSPE Code.
Oversight Role Minimum Substantive Competence Prerequisite Recognition Capability
Such oversight is important in protecting the interests of the public and must be performed by one with expertise and background in the areas of surveying and highway improvements.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a public oversight role — even one explicitly limited to oversight rather than direct document preparation or approval — requires at minimum a substantive degree of background and experience in the technical domain being overseen; including the ability to articulate why effective oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects requires domain-relevant competence, to reject the argument that oversight-only roles are competence-exempt, and to correctly conclude that an engineer without any background in the relevant domain cannot properly exercise the judgment and discretion required by the oversight function.
Oversight Role Substantive Competence Non-Delegable State
It could be stated that Engineer A's responsibilities did not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents, that instead such documents would be prepared or approved by qualified individuals, and that Engineer A's role would be to oversee those documents and reports
State in which a professional in a supervisory or oversight role attempts to argue that the role's competence requirements are satisfied by having qualified subordinates prepare or approve the technical documents, with the supervisor providing only administrative coordination. This argument is ethically rejected because meaningful oversight — the ability to evaluate, question, and exercise judgment over technical work — requires domain competence that cannot be supplied by the subordinates being overseen. The state activates when the 'others will do the technical work' argument is raised as a defense to a competence objection in an oversight role, and it triggers the obligation to reject that argument and apply the substantive competence standard.
Oversight Role Substantive Domain Background Minimum Threshold Constraint
Nevertheless, The Board concluded in BER Case 85-3 that at a bare minimum, one who is serving in the role as a county surveyor must have at least some substantive degree of background and experience in order to accept such a position.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer accepting a supervisory, oversight, or administrative role whose core duties include review, oversight, or approval of work products in a specific technical domain must possess at minimum some substantive degree of background and experience in that domain — prohibiting acceptance of such roles on the basis of general licensure alone when the engineer lacks any substantive background in the domain being overseen, because without such background the engineer cannot properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the role, as established in BER Case 85-3 and applied in BER Case 94-8.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's appointment to an institutional administrative or supervisory role — such as a Civilian Building and Grounds Division Chief — does not expand, confer, or imply competence in technical regulatory domains outside the engineer's prior education and experience, prohibiting the engineer from accepting or performing certification work in those domains on the basis of their administrative title or institutional authority alone, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a and the principle that competence must be substantively demonstrated rather than institutionally assumed.
Overweight Vehicle Operator on Restricted Bridge
Log trucks and tankers cross it on a regular basis
A commercial vehicle operator (log truck, tanker) who crosses a bridge that has been reopened with a posted weight restriction, operating vehicles that exceed the posted limit and thereby contributing to ongoing public safety risk on compromised infrastructure.
Overweight Vehicle Weight Restriction Enforcement Notification Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring a licensed engineer who observes systematic violation of posted weight restrictions on structurally compromised infrastructure to formally notify traffic enforcement authorities and the relevant transportation regulatory agency, because the engineer's professional knowledge of the structural risk created by overweight vehicles creates a duty to act beyond passive observation.
Overweight Vehicle Weight Restriction Violation Documentation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to systematically observe, document, and report instances of commercial vehicles exceeding posted weight restrictions on safety-restricted infrastructure, creating an evidentiary record that supports enforcement escalation and demonstrates the ongoing and imminent nature of the public safety risk to supervisory and governing authorities.
Overweight Vehicle Weight Restriction Violation Enforcement Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that commercial vehicles — including log trucks and tankers — are regularly crossing a bridge that has been reopened with a posted weight restriction (e.g., 5-ton limit) in violation of that restriction, and that the bridge exhibits frightening movement under such loads, to immediately escalate to supervisory and law enforcement authorities demanding strict enforcement of the weight restriction, and if that escalation is ineffective, to escalate further to state and federal transportation officials and other appropriate bodies.
Owner-Attorney Interest Alignment Confidentiality Conflict-of-Interest Absence Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when an attorney retains an engineer on behalf of and for the benefit of a property owner, and no conflict or potential conflict of interest exists between the attorney and the owner with respect to the discovered information, the key predicate for finding an ethical violation based on unauthorized third-party disclosure — as established in BER Case 82-2 — is absent, thereby removing a significant barrier to disclosure of safety-critical information to the owner and affected parties; prohibiting engineers from treating the attorney-client confidentiality instruction as equivalent in ethical weight to a client confidentiality instruction when the attorney's interests and the owner's interests are aligned and the information is material to the owner's welfare, and establishing that the absence of owner-attorney conflict is a relevant factor that modulates the engineer's disclosure obligations in favor of safety disclosure.
Owner-Contractor Construction Dispute Adjudication State
State in which a dispute has arisen between an owner and a general contractor during construction, and the engineer of record — contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability — is called upon by both parties to resolve the dispute, creating a quasi-adjudicative role that structurally requires impartiality rather than client loyalty.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer, retained by a client for both design and construction-phase services, is contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract document requirements and judge of work acceptability — creating a structural obligation of impartiality that supersedes the general duty of loyalty to the client when disputes arise between the client and contractor, such that the engineer's faithful agency is fulfilled through objective interpretation rather than partisan advocacy for the client.
in the Board's view, it would have been more appropriate to first notify the current owner of his concerns regarding the structural integrity of the barn
State in which a professional engineer who has identified a structural safety concern on private property is obligated to notify the current property owner of the concern before or concurrent with notifying governmental authorities — reflecting the principle that the owner, as the party with direct control over the property and primary responsibility for its condition, should receive the safety concern directly and have the opportunity to act before external regulatory escalation occurs.
Owner-Modified Approved Structure Structural Integrity Concern State
Jones proposes to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removes portions of the columns and footings that support the roof.
State in which a property owner has obtained governmental approval for and completed structural modifications to a building — including removal of load-bearing elements — that a qualified engineer subsequently assesses as creating a risk of collapse under foreseeable load conditions, despite the modifications having passed official review and receiving a certificate of occupancy.
Owner Loyalty Misapplication Non-Acquiescence Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and resist an owner-client's erroneous claim that the engineer's duty of loyalty requires a partisan finding in the owner's favor — particularly when the engineer has been contractually designated as an impartial dispute resolver — and to maintain the correct position that impartial, fact-grounded determination constitutes the highest fulfillment of the loyalty obligation, not a breach of it.
Owner Loyalty Misapplication Non-Acquiescence Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to resist and correct an owner-client's erroneous claim that the engineer's duty of loyalty required a partisan finding in the owner's favor in a contractually designated dispute resolution role, recognizing that the loyalty obligation is fulfilled — not breached — by impartial, technically grounded performance of the designated role, and that acquiescing to the misapplication would itself constitute an ethical violation by subordinating objective professional judgment to client pressure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who owes a general duty of loyalty to an owner-client to recognize that the loyalty obligation does not extend to rendering partisan, client-favoring findings in a contractually designated dispute resolution role — and that finding against the client's expressed preference, when the technical and contractual merits support the opposing party, constitutes fulfillment rather than breach of the loyalty obligation, because impartial performance serves the client's genuine long-term interests by expediting claims, avoiding delays, preventing collusion allegations, and providing candid professional analysis.
PE-License-Non-Equivalence-to-Cross-Discipline-Competence Principle
Fundamental professional virtue principle establishing that holding a professional engineer (PE) license satisfies the legal credential requirement for engineering practice but does not, by itself, authorize competent practice across all engineering disciplines. A PE license is a credential of professional standing, not a grant of unlimited technical scope; an engineer whose education and experience are confined to one discipline (e.g., chemical engineering) cannot rely on licensure status alone to justify accepting structural design work for which no relevant educational or experiential background exists. Professional ethics requires engineers to go beyond what is specifically permitted by law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental professional virtue principle establishing that while all qualified engineers may be licensed as 'professional engineers' regardless of technical discipline, this universal licensure does not authorize practice in any and all areas of engineering. Every engineer, regardless of license status, must exercise careful professional judgment and practice solely within their actual area(s) of competency. The breadth of the PE license is a credential of professional standing, not a grant of unlimited technical scope.
PE-Supervised Public Relations Firm Principal
The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed
A licensed professional engineer who holds an ownership or senior supervisory role within a public relations or communications firm, bearing ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the firm's reports and deliverables comply with the NSPE Code of Ethics, including obligations of truthfulness, non-deception, and completeness of material facts.
PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Commercial Bid Capability
Capability of a professional engineering firm submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional or commercial services to compete solely on commercial merit — price, capacity, and relevant experience — without leveraging or invoking its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator, recognizing that using professional credentials to gain advantage in a non-professional commercial procurement context would constitute an improper exploitation of professional status.
PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Bid Obligation
Duty of a professional engineering firm submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services to compete solely on commercial merit — price, capability, and relevant experience for the sub-professional work — and to refrain from leveraging or invoking its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator or implied quality signal in a marketplace where PE credentials are not required and where doing so would constitute an unfair advantage over non-PE competitors bidding on the same sub-professional work.
PE Credential Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineering firm whose principals hold PE licenses, when submitting a competitive price-based bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services, is prohibited from invoking, leveraging, or emphasizing its PE licensure status as a competitive differentiator or advantage in that bid — requiring instead that the firm compete solely on commercial merit, price, and qualifications relevant to the sub-professional work itself; grounded in the principle that PE credentials are instruments of public trust for professional engineering practice and must not be misappropriated to gain unfair competitive advantage in commercial markets where licensure is not a qualifying criterion.
PE Designation Mailing Address Jurisdictional Anchoring Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who uses the PE designation on a business card to recognize that including a mailing address on the card serves a jurisdictional anchoring function — allowing recipients to identify the state(s) in which the engineer is licensed — and that omitting a mailing address creates ambiguity about licensure jurisdiction that constitutes an ethical deficiency, even when the states of licensure are otherwise listed.
An engineer intern role in which an individual who has previously failed the professional engineer licensing examination is offered employment by a prospective employer who is aware the intern has not yet passed the PE exam, bearing obligations to disclose material facts about qualifications but not obligated to volunteer information about prior exam failures when the employer's hiring decision is not contingent on that information.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed engineer intern (EI) role in which the individual is falsely listed or advertised as a licensed professional engineer in firm marketing or public-facing documents, generating obligations to identify and report the misrepresentation to responsible parties within the firm and, if uncorrected, to appropriate professional bodies.
PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed engineer intern or engineering candidate who has previously failed the professional engineer licensing examination to correctly assess whether prior exam failures constitute material facts requiring voluntary disclosure to a prospective employer — including understanding that materiality depends on the employer's decision context, that an employer who offers employment with full knowledge that the candidate has not yet passed the PE exam has implicitly accepted the candidate's current licensure status, and that non-disclosure of prior failures in such a context does not constitute omission of a material fact.
PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed engineer intern or engineering candidate who is asked about or volunteers information regarding professional engineer examination status to an employer or prospective employer to assess whether undisclosed information — such as prior examination failures — constitutes a material fact given the employer's known decision-making context, recognizing that the omission of information is unethical only when that information is material to the employer's decision, and that when an employer has offered employment with full knowledge that the candidate has not yet passed the PE exam, prior failures are not material and need not be volunteered.
PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Threshold Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer intern or engineering candidate is not obligated to volunteer information about prior professional licensure examination failures to a prospective employer when: (1) the employer has offered employment with full knowledge that the candidate has not yet passed the PE exam, and (2) the employer has not specifically inquired about the number of prior attempts — establishing that the materiality of an omission is assessed in light of what the employer already knows and what the employer has specifically requested, and prohibiting the characterization of non-disclosure of prior exam failures as an ethical violation when the omitted information would not have changed the employer's decision given the information already possessed, as established by BER Case 20-1.
State in which an engineer intern or candidate has failed a professional licensure examination one or more times and does not disclose those prior failures to a prospective employer during hiring negotiations — where the employer is aware the candidate has not yet passed the exam — creating a question about whether the omission constitutes a material misrepresentation, with the ethical determination depending on whether the undisclosed information would have been material to the employer's hiring decision given what the employer already knew.
PE Exam Failure Pre-Employment Non-Disclosure Permissibility Constraint
Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineering candidate who has previously failed the PE examination is not automatically obligated to volunteer that failure history to a prospective employer during an interview when: (1) the employer has full knowledge that the candidate is not yet licensed, (2) the employer has not specifically inquired about the number of prior attempts, and (3) the omitted information would not have materially altered the employer's decision given what the employer already knew — prohibiting the characterization of such non-disclosure as an ethical violation absent a specific inquiry or a context in which the failure history would have been outcome-determinative, as grounded in BER Case 20-1 and the NSPE Code's materiality-sensitive approach to honest representation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer intern or engineering candidate is not obligated to volunteer information about prior professional licensure examination failures to a prospective employer when: (1) the employer has offered employment with full knowledge that the candidate has not yet passed the PE exam, and (2) the employer has not specifically inquired about the number of prior attempts — establishing that the materiality of an omission is assessed in light of what the employer already knows and what the employer has specifically requested, and prohibiting the characterization of non-disclosure of prior exam failures as an ethical violation when the omitted information would not have changed the employer's decision given the information already possessed, as established by BER Case 20-1.
PE Examination Attempt Disclosure Standard
Professional norms governing the obligation of engineering candidates and interns to disclose prior unsuccessful attempts at the PE examination when applying for positions that require or expect licensure, particularly when such history is material to the employer's hiring decision and licensure timeline expectations.
PE Firm Bidding Sub-Professional Services
A professional engineering firm role in which all principals hold PE licensure but the firm is invited to submit a competitive bid for work that is entirely sub-professional in character (though related to engineering). This role raises obligations concerning honest representation of the firm's professional identity, the appropriateness of competing for work below the professional threshold, and whether accepting such work is consistent with the firm's professional standing and obligations under engineering codes of ethics.
PE Firm Sub-Professional Bid Identity Transparency Constraint
An engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers
Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineering firm submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services be transparent with the procuring client about its nature as a PE firm — prohibiting the firm from obscuring or misrepresenting its professional identity in ways that could mislead the client about the nature of the bidding entity, while simultaneously prohibiting the firm from exploiting that identity to gain improper competitive advantage; establishing that transparency about firm identity is a baseline honesty obligation that persists regardless of whether the work being bid is sub-professional in character.
PE Firm Sub-Professional Service Provision State
engineering firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
State in which a firm whose principals are all licensed professional engineers regularly provides, as an incidental or occasional business activity, services that are sub-professional in character — related to engineering but not requiring professional engineering judgment or licensure — creating a persistent background condition that raises questions about the scope of professional ethical obligations, the applicability of engineering codes to non-engineering work products, and the firm's identity as a professional engineering entity when operating in a sub-professional service mode.
PE Identity Non-Exploitation in Sub-Professional Commercial Competition Principle
Relational principle requiring that when a professional engineering firm participates in competitive bidding for sub-professional work, it must not exploit its PE credentials, professional reputation, or engineering licensure status to gain an unfair advantage over non-PE commercial competitors who are equally or better qualified to perform the sub-professional work, while still being obligated to disclose its professional character honestly when asked or when material
PE License Legal Minimum vs Ethics Code Higher Standard Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that holding a valid PE license satisfies only the legal minimum requirement for accepting an engineering assignment, and that professional ethics — specifically NSPE Code Section II.2 — imposes a higher standard requiring the engineer to possess substantive domain-specific competence (education, training, and experience in the specific technical field) before accepting the assignment; and to correctly conclude that legal licensure alone does not constitute ethical authorization to perform work outside one's established area of competence.
PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E. The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed.
Professional principle requiring that when a licensed professional engineer uses the PE designation on a business card or marketing material in connection with business activities, the card must identify the specific state(s) in which the engineer holds licensure — so that recipients are not misled into believing the engineer is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the card is presented, when in fact the engineer holds licensure only in other states.
Paid Advocacy Displacing Expert Witness Objectivity State
he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the county engineers
State in which an engineer serving as a paid expert witness in an adversarial proceeding is functioning not as an objective technical expert but as a paid advocate for a private interest — actively opposing the engineering opinions of other professionals on behalf of the retaining party — such that the structural role has shifted from neutral expert to partisan advocate, rendering the engagement ethically impermissible under professional codes requiring objectivity.
Paid Advocacy Versus Expert Witness Role Distinction Recognition Capability
The engineer was doing more than offering his expertise in engineering matters as an aid to a fuller understanding by the tribunal; he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the government.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize the ethically significant distinction between serving as a paid advocate for a private interest in an adversarial proceeding — where the engineer's role is to advance a client's position — and serving as an expert witness in the ordinary professional sense — where the engineer offers independent technical expertise to aid the tribunal's understanding. Includes the ability to identify when an ostensible 'expert witness' role is in substance a paid advocacy role, to recognize that the paid advocacy role creates a conflict of interest when the engineer simultaneously serves as advisor to the opposing governmental party, and to understand that the ethical remedy for such a conflict is resignation from the advisory role before undertaking the adverse advocacy, consistent with BER Case 76-3 and BER Case 85-4.
Paid Advocacy Versus Expert Witness Role Distinction Recognition Obligation
it would be incorrect to accept the engineer's role as an expert witness in the ordinary sense of that kind of professional service arrangement
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is retained to testify in a proceeding on behalf of a party whose position is adverse to the engineer's advisory client to recognize that such testimony constitutes paid advocacy for a private interest — not merely the offering of independent engineering expertise as an aid to the tribunal's understanding — and that the engineer's role in such circumstances is materially different from the ordinary expert witness role, carrying heightened ethical obligations including the requirement to resign from any concurrent advisory relationship with the opposing party before testifying.
Paid Advocacy Versus Objective Expert Witness Role Distinction Constraint
he was in fact a paid advocate of a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the government
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who testifies in an adversarial proceeding on behalf of a party whose position conflicts with the position of a body to which the engineer simultaneously serves as advisor is not functioning as a neutral expert witness but as a paid advocate — prohibiting the engineer from conflating the paid-advocacy role with the independent expert witness role, and establishing that the engineer must either resign from the advisory role before testifying adversarially or decline the adversarial engagement, as established by BER Case 76-3 and the principle that simultaneous advisory and adversarial roles are irreconcilable.
Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Confidentiality Subordination Constraint
Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code's use of the word 'paramount' in Section I.1. to describe the engineer's obligation to protect public health and safety creates a normative hierarchy in which the public safety obligation takes precedence over the confidentiality obligation under Section III.4. when the two conflict — prohibiting engineers from treating the confidentiality obligation as co-equal with or superior to the paramount safety obligation, and establishing that the word 'paramount' is a deliberate drafting choice that signals the highest priority in the Code's normative structure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Priority constraint establishing that when engineer obligations to client fidelity conflict with obligations to public safety, the public safety obligation takes precedence, constraining the engineer from fulfilling client directives that would compromise public welfare.
Paramount Safety Normative Hierarchy Supremacy Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the NSPE Code's deliberate use of the word 'paramount' in Section I.1 to describe the obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare establishes a normative hierarchy in which public safety obligations occupy the highest position — superseding confidentiality obligations, faithful agent duties, and client directives — and to correctly apply this supremacy hierarchy when resolving conflicts between the paramount safety obligation and other significant but subordinate professional obligations.
Paramount Safety Obligation Hierarchy Supremacy Principle
matters of public health and safety must take precedence
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the word 'paramount' in the engineering ethics code's public safety mandate is not merely rhetorical but carries structural normative weight — it places the public safety obligation at the apex of the code's hierarchy of duties, such that when public safety conflicts with other significant ethical obligations (including confidentiality), the safety obligation takes precedence as a matter of code structure, not merely as a matter of contextual balancing.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions
Paramount Safety Word Supremacy Hierarchy Recognition Obligation
The Code of Ethics is clear on this point. Section I.1. employs the word 'paramount' to describe the obligation of the engineer with respect to the public health and safety.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the NSPE Code's use of the word 'paramount' in Section I.1. to describe the public health and safety obligation is a deliberate and meaningful drafting choice that establishes a normative hierarchy — placing public safety above all other professional obligations including client confidentiality, faithful agent duties, and contractual commitments — and that this hierarchy must be applied when any other Code provision or contractual obligation conflicts with the public safety duty, so that the engineer does not treat competing obligations as co-equal with the paramount safety obligation.
Part-Time City Engineer Dual-Role Design Provider
Engineer B was engaged in full-time private practice and treated his part-time service to the community as service to a client
A licensed professional engineering role in which a private-practice engineer is retained part-time as a city engineer to provide general advisory services (advising the city council, recommending on engineering matters, approving plans), and is simultaneously retained by the same municipality to prepare plans and specifications for specific city projects on a fee basis — bearing heightened obligations to ensure that advisory judgments are not influenced by the secondary financial interest in obtaining design commissions, and to avoid self-review of the engineer's own design work in the advisory capacity.
Part-Time County Engineer Private Plan Approval Recommendation Non-Issuance Constraint
In BER Case 67-12, the Board indicated that when an engineer serves as a part time county engineer and as a private consultant and in the latter capacity submits the plans of a private developer to the county for approval, he should not offer any recommendation for their approval.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer serves simultaneously as a part-time county engineer and as a private consultant, and in the private consultant capacity submits plans of a private developer to the county for approval, the engineer is absolutely prohibited from offering any recommendation for the approval of those plans — establishing that such a recommendation would be a useless act because it is basic to the Code that an engineer will not submit plans or other work which the engineer does not believe represents the best interests of the client, and that the act of recommending one's own submitted work for approval constitutes an impermissible self-serving advisory act that violates the engineer's duty of impartiality in the public role, as established by BER Case 67-12.
Part-Time County Engineer Private Plan Approval Recommendation Non-Issuance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time county engineer who simultaneously acts as a private consultant submitting plans of a private developer to the county for approval to refrain from offering any recommendation for approval of those plans in the county engineer capacity — recognizing that such a recommendation is both ethically impermissible (as it divides loyalty between the county and the developer) and logically superfluous (as it is axiomatic that an engineer will not submit plans that do not represent the best interests of the client, making any approval recommendation a useless act that merely creates the appearance of independent review where none exists).
Part-Time Municipal Consulting Engineer Without Divided Loyalty
a part-time consultant arrangement to municipalities by engineers in private practice did not preclude those same engineers from providing normal engineering services to the same municipalities
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer in private practice simultaneously provides consulting services to one or more municipalities on a part-time basis, bearing obligations to ensure that loyalties are not divided between municipal clients and private practice interests, and that the arrangement does not preclude the provision of normal engineering services to those same municipalities.
Part-Time Municipal Engineer Advisory Only
there are serious ethical constraints that would preclude the selection of Engineer A by the town to perform the road design work
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer in private practice serves as a part-time municipal engineer in a strictly advisory capacity — attending meetings, advising on engineering matters, reviewing plans, and recommending consultants — but who is explicitly precluded from performing substantive design or engineering services for that same municipality due to the conflict of interest arising from the convergence of advisory authority and competitive design interest, even with full disclosure.
Part-Time Municipal Engineer Competitive Disadvantage Acknowledgment and Ethical Constraint
On the flip side of the issue is the practical reality for many professional engineers and engineering firms that by serving in a limited professional advisory role, they are precluded from consideration on actual engineering projects; the professional engineer or the engineering firm is placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in relation to other engineers and engineering firms that may freely compete on such public engineering projects
Domain-specific principle acknowledging the practical reality that engineers serving in limited municipal advisory roles face competitive disadvantage relative to engineers who may freely compete on public engineering projects, while simultaneously establishing that this competitive disadvantage does not relieve the advisory engineer of ethical constraints on accepting design work that would create irreconcilable conflicts of interest — recognizing that the profession must balance the practical needs of small municipalities for competent advisory services against the integrity of public procurement
Part-Time Municipal Engineer Dual-Role Advisory-Design Ethical Permissibility Boundary Obligation
The Board ruled that it is ethical for a professional engineer retained by a community on a part-time basis as a city engineer to prepare plans and specifications for a project for the same community, but in so acting the engineer must be scrupulously careful that his advice is not influenced by his secondary interest as the engineer likely to be retained for the design of the project.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal advisory engineer — and of the municipal client — to recognize the ethical boundary between permissible dual-role service (advisory plus design on separate projects where the engineer does not review their own work) and impermissible dual-role service (advisory plus design on the same project where the engineer evaluated the prior contractor and would review their own advisory work), applying the precedent-informed distinction between BER Case No. 63-5 (permissible: advisory plus design where client waives independent review), BER Case No. 74-2 (permissible: municipal engineer firm also performs capital project design), and BER Case No. 01-11 (permissible with disclosure: city engineer firm also performs design where no self-review occurs) versus the instant case (impermissible: same project, self-review, structural conflict not curable by disclosure).
Part-Time Municipal Engineer Impartial Performance Evaluation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal engineer — who simultaneously maintains a private consulting practice — to conduct evaluations of contractor performance with complete impartiality and objectivity, refraining from allowing any private commercial interest in obtaining the evaluated contract to influence the evaluation, and to recuse from the evaluation entirely when the engineer's private practice creates a direct financial interest in the outcome of the performance determination.
Part-Time Municipal Engineer Performance Evaluation Impartiality Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal engineer — who simultaneously maintains a private consulting practice — to conduct evaluations of other contractors' professional performance with complete impartiality, free from any private commercial interest in the outcome of the evaluation, including the ability to recognize when a personal financial interest in replacing the evaluated contractor compromises or appears to compromise the objectivity of the evaluation.
Part-Time Municipal Engineer Private Plan Approval Recommendation Non-Issuance Capability
Finally, in BER Case 67-12, the Board indicated that when an engineer serves as a part time county engineer and as a private consultant and in the latter capacity submits the plans of a private developer to the county for approval, he should not offer any recommendation for their approval.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a part-time municipal engineer who simultaneously acts as a private consultant submitting plans of a private developer to the municipal authority for approval to recognize that offering any recommendation for approval of those privately-submitted plans in the municipal engineer capacity is ethically prohibited — understanding that such a recommendation is both a useless act (because the engineer is axiomatically assumed to believe the plans represent the client's best interests) and a structural conflict that compromises the integrity of the municipal review function — and to correctly refrain from issuing any such recommendation.
Part-Time Public Advisory Engineer Scrupulous Impartiality Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer retained by a community on a part-time basis as a city, town, or county engineer — who also maintains a private practice — must be scrupulously careful that advisory advice provided in the public role is not influenced by any secondary private commercial interest in being retained for design work arising from that advisory role, prohibiting the engineer from allowing the prospect of future design work to color, distort, or bias professional advisory recommendations made in the public capacity, and establishing that the dual role is ethically permissible only when the advisory function is exercised with complete impartiality free from private commercial motivation.
Part-Time Public Engineer Advisory-to-Design Ineligibility Constraint
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint arising from NSPE Code Section II.4.e establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving as an officer or principal of a private engineering firm who simultaneously holds a part-time official advisory role with a governmental body — including as town engineer — is categorically ineligible to be selected by that governmental body to perform engineering design services for it, prohibiting the engineer's private firm from accepting design contracts from the municipality the engineer serves in an official capacity, regardless of the engineer's qualifications, the municipality's preference, the absence of explicit statutory prohibition, or whether procurement laws are scrupulously followed — and establishing that this ineligibility is irrespective of disclosure and cannot be cured by disclosure of further circumstances alone.
Part-Time Public Engineer NSPE Code II.4.e Design Services Ineligibility Constraint
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint arising from NSPE Code Section II.4.e establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving as an officer or employee of a governmental body — including a part-time town engineer — is categorically ineligible to be selected by that governmental body to perform engineering services for it, prohibiting the engineer's private firm from accepting design contracts from the municipality the engineer serves in an official capacity, regardless of the engineer's qualifications, the municipality's preference, or the absence of explicit statutory prohibition.
Part-Time Public Role with Private Practice Conflict State
State in which a licensed professional engineer simultaneously holds a part-time official role with a governmental or public body (such as part-time town engineer) and operates a private consulting engineering practice, and has exercised advisory influence over the selection of a competing or complementary professional for a public project — subsequently positioning their own private firm to benefit from the termination of that selected professional, creating a structural conflict of interest that implicates both the advisory role and the private commercial interest.
at the beginning of an individual qualification section, Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project
State in which a professional or firm includes attribution notices identifying prior employers and clients for projects completed under previous employment in some portions of a qualifications proposal or marketing document, but omits that attribution from other portions — particularly within detailed individual project descriptions — creating ambiguity about whether the overall disclosure is sufficient to prevent misrepresentation of experience and accomplishments.
Partial Responsibility Claim Insufficient for Whole-Design Impact State
Engineer B's failure to acknowledge responsibility for the full design by notations on the drawings
State in which a successor engineer has claimed responsibility only for specific modifications made to a predecessor's design, while failing to recognize and acknowledge that those modifications have a systemic impact on the integrity and efficacy of the entire project design — such that the partial responsibility claim is professionally insufficient and misleading, because the engineer's changes have effectively transformed the whole-design outcome for which full professional accountability is required.
Passive Acquiescence After Safety Notification as Independent Ethical Failure
Professional principle establishing that an engineer who discovers safety violations or hazardous conditions, informs the client, and then proceeds passively without insisting on remedial action or withdrawing from the project commits an independent ethical violation — distinct from any failure to notify — because the ethics code's use of the term 'paramount' to describe the public safety obligation requires active insistence, not mere mention, and passive acquiescence after notification is itself a form of ethical non-compliance.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle establishing that when an engineer discovers safety violations or hazardous conditions during a professional engagement and informs the client, the engineer must not merely note the concern and proceed passively — the engineer must insist that the client take appropriate remedial action, and if the client refuses, the engineer must refuse to continue work on the project, recognizing that passive acquiescence after notification constitutes an independent ethical failure.
Passive Acquiescence Ethical Insufficiency Self-Recognition Capability
The Board noted that the engineer 'did not force the issue, but instead went along without dissent or comment. If the engineer's ethical concerns were real, the engineer should have insisted that the client take appropriate action or refuse to continue work on the project.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified safety code violations or hazardous conditions to recognize that going along without dissent or comment — including making only a brief mention in a confidential report — does not satisfy the professional ethical obligation, and that passive acquiescence to a known safety violation constitutes an independent ethical failure separate from and in addition to any failure to report to public authorities, requiring the engineer to affirmatively insist on corrective action or withdraw from the engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that including a brief mention of known safety code violations in a confidential client report does not satisfy the independent professional obligation to notify appropriate public authorities of those violations, and to correctly distinguish between client-directed written communication within a confidential report and the separate, non-waivable duty to bring safety code violations to the attention of the relevant public regulatory authorities — even when the engineer's scope of work does not include the discipline in which the violations occur.
Passive Acquiescence to Known Safety Violation Independent Ethical Failure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers safety code violations or hazardous conditions during professional services to recognize that passive acquiescence — going along without dissent or comment after informing the client — constitutes an independent ethical failure, separate from and in addition to any failure to report; the engineer must actively insist that the client take appropriate corrective action rather than treating client notification alone as a discharged obligation, because the NSPE Code's use of the term 'paramount' to describe the public welfare obligation requires active insistence, not silent compliance.
Passive Compliance with Safety Suppression Independent Ethical Failure Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has discovered and reported imminent safety findings to a retaining attorney to recognize that simply complying with the attorney's confidentiality instruction — without insisting on corrective action, disclosure, or withdrawing from the engagement — constitutes an independent ethical failure separate from and in addition to the failure to notify public authorities, and that passive acquiescence to known safety suppression is itself a violation of the paramount public safety obligation.
Passive Safety Acquiescence Independent Ethical Violation Constraint
the engineer 'did not force the issue, but instead went along without dissent or comment.'
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of safety code violations or hazardous conditions during professional services commits an independent ethical violation by passively acquiescing — going along without dissent or comment — rather than actively insisting that the client take appropriate corrective action or refusing to continue work on the project, establishing that passive non-objection in the face of known safety violations is itself an ethical failure distinct from and in addition to any failure to report to external authorities, and that the engineer's ethical obligation requires active insistence rather than silent compliance.
Pattern-of-Disregard-Triggered State Authority Escalation Obligation
After several attempts to modify the views of her superiors, it is our view that Engineer A knew or should have known that the 'proper authorities' were not the city officials, but more probably state officials (i.e., state water pollution control authority).
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role who has made repeated internal escalation attempts — to immediate supervisors and elected officials — and who has recognized a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by those internal authorities, to escalate the public safety concern to the appropriate external state or regulatory authority (e.g., state water pollution control authority), recognizing that once a pattern of disregard is established, internal officials no longer constitute 'proper authorities' under the NSPE Code and the engineer's obligation shifts to external state-level reporting.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role who, after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of internal supervisors and elected officials regarding an ongoing legal or safety violation, to recognize that the 'proper authorities' are not the internal officials who have demonstrated disregard for the law but rather external state or regulatory authorities — and to escalate the violation to those external authorities — failing which the engineer becomes an accessory to the ongoing violation through inaction.
Pattern of Law Disregard Accessory Liability Escalation Trigger Constraint
Engineer A was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior as well as members of the city council
Ethical and legal constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate superior and governing officials — and who has made several unsuccessful attempts to modify the views of those superiors — must escalate to proper external authorities (state regulatory bodies) at the point when she is reasonably certain that no action will be taken and that a probable danger to public safety exists, prohibiting continued inaction after this threshold is reached on the grounds that such inaction makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing legal violation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by immediate supervisors and governing officials — and who has made several attempts to modify the views of superiors without success — must recognize that the 'proper authorities' for escalation are not the already-non-compliant local officials but rather higher-level state or regulatory authorities, prohibiting the engineer from treating repeated unsuccessful internal escalation to non-compliant local officials as a discharge of the obligation to report to proper authorities, and establishing that continued inaction after recognizing that local officials are themselves the source of the violation makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing legal violation.
Peer-Reviewed Engineer Subject to Safety Code Findings
Review Engineer A visited Engineer B's firm
A licensed professional engineer whose design work is reviewed under an organized peer review program and found to potentially violate state and local safety code requirements, bearing obligations to engage in good-faith collegial discussion with the reviewing engineer, provide clarification of design decisions, and take corrective action when violations are confirmed, while retaining the right to have findings discussed directly before any external reporting occurs.
Peer Body Independent Judgment Non-Subordination to Collegial Membership Deference Capability
Capability of members of a local professional society chapter — acting as individual professional engineers exercising peer judgment — to evaluate technical findings and endorsement requests presented by fellow chapter members without being unduly influenced by the presenter's membership status, collegial relationships, or professional standing within the chapter, recognizing that the professional concept of peer judgment requires independent technical evaluation regardless of personal relations through membership in a professional organization, and that chapter members should be presumed capable of exercising such independence.
Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Obligation
we believe Engineer A has an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has an objective basis to conclude that a co-project engineer lacks competence for a specific assigned task to follow a mandatory two-step escalation sequence: (1) first directly confront the other engineer and recommend withdrawal from the project; and only if the other engineer refuses, (2) bring the matter to the attention of the client or contractor and to appropriate authorities, and if necessary withdraw from the project — recognizing that direct collegial confrontation must precede authority escalation as a matter of professional respect and procedural fairness.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has an objective basis to determine that another engineer retained on the same project lacks the education, training, and experience to perform a specific engineering task to: (1) confront the other engineer directly and recommend withdrawal from the project; (2) if the other engineer refuses, report the competency concern to the client or contractor; and (3) if concerns remain unaddressed, escalate to appropriate authorities and, if necessary, withdraw from the project. This obligation is triggered when the engineer has a reasonable — not merely speculative — basis to conclude the other engineer is unqualified for the specific task assigned.
Peer Competence Challenge Direct Confrontation Before Client-Authority Escalation Sequencing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has determined an objective basis to conclude that a co-project engineer lacks the competence to perform a specific technical assignment to correctly sequence the response: first directly confronting the co-project engineer and recommending withdrawal from the assignment, before escalating the concern to the client or to regulatory authorities — recognizing that collegial direct confrontation is the ethically required first step, that escalation to client and authorities is triggered only if the co-project engineer refuses to acquiesce, and that withdrawal from the project by the challenging engineer is the final recourse if client and authority escalation fails to resolve the concern.
Peer Competence Challenge Graduated Escalation Constraint
Engineer A had an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has an objective basis to conclude that another engineer on a shared project lacks the competence to perform their assigned task must follow a graduated escalation sequence: (1) directly confront the other engineer and make concerns known, recommending withdrawal from the project; (2) if the other engineer refuses to withdraw, escalate to the client; (3) escalate to relevant authorities as appropriate; and (4) if concerns remain unaddressed, withdraw from the project — prohibiting both premature external escalation that bypasses direct collegial engagement and indefinite continuation without escalation when the incompetent engineer refuses to withdraw, as established by BER Case 94-8 and NSPE Code provisions on competence and public safety.
Peer Competence Challenge Obligation Upon Reasonable Doubt
Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design and Engineer A has reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor.
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer working on a shared project has reasonable grounds to doubt the competence of a co-engineer retained by the client or contractor — based on observable credentials, background, and absence of relevant training — that engineer bears an affirmative obligation to formally report those reservations to the retaining party, even absent conclusive proof of incompetence, because the threshold for triggering the reporting duty is reasonable doubt rather than demonstrated failure.
Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation State
State in which a licensed engineer on a shared project has an objective basis to conclude that another engineer retained for a specific task lacks the education, training, or experience to perform that task competently, creating a sequential obligation: first to confront the other engineer directly, then to recommend withdrawal, and if refused, to escalate to the client and relevant authorities — and if concerns remain unaddressed, to withdraw from the project.
Peer Competence Confrontation Before Authority Escalation Sequencing Principle
If Engineer A determines that Engineer B does not possess the required education, training and experience to perform the services, we believe Engineer A has an ethical obligation to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B withdraw from the project.
Relational principle establishing a mandatory two-step sequencing obligation for an engineer who has reasonable grounds to doubt a co-engineer's competence to perform an assigned task: the challenging engineer must first directly confront the co-engineer, make concerns known, and recommend withdrawal before escalating the matter to the client or relevant authorities. This sequencing requirement respects collegial professional relationships while preserving the ultimate obligation to protect the public; it does not permit the challenging engineer to bypass direct confrontation and proceed immediately to external escalation, nor does it permit the challenging engineer to remain silent if the co-engineer refuses to withdraw.
Peer Competency Objective Basis Assessment Capability
Engineer A had an objective basis to determine whether Engineer B had sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural design services.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer working alongside another engineer to objectively assess, on the basis of available evidence regarding education, experience, and training, whether the other engineer possesses sufficient competence to perform a specific technical task — including the ability to identify when there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the other engineer lacks the required competence, and to distinguish between cases where competence is clearly inadequate and cases where it is merely uncertain.
Peer Competitor Conduct Reporting Obligation State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, while reviewing a competitor firm's marketing or qualifications practices, identifies conduct that may violate applicable state licensing board rules, and must determine whether the applicable rules create a mandatory reporting obligation to the licensing board — distinct from any competitive motivation — and whether that obligation applies in each jurisdiction where the potentially violating conduct occurred.
Peer Competitor Practice Non-Justification Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that the fact that other engineering firms or professionals have engaged in ethically prohibited conduct — including corrupt payments, gift-giving to officials, or other violations — does not constitute a valid ethical justification for an engineer to engage in the same conduct, because professional ethics obligations are individual and non-delegable and cannot be discharged by appeal to industry-wide or competitor normalization of prohibited practices
Peer Engineer Out-of-Discipline Competence Evidence Investigation Capability
Engineer A has been unable to establish that Engineer B has any apparent subsequent training in foundation design
Capability of a licensed professional engineer working alongside a separately retained engineer to actively investigate and evaluate the evidence base for that engineer's competence in a specific technical subdiscipline — including reviewing academic credentials, seeking evidence of subsequent training, and assessing field experience — before forming and communicating a professional judgment about whether the engineer is qualified to perform the assigned task.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer working alongside another engineer to objectively assess, on the basis of available evidence regarding education, experience, and training, whether the other engineer possesses sufficient competence to perform a specific technical task — including the ability to identify when there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the other engineer lacks the required competence, and to distinguish between cases where competence is clearly inadequate and cases where it is merely uncertain.
Peer Engineer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Capability
In deciding that it was not ethical for Engineer A to make minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without conferring and gaining the approval of Engineer B
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is technically competent to modify another engineer's sealed design documents to recognize that technical competence alone does not authorize modification — and that prior consultation with and approval from the engineer who prepared and sealed the original documents is required before any changes are made, regardless of management pressure, time constraints, or the minor nature of the proposed changes.
Peer Engineer Sealed Document Modification Prior Consent Obligation
Engineer A's failure to first discuss the situation with Engineer B prior to making the changes to the work was unacceptable.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is technically competent to modify another engineer's sealed design documents to nonetheless refrain from making any such modifications — even minor ones — without first conferring with and obtaining the approval of the engineer who prepared, designed, and sealed those documents, recognizing that technical competence to make a modification does not substitute for the originating engineer's consent, that responsible charge requires direct control or personal supervision by the originating engineer, and that failure to consult the originating engineer before modifying their sealed work is ethically impermissible regardless of time pressure or management direction.
Peer Professional Independent Judgment Membership Deference Non-Subordination Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that members of a professional engineering society chapter are presumed to exercise independent professional judgment when evaluating technical positions presented by fellow members — prohibiting the assumption that chapter members will be unduly influenced by collegial membership ties alone, and establishing that the professional concept of peer judgment requires that other members of the profession evaluate technical positions on their merits without subordinating their independent judgment to personal relations arising from shared membership in a professional organization.
Peer Review Absence Compensation Constraint
Constraint arising when a professional's established quality assurance mechanism — such as mentorship or supervisory peer review — becomes unavailable, requiring the professional to establish alternative verification arrangements before undertaking work of equivalent complexity and risk, prohibiting continuation of professional practice at the same scope without compensating quality controls.
Peer Review Adverse Finding Non-Malice Presumption Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, ethics adjudicator, or registration board to recognize that an engineer's conclusion — reached through legitimate post-occupancy inspection — that changes are needed in another engineer's originally specified equipment or design does not alone constitute the kind of malicious or false injury to professional reputation prohibited by professional ethics codes, and to correctly apply the principle that adverse technical findings reached through honest professional judgment do not satisfy the malicious intent prerequisite required to establish a violation of the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation.
Peer Review Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination to Collegial Protection Capability
Such a reading would, in fact, be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicators to recognize that interpreting peer review notification requirements so broadly as to prevent engineers from independently reviewing original designs would be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally, and would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves — and to apply this recognition when determining the scope and limits of collegial notification obligations in peer review contexts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate the professional and public benefits of organized peer-review programs — including their role in creating collegial mechanisms for improving professional practice, analyzing and evaluating professional decisions and techniques, offering constructive feedback, and ultimately enhancing public safety through quality improvement — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical obligations and appropriate conduct of peer reviewers.
Peer Review Collegial Improvement Purpose Fidelity Capability
Engineer A serves as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice
Capability to participate in an organized peer review program in good faith and for its intended collegial improvement purpose — proactively assisting the reviewed engineer in improving professional practice — rather than for competitive, punitive, or self-serving purposes, while simultaneously maintaining readiness to fulfill safety reporting duties when violations are discovered.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of engineering peer reviews, including requirements for notification of the engineer whose work is under review, the scope of reviewer independence, and the procedural fairness obligations owed to the reviewed engineer
[Case 96] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the conduct of engineering peer reviews, including requirements for notification of the engineer whose work is under review, the scope of reviewer independence, and the procedural fairness obligations owed to the reviewed engineer.
Frequently that disclosure is accompanied by an agreement that the client will require the peer reviewer to keep the results of the peer review confidential or, at the very least, the original designer will be provided with an opportunity to explain (and defend) the design decisions.
Contractual provisions or agreements governing the confidentiality of peer review findings, typically requiring the reviewer to keep results confidential and/or requiring the client to provide the reviewed engineer an opportunity to explain and defend design decisions, fostering cooperation and trust in the peer review process
[Case 96] Contractual provisions or agreements governing the confidentiality of peer review findings, typically requiring the reviewer to keep results confidential and/or requiring the client to provide the reviewed engineer an opportunity to explain and defend design decisions, fostering cooperation and trust in the peer review process.
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Absent State
Frequently that disclosure is accompanied by an agreement that the client will require the peer reviewer to keep the results of the peer review confidential
State in which a peer review of an engineer's work is being conducted without any confidentiality agreement protecting the reviewed engineer's design decisions or requiring the reviewer to keep results confidential, removing the trust-building and cooperation-encouraging protections that such agreements typically provide and leaving the reviewed engineer without assurance that proprietary or sensitive design information will be protected.
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Binding Constraint
Such programs are generally built on a foundation of confidentiality, whereby an individual agreeing to serve as a peer reviewer must sign a 'confidentiality agreement' in which the peer reviewer agrees not to disclose information that is revealed to the peer reviewer about the firm being reviewed during the peer-review process.
Ethical and contractual constraint arising from a formal confidentiality agreement executed by a peer reviewer, prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information revealed during the peer review process about the firm being reviewed — while simultaneously establishing that this confidentiality obligation is defeasible when the peer reviewer discovers safety code violations or conditions endangering public health, safety, and welfare, requiring the reviewer to first discuss concerns with the reviewed engineer before notifying appropriate authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint arising when a peer reviewer operating under a confidentiality agreement discovers that the reviewed engineer's work may violate safety codes or threaten public health, safety, and welfare — requiring the reviewer to first discuss concerns with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and resolution, and if unresolved, to affirmatively notify the reviewed engineer of the intent to report before informing appropriate authorities, prohibiting the reviewer from remaining silent about safety code violations on the basis of confidentiality obligations alone, as established by BER Case 96-8 and the principle that public safety obligations supersede contractual confidentiality commitments.
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Bound State
an individual agreeing to serve as a peer reviewer must sign a 'confidentiality agreement' in which the peer reviewer agrees not to disclose information that is revealed to the peer reviewer about the firm being reviewed during the peer-review process
State in which a professional engineer serving as a peer reviewer has executed a formal confidentiality agreement as a condition of appointment, obligating them to protect all non-public information disclosed by the reviewed firm during the peer review process — while simultaneously remaining subject to the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, creating a structured tension between the contractual confidentiality commitment and the professional duty to report safety violations discovered during the review.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a peer review of an engineer's work is being conducted without any confidentiality agreement protecting the reviewed engineer's design decisions or requiring the reviewer to keep results confidential, removing the trust-building and cooperation-encouraging protections that such agreements typically provide and leaving the reviewed engineer without assurance that proprietary or sensitive design information will be protected.
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Cooperation Obligation
Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose work is subject to a peer review conducted under a confidentiality agreement — requiring the reviewer to keep results confidential or providing the reviewed engineer an opportunity to explain and defend design decisions — to cooperate fully with the peer review process, recognizing that such confidentiality protections are specifically designed to encourage cooperation, build trust, and support a collegial professional atmosphere.
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Obligation
Relational principle establishing that engineers who agree to serve as peer reviewers under organized peer-review programs and sign confidentiality agreements are bound to protect non-public information disclosed by the reviewed firm during the review process, in order to encourage maximum disclosure, build trust between parties, and promote the mutual productivity and success of the peer-review program — while recognizing that this confidentiality obligation is not absolute and yields to overriding public safety obligations when safety code violations are discovered
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle governing the tension between contractual confidentiality obligations assumed by a peer reviewer and the overriding public welfare obligation to disclose safety code violations discovered during review, requiring the reviewer to first engage the reviewed engineer to seek resolution, then warn of intent to disclose, and finally report to appropriate authorities if resolution fails — even at the cost of breaching the confidentiality agreement
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Scope Interpretation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a peer reviewer to correctly interpret the scope and limits of a signed confidentiality agreement — including understanding that confidentiality obligations encourage maximum disclosure and build trust between parties, but do not override paramount professional duties to report safety code violations that endanger public health, safety, and welfare — and to correctly identify when the confidentiality agreement must yield to mandatory safety reporting obligations.
[Case 181] Capability to correctly interpret the scope and limits of a peer review confidentiality agreement, recognizing that such agreements protect collegial improvement information but cannot override paramount duties to report safety code violations endangering public health, safety, and welfare.
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who agrees to serve as a peer reviewer under an organized peer-review program to sign and honor a confidentiality agreement, refraining from disclosing information revealed about the firm being reviewed during the peer-review process, so that firms are encouraged to provide maximum pertinent detail and trust is built between parties to make the process mutually productive.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose work is subject to a peer review conducted under a confidentiality agreement — requiring the reviewer to keep results confidential or providing the reviewed engineer an opportunity to explain and defend design decisions — to cooperate fully with the peer review process, recognizing that such confidentiality protections are specifically designed to encourage cooperation, build trust, and support a collegial professional atmosphere.
Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation Capability
Capability to understand, design, and operate within confidentiality frameworks governing peer review processes — including recognizing when confidentiality agreements encourage cooperation and build trust, understanding the conditions under which confidentiality obligations may be overridden by public safety imperatives, and navigating the tension between contractual confidentiality and mandatory safety disclosure obligations when safety code violations are discovered during a confidential peer review.
Peer Review Confidentiality Maximum Disclosure Facilitation Obligation
Firms being peer reviewed should be encouraged to provide as much pertinent detailed information to the peer reviewer to allow the peer reviewer the opportunity to perform a thorough evaluation of the firm, and confidentiality helps to assure that the maximum amount of disclosure will occur.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who agrees to serve as a peer reviewer under an organized peer-review program to honor the confidentiality agreement in a manner that actively facilitates maximum disclosure by the reviewed firm — recognizing that the purpose of confidentiality is to encourage firms to provide as much pertinent detailed information as possible to enable a thorough evaluation, and that the confidentiality commitment must be maintained in good faith so that trust is built and the peer review process is mutually productive.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who agrees to serve as a peer reviewer under an organized peer-review program to sign and honor a confidentiality agreement, refraining from disclosing information revealed about the firm being reviewed during the peer-review process, so that firms are encouraged to provide maximum pertinent detail and trust is built between parties to make the process mutually productive.
Peer Review Confidentiality Non-Override Safety Reporting Recognition Capability
Engineer A is asked to sign a 'confidentiality agreement' whereby Engineer A agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms
Capability to recognize that a signed peer review confidentiality agreement does not and cannot override the paramount professional and ethical duty to report discovered safety code violations to appropriate governmental authorities when public health, safety, and welfare are endangered, and to act accordingly despite the existence of the confidentiality agreement.
Peer Review Confidentiality Non-Override of Safety Code Violation Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has signed a confidentiality agreement as a condition of serving as a peer reviewer to recognize that such a confidentiality agreement does not and cannot override the paramount obligation to report discovered safety code violations that endanger public health, safety, and welfare to appropriate governmental authorities, and to proceed with such reporting after exhausting the structured escalation pathway with the reviewed engineer.
Peer Review Confidentiality Rationale Understanding Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a peer reviewer to understand and articulate the foundational rationale for confidentiality in peer-review programs — including recognizing that confidentiality encourages maximum disclosure by reviewed firms, builds trust between parties, and promotes a mutually productive atmosphere — and to apply this understanding when deciding how to honor confidentiality obligations while fulfilling paramount public safety duties.
Peer Review Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a peer reviewer operating under a confidentiality agreement discovers that the reviewed engineer's work may violate safety codes or threaten public health, safety, and welfare — requiring the reviewer to first discuss concerns with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and resolution, and if unresolved, to affirmatively notify the reviewed engineer of the intent to report before informing appropriate authorities, prohibiting the reviewer from remaining silent about safety code violations on the basis of confidentiality obligations alone, as established by BER Case 96-8 and the principle that public safety obligations supersede contractual confidentiality commitments.
Peer Review Confidentiality Trust-Building Rationale Articulation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer participating in an organized peer review program to understand and articulate the dual rationale for peer review confidentiality agreements: (1) that confidentiality encourages firms being reviewed to provide maximum pertinent detailed information to enable thorough evaluation, and (2) that confidentiality builds trust between parties and promotes a mutually productive atmosphere — and to apply this understanding when weighing confidentiality obligations against competing duties, recognizing that the rationale for confidentiality is instrumental (facilitating disclosure and trust) rather than absolute.
Peer Review Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Override Threshold State
Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances
State in which a peer reviewer operating under a signed confidentiality agreement must determine whether the severity of a discovered safety violation crosses the threshold that overrides the contractual confidentiality obligation — distinguishing between violations that require immediate authority notification (imminent risk of loss of life or serious injury) versus those that permit a graduated collegial-first resolution pathway. The state activates an obligation to calibrate the response to the severity of the discovered risk, with the paramount public safety duty ultimately superseding confidentiality when the threshold is crossed.
Peer Review Consent Refusal Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize when an original design engineer's refusal to consent to a legitimately commissioned peer review — particularly in the context of known prior design errors — constitutes an ethically impermissible obstruction of a client's legitimate quality assurance process, and to correctly identify the professional obligations that arise from such refusal, including the obligation to facilitate rather than obstruct independent technical review of one's own work.
it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer whose original design work is subject to a peer review initiated by the client bears obligations to cooperate fully and transparently with the peer reviewer, acknowledge design errors, and act in the best interests of the client and public safety, even absent explicit contractual consent requirements, with refusal to cooperate constituting an ethical violation.
Peer Review Continuity Planning Capability
Capability to recognize when a quality assurance mechanism — such as mentorship, supervisory review, or peer review — has been disrupted or lost, and to proactively identify and establish alternative arrangements to maintain equivalent quality assurance and professional oversight before proceeding with professional work product delivery.
Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers whose work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review to participate fully and cooperatively in that review, recognizing that professional accountability, error acknowledgment, client service, and public welfare obligations collectively mandate active cooperation rather than obstruction or refusal, particularly when known deficiencies in prior work make the review more urgent
Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Recognition Capability
Capability of an original design engineer whose work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review to recognize the multiple independent professional obligations that converge to require full cooperation with that review — including obligations to take responsibility for professional actions, acknowledge errors, act in the best interests of clients, and hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare — and to correctly identify that known prior design defects make each of these obligations more urgent rather than less.
Peer Review Cooperation Under Prior Error Accountability Constraint
the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose prior work has been found to contain significant design errors must cooperate fully and actively with a legitimately commissioned peer review of subsequent related work — including work that mirrors or continues the defective prior work — on the grounds that the obligations to take responsibility for professional actions, acknowledge errors, act in the best interests of clients, and hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare each independently and cumulatively require such cooperation, prohibiting refusal or non-cooperation as an exercise of consent-based objection when confirmed prior errors create heightened accountability obligations, as established by the present BER case analysis.
Peer Review Cooperation and Confidentiality Acceptance Capability
Engineer B was obligated to cooperate fully with the peer review process conducted by Engineer A, recognizing that the confidentiality protections afforded by the program exist to facilitate honest professional assessment
Capability of a peer-reviewed engineer to cooperate fully with the peer review process, including accepting and honoring the confidentiality protections afforded by the program, recognizing that such cooperation serves the collegial improvement purpose of the program and that confidentiality protections exist to facilitate honest professional assessment.
Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a client to conduct an independent technical review of another engineer's design documents, bearing obligations of thoroughness, objectivity, notification of the original design engineer, and protection of public safety, while navigating potential conflicts between client instructions and professional ethics regarding the conduct of the review.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] An independent licensed professional engineering firm or role engaged by a public entity to conduct objective technical review, modeling, and analysis of completed infrastructure or development projects following complaints or suspected design deficiencies, bearing obligations of independence, technical rigor, and objective reporting of findings to the engaging authority.
Peer Review Imminent Harm Immediate Escalation Bypass Constraint
Safety and ethical constraint establishing that when a peer reviewer determines that the reviewed engineer's work creates an imminent risk of harm to public health and safety — such as loss of life or serious risk of injury to persons or property — the normal sequential escalation pathway (collegial discussion first, then warning, then authority notification) is compressed or bypassed, requiring the peer reviewer to immediately take appropriate steps including notifying Engineer B and, if Engineer B fails to act, cooperating with proper authorities without delay — prohibiting the peer reviewer from treating the standard graduated escalation process as mandatory when imminent danger is present.
Peer Review Imminent Harm Immediate Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer conducting a peer review who determines that the reviewed engineer's work creates an imminent risk of harm to public health and safety — such as loss of life or serious risk of injury to persons or property — to immediately take appropriate steps by notifying the reviewed engineer, and if the reviewed engineer fails to take appropriate corrective action, to cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required, without delay and without waiting to exhaust a more extended sequential escalation process.
Peer Review Imminent Harm Threshold Discrimination and Response Calibration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer conducting a peer review to correctly distinguish between two categories of discovered safety code violations — those creating imminent risk of harm (loss of life, serious injury to persons or property) requiring immediate notification of the reviewed engineer and, if uncorrected, immediate cooperation with proper authorities, versus those not yet rising to imminent risk requiring expeditious collegial discussion and sequential escalation — and to calibrate the urgency and pathway of response accordingly.
Peer Review Incumbent Notification Reasonable Timing Calibration Capability
in passing, we would note that Engineer B's delay in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client and the preliminary results of his review was not a violation of Section III.8.a.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is obligated under NSPE Code Section III.8.a. to notify an incumbent engineer of a peer review engagement to correctly calibrate what constitutes a 'reasonable period of time' for fulfilling that notification obligation following the establishment of the review relationship — including the ability to assess whether a short delay (such as one week) between engagement establishment and notification is consistent with the reasonable timing standard, and to recognize that the notification obligation is not violated by brief delays that do not prejudice the incumbent engineer's professional interests or opportunity to respond.
Peer Review Incumbent Notification Reasonable Timing Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is obligated under NSPE Code Section III.8.a. to notify an incumbent engineer that their work is under review to fulfill that notification obligation within a reasonable period of time following the establishment of the review relationship and the commencement of the review — recognizing that the obligation does not require instantaneous disclosure at the moment of engagement, that a brief delay occasioned by legitimate professional considerations does not constitute a violation provided the incumbent engineer's rights are not prejudiced by the delay, and that the reasonableness of the timing is assessed in light of all facts and circumstances.
Relational principle requiring that peer review of engineering work be conducted independently, objectively, and without compromise of the reviewer's professional judgment by client instructions that would undermine the review's integrity — including instructions to conduct the review covertly, to limit its scope improperly, or to suppress findings — so that the peer review serves its intended function of providing genuine independent quality assurance
Peer Review Judgment and Discretion Contextual Safety Assessment Obligation
Weighing the competing considerations in this case, the Board of Ethical Review is of the opinion that Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer conducting a peer review who discovers potential safety code violations to exercise appropriate professional judgment and discretion in assessing all facts and circumstances before determining the appropriate course of action — including evaluating the severity and imminence of the risk, the nature of the violation, and the adequacy of the reviewed engineer's response — rather than applying a rigid mechanical rule, recognizing that the appropriate response is calibrated to the totality of the circumstances.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a peer reviewer who discovers that the reviewed engineer's work may violate state or local safety code requirements — placing public health, safety, and welfare at risk — to first discuss the concerns with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and resolution, and if resolution cannot be achieved, to inform the reviewed engineer that the only alternative is to notify the proper authorities, and then to do so, notwithstanding any confidentiality agreement assumed as part of the peer review engagement.
Peer Review Judgment and Discretion Fact-Specific Safety Assessment Constraint
the Board of Ethical Review is of the opinion that Engineer A will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer conducting a peer review who discovers potential safety code violations must exercise appropriate professional judgment and discretion in assessing all facts and circumstances before determining the appropriate escalation response — prohibiting both reflexive immediate external reporting without contextual assessment and passive inaction in the face of genuine safety risk, and establishing that the appropriate response is calibrated to the severity, imminence, and nature of the discovered violation as assessed through professional judgment.
Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation Obligation
Duty of licensed professional engineers and ethics adjudicators to interpret the Code provision requiring notification of an incumbent engineer before reviewing their work (NSPE Section 12(a)) according to its actual purpose — enabling the reviewed engineer to submit comments and explanations of technical decisions so the reviewing engineer has fuller understanding of the original design — rather than as a blanket prohibition on independent review; recognizing that the notification requirement is a procedural fairness mechanism, not a substantive bar to legitimate peer review, and that misreading it as the latter would harm clients and the public by preventing independent technical evaluation.
Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose Limitation Principle
the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing his comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client
Relational principle establishing that the ethical requirement for a reviewing engineer to notify the prior engineer before reviewing that engineer's work exists solely to enable the prior engineer to provide explanatory context and technical justification for original design decisions — thereby improving the quality of the review for the client's benefit — and not to shield the prior engineer from adverse findings, protect the prior engineer's professional reputation from legitimate critique, or prevent the client from obtaining an independent technical evaluation.
Peer Review Notification Exemption Terminated-Connection Purposive Interpretation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicators to interpret the peer review notification requirement in NSPE Code Section 12(a) — requiring that a reviewing engineer notify the original engineer before reviewing their work for the same client — purposively, recognizing that the notification requirement's purpose is to give the original engineer an opportunity to submit comments and explanations for technical decisions, and that this purpose is not served when the original engineer's connection with the project has already been terminated, such that the notification exemption for terminated connections is not a loophole but a purposive application of the rule's rationale.
Peer Review Notification Protocol Capability
Capability to recognize and fulfill the procedural obligation to notify an original design engineer before conducting a peer review of their professional work — including understanding that professional courtesy, fairness, and ethical norms require advance notification and opportunity for consent, and that proceeding without notification violates professional ethics regardless of client instructions to the contrary.
Peer Review Notification Purpose-Limited Scope Constraint
it may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing his comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client
Ethical and interpretive constraint establishing that the purpose of the peer review notification requirement (NSPE Code Section 12(a) / Section III.8.a) is specifically and exclusively to provide the original engineer an opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions — thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have a fuller understanding of the original design for the benefit of the client — and that this purpose-limited scope prohibits interpreting the notification requirement as a mechanism to prevent or block legitimate post-occupancy inspections or design reviews commissioned by new owners, particularly when the original engineer's connection with the project has already been terminated; the constraint establishes that the notification requirement cannot be weaponized to suppress honest technical review.
Peer Review Notification Reasonable Timing Constraint
we would note that Engineer B's delay in informing Engineer A of his relationship with client and the preliminary results of his review was not a violation of Section III.8.a.
Temporal and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is obligated under NSPE Code Section III.8.a to notify an incumbent engineer of a peer review engagement must do so within a reasonable period of time following the establishment of the review relationship — prohibiting unreasonable delay in providing notification, while recognizing that brief delays that do not prejudice the incumbent engineer's professional rights or ability to submit technical comments are not violations of the notification requirement, as established by BER Case 93-3's finding that a one-week delay was not unreasonable and did not prejudice Engineer A's rights.
Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a peer review of another engineer's professional work to notify the engineer whose work is under review before commencing the review, and to refrain from conducting a covert peer review without the knowledge of the engineer whose professional reputation and work product are at stake, recognizing that procedural fairness and professional dignity require that the reviewed engineer be aware that their work is being independently evaluated.
[Case 15] Relational principle requiring that when a peer review of an engineer's professional work is commissioned, the engineer whose work is being reviewed must be notified of and given the opportunity to consent to the review, so that the process is conducted with professional transparency, respect for the reviewed engineer's dignity, and opportunity for the reviewed engineer to participate or respond
Peer Review Pre-Reporting Advisory Warning Delivery Capability
Engineer A was obligated, before notifying appropriate governmental authorities about Engineer B's safety code violations, to advise Engineer B that such notification is forthcoming
Capability to advise the peer-reviewed engineer, before notifying appropriate governmental authorities about discovered safety code violations, that such notification is forthcoming, thereby providing the reviewed engineer an opportunity to take corrective action while fulfilling the procedural fairness dimension of the sequential escalation obligation.
Peer Review Preliminary Results Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer Obligation
following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has completed a peer review of an incumbent engineer's active work to disclose the preliminary results of that review to the incumbent engineer, recognizing that the incumbent engineer has a professional interest in understanding the findings of an independent evaluation of their work product — particularly where those findings may affect the incumbent's professional reputation, the client's confidence in the incumbent's work, or the safety and adequacy of pending designs — and that withholding preliminary review results from the reviewed engineer, even at client direction, is inconsistent with collegial fairness.
Peer Review Preliminary Results Incumbent Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has completed a peer review of an incumbent engineer's active work to recognize the obligation to disclose the preliminary results of that review to the incumbent engineer — not merely to notify the incumbent of the review's existence — so that the incumbent has a meaningful professional opportunity to respond, correct, or contest the findings before those findings are acted upon by the client.
Peer Review Preliminary Results Incumbent Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has completed a peer review of an incumbent engineer's active or pending design work must disclose the preliminary results of that review to the incumbent engineer, recognizing that the incumbent engineer has a professional interest in knowing the findings that may affect the incumbent's professional standing, the client relationship, and the integrity of the design work — prohibiting the reviewing engineer from withholding preliminary findings from the incumbent engineer as part of a client-directed confidentiality arrangement.
Peer Review Privileged Access Non-Exploitation in Competitive Procurement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that obtained privileged access to an agency's construction plans, specifications, and design details through an independent external peer review engagement to refrain from exploiting that privileged access — including insider knowledge of design weaknesses, specification details, and project scope — as a competitive advantage in a subsequent design-build procurement for the same project, recognizing that the peer review role was premised on independence and that converting privileged review access into competitive advantage constitutes a fundamental breach of the integrity of the review engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a private AE firm that recruits a former senior public official who held contracting authority over the firm to refrain from exploiting the incumbent advantage created by that recruitment — including refraining from using the former official's insider knowledge, relationships, or prior authority to gain preferential access to public contracts — and to ensure that all proposals submitted to the former official's public employer are evaluated solely on technical merit through fair competitive processes.
Peer Review Procedural Fairness Client Instruction Non-Compliance Facilitation Obligation
Duty of a client who commissions a peer review of an active incumbent engineer's work to refrain from instructing the reviewing engineer to conduct the review covertly, recognizing that such instructions place the reviewing engineer in an untenable ethical conflict between client loyalty and collegial duty, undermine the procedural fairness owed to the incumbent engineer, and constitute an attempt to use the client-engineer relationship to circumvent the incumbent engineer's professional rights — and that the client's legitimate interest in obtaining an independent review does not extend to requiring that the review be conducted without the incumbent's knowledge.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a client who commissions a peer review of an engineer's professional work to ensure that the peer review is conducted through procedurally fair means — including notifying the engineer whose work is under review before the review commences — recognizing that covert peer review without the knowledge of the reviewed engineer undermines professional dignity, may compromise the integrity of the review process, and is inconsistent with the ethical treatment of licensed professionals whose reputations and livelihoods are implicated by the review.
Peer Review Procedural Fairness Client Obligation
Duty of a client who commissions a peer review of an engineer's professional work to ensure that the peer review is conducted through procedurally fair means — including notifying the engineer whose work is under review before the review commences — recognizing that covert peer review without the knowledge of the reviewed engineer undermines professional dignity, may compromise the integrity of the review process, and is inconsistent with the ethical treatment of licensed professionals whose reputations and livelihoods are implicated by the review.
Peer Review Procedural Fairness Design Capability
Capability of a client commissioning a peer review to design and implement a procedurally fair peer review process — including ensuring that the original design engineer is notified, given opportunity to respond, and not subjected to covert or ex parte review — and to recognize that client authority to commission peer review does not extend to directing the peer reviewer to violate professional ethics obligations owed to the reviewed engineer.
Peer Review Program Collegial Improvement Non-Exploitation Constraint
These programs have been immensely successful in creating a mechanism whereby professionals in a collegial atmosphere can work together to better understand and improve professional practice.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that licensed professional engineers who participate in organized peer-review programs do so in good faith for the purpose of collegial professional improvement — prohibiting the use of peer review participation as a mechanism to gain competitive intelligence, insider access to non-public project information, or commercial advantage over the reviewed firm or in subsequent procurements — establishing that the collegial and improvement-oriented purpose of peer review programs is incompatible with competitive exploitation of information gained through the review process.
Peer Review Program Collegial Improvement Participation Obligation
Peer-review programs have become an important part of the professional practice of engineering.
Duty of licensed professional engineers to recognize and support peer-review programs as legitimate and important mechanisms for collegial professional improvement — including participating in good faith, providing constructive and critical feedback, and refraining from using the peer-review role as a vehicle for competitive advantage — so that the programs fulfill their purpose of improving professional practice through mutual evaluation.
Peer Review Program Confidentiality Foundation State
State in which a formal peer review program has been established within a professional engineering community on the foundational premise that confidentiality agreements will protect reviewed firms' non-public information — thereby encouraging maximum disclosure by reviewed firms and building the trust necessary for the program's effectiveness — creating a systemic reliance interest in confidentiality that individual reviewers must honor while remaining subject to overriding public safety obligations.
Peer Review Program Integrity Confidentiality Foundation Constraint
Institutional and ethical constraint establishing that the effectiveness and integrity of engineering peer review programs depends fundamentally on confidentiality as a structural foundation — requiring that peer reviewers honor confidentiality commitments to enable reviewed firms to provide maximum disclosure, build trust between parties, and promote mutual productivity — prohibiting peer reviewers from treating confidentiality obligations as optional or subordinate to competitive interests, while recognizing that confidentiality is defeasible when public safety is at stake.
Peer Review Program Integrity and Collegial Improvement Purpose
Professional virtue principle establishing that peer-review programs in engineering serve a legitimate and important professional purpose — enabling professionals in a collegial atmosphere to work together to better understand and improve professional practice through analysis, evaluation, and constructive feedback — and that participants in such programs, both as reviewers and reviewed firms, bear obligations to support the integrity of that purpose by engaging honestly, providing complete information, and accepting constructive criticism in the spirit of professional improvement
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers whose work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review to participate fully and cooperatively in that review, recognizing that professional accountability, error acknowledgment, client service, and public welfare obligations collectively mandate active cooperation rather than obstruction or refusal, particularly when known deficiencies in prior work make the review more urgent
Peer Review Program Participant Engineer
Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer participates in an organized, institutionalized peer review program, accepting assignment to review the design work of other engineers' firms across multiple projects, bearing obligations of confidentiality per program agreements, collegial engagement with reviewed engineers, and public safety reporting when code violations are identified.
Peer Review Program Public Benefit Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate the professional and public benefits of organized peer-review programs — including their role in creating collegial mechanisms for improving professional practice, analyzing and evaluating professional decisions and techniques, offering constructive feedback, and ultimately enhancing public safety through quality improvement — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical obligations and appropriate conduct of peer reviewers.
Peer Review Prohibition Interpretation Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination Obligation
Otherwise, there would be no point in an owner's retaining another engineer to review the original design in an attempt to resolve current problems with the facility
Duty of licensed professional engineers and ethics adjudicators to refrain from interpreting peer review notification or knowledge requirements in a manner that would effectively prohibit independent engineering review of original designs, recognizing that such an interpretation would be contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally, would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves, and would render meaningless the owner's right to retain an independent engineer to resolve current problems with a facility.
Peer Review Proprietary Knowledge Competitive Advantage Recognition Capability
The peer review is limited in scope and focused on clarifications and refinements of existing construction plans and specifications, which are ultimately incorporated into a Request for Proposal soliciting proposals for design-build services to complete the major transportation project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has conducted an independent external peer review of a project to recognize that access to non-public design details, clarifications, refinements, and construction plans obtained during the peer review may constitute proprietary knowledge that would confer an unfair competitive advantage if the firm subsequently competes for design-build or other procurement contracts on the same project — and to correctly identify this advantage as an ethical barrier to participation in the subsequent procurement.
Peer Review Restriction Public Interest Conflict State
State in which a proposed interpretation of professional ethics rules — specifically, a reading that would prohibit or severely restrict one engineer from reviewing another engineer's work — would, if adopted, operate against the interests of clients and the public generally by preventing owners from obtaining independent engineering assessments of existing facilities. This state arises when the profession must choose between a member-protective interpretation of its ethics rules and a client/public-serving interpretation, and recognizes that an overly restrictive reading of peer review prohibitions would expose the profession to justified criticism for prioritizing member interests over public welfare.
Peer Review Restrictive Interpretation Client and Public Interest Non-Subordination Constraint
Ethical and interpretive constraint prohibiting licensed professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies from adopting interpretations of peer review notification requirements that would effectively prevent owners from retaining engineers to review original designs in order to resolve current facility problems — establishing that such restrictive readings are contrary to the interests of the client and the public generally, would subject the engineering profession to justifiable criticism for placing the interests of its members above those of the public it serves, and therefore cannot be adopted as valid interpretations of professional ethics codes; the constraint establishes that peer review rules must be interpreted in a manner consistent with client and public benefit rather than in a manner that protects original designers from legitimate professional scrutiny.
Peer Review Safety Code Violation Detection Capability
Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Engineer B's firm, Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
Capability to identify, through systematic review of technical documentation from design projects, work that may violate applicable state and local safety codes and thereby endanger public health, safety, and welfare, exercising professional judgment to distinguish potential violations from acceptable engineering practice.
Peer Review Safety Code Violation Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer conducting a peer review who discovers that the reviewed engineer's work may violate state or local safety code requirements — placing public health, safety, and welfare at risk — to first discuss the concerns with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and resolution, and if resolution cannot be achieved, to advise the reviewed engineer of the obligation to inform appropriate authorities before doing so, and then to inform those authorities, notwithstanding any contractual confidentiality agreement assumed as part of the peer review engagement.
Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation Obligation
In reviewing the facts, the BER decided that if Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work is or may be in violation of state and local safety requirements and endangers the public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate action would be for Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a peer reviewer who discovers that the reviewed engineer's work may violate state or local safety code requirements — placing public health, safety, and welfare at risk — to first discuss the concerns with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and resolution, and if resolution cannot be achieved, to inform the reviewed engineer that the only alternative is to notify the proper authorities, and then to do so, notwithstanding any confidentiality agreement assumed as part of the peer review engagement.
Peer Review Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
The BER concluded that Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
Capability to correctly sequence the escalation steps required when a peer reviewer discovers potential safety code violations in reviewed work — including first discussing concerns with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and resolution, then advising the reviewed engineer of the intent to report to authorities if resolution fails, and finally reporting to appropriate authorities — recognizing that this graduated sequence respects collegial obligations while fulfilling paramount public safety duties.
Peer Review Safety Violation Discovering Engineer
Review Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice
A licensed professional engineer participating in an organized peer review program who, in the course of reviewing a colleague's technical documentation, discovers work that may violate state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare, bearing obligations to first discuss findings collegially with the reviewed engineer, seek clarification and early resolution, and — if resolution fails — notify appropriate authorities, notwithstanding any confidentiality agreement signed as part of the peer review program.
Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery State
Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk.
State in which a peer reviewer, in the course of conducting a review under a confidentiality agreement, discovers that the reviewed engineer's work may violate applicable safety codes and place public health, safety, and welfare at risk, creating direct tension between the confidentiality obligation accepted upon appointment as reviewer and the paramount obligation to protect public safety through disclosure to appropriate authorities.
Peer Review Safety Violation Pre-Reporting Advisory Warning Obligation
Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a peer reviewer who has discovered safety code violations in the reviewed engineer's work — and who has been unable to resolve the matter through direct discussion — to advise the reviewed engineer that the only remaining course of action is to notify the appropriate governmental or regulatory authorities, thereby giving the reviewed engineer a final opportunity to self-correct or self-report before the peer reviewer proceeds with external notification, notwithstanding any confidentiality agreement in place.
Peer Review Safety Violation Sequential Escalation Constraint
a more appropriate action would be for Engineer A to expeditiously discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers potential safety code violations during a peer review must follow a specific sequential escalation pathway: (1) first discuss the issues with the reviewed engineer to seek clarification and early resolution; (2) if unresolved, inform the reviewed engineer that the only professional alternative is to cooperate with proper authorities; (3) only then notify appropriate governmental authorities — prohibiting the peer reviewer from bypassing the collegial discussion step and proceeding directly to external authority notification, except when imminent risk of harm to public health and safety requires immediate action.
Peer Review Scope-to-Procurement Nexus Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has conducted a peer review of a project to assess the degree of nexus between the scope of the peer review — including the specific documents reviewed, clarifications provided, and refinements incorporated — and the scope of a subsequent procurement for the same project, in order to determine whether the peer review engagement was sufficiently connected to the subsequent procurement to create a disqualifying conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage.
Peer Review Sequential Escalation Pathway Execution Capability
Capability to execute a structured, sequential escalation pathway upon discovering safety violations during peer review: first engaging collegially with the reviewed engineer, then — if unresolved — advising the reviewed engineer of intent to notify authorities, and finally notifying appropriate governmental authorities, thereby balancing collegial improvement goals with paramount public safety duties.
Peer Review Successor Contract Incumbent Contract Expiry Prerequisite Constraint
Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to conduct a peer review of an incumbent engineer's active design work must refrain from accepting a successor design engineering contract from the same client until the incumbent engineer's contract has fully expired — prohibiting the reviewing engineer from accepting the substantive successor engagement while the incumbent's contractual relationship remains active, on the grounds that doing so would constitute an improper competitive use of the peer review relationship and would conflict with the reviewing engineer's obligation to conduct an independent and impartial review.
Peer Review Technical Comment Opportunity Preservation Capability
It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit...comments or explanations for...technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing comments or suggestions for the benefit of the client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to review another engineer's work for the same client to recognize and fulfill the obligation to ensure that the reviewed engineer has an opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions — thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design when framing comments or suggestions for the benefit of the client — and to implement procedural mechanisms that preserve this opportunity regardless of client instructions that might otherwise foreclose it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer producing a technical report — particularly in an adversarial or litigation context — to ensure that the language and framing of the report does not foreclose the opportunity for independent expert engineering review and interpretation of the underlying data, recognizing that report language which precludes alternative interpretations or denies access to underlying findings violates professional obligations to produce complete and objective reports.
Peer Review Technical Comment Opportunity Purpose Articulation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics adjudicator to articulate the specific purpose of the peer review notification requirement — namely, to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed the opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design when framing comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client — and to apply this purpose-articulation to determine when the notification requirement applies and when it does not.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to review another engineer's work for the same client to recognize and fulfill the obligation to ensure that the reviewed engineer has an opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions — thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design when framing comments or suggestions for the benefit of the client — and to implement procedural mechanisms that preserve this opportunity regardless of client instructions that might otherwise foreclose it.
Peer Review Without Notification Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the prohibition on engineers reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, or unless the prior engineer's connection with the work has been formally terminated, protecting professional fairness and due process in competitive contexts.
Peer Review vs. Faithful Agent Dual Code Provision Conflict Resolution Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and resolve the specific conflict between two simultaneously operative NSPE Code provisions — (1) the obligation under Section III.8.a. to notify an incumbent engineer when reviewing that engineer's work for the same client, and (2) the obligation under Section II.4 to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the client — by correctly identifying that when a client explicitly instructs the reviewing engineer not to disclose the review engagement to the incumbent, the faithful agent obligation to the client takes precedence over the collegial notification obligation, and by applying a structured balancing analysis that weighs the benefits of disclosure to all parties against the detriments to the client.
Peer Safety Evaluation Requesting Engineer
Engineer B, a company colleague of Engineer A, asks Engineer A to evaluate a respirator designed by MedTech for infant use
A professional engineering role in which an engineer employed by a product manufacturer requests a colleague to perform a safety evaluation of a company product, and subsequently serves as an information conduit alerting the requesting engineer to the employer's failure to act on identified safety concerns.
Peer Technical Review Opportunity Preservation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer producing a technical report — particularly in an adversarial or litigation context — to ensure that the report's language, scope, and completeness do not foreclose or effectively deny the opportunity for expert engineering review and independent interpretation of the underlying technical findings; recognizing that a report whose selective language 'precludes any interpretation' of alternative conclusions denies the professional community and opposing parties the ability to exercise independent technical judgment, and that such foreclosure constitutes a violation of professional completeness and objectivity obligations.
Peer Technical Review Opportunity Preservation in Report Language Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer producing a technical report — particularly in an adversarial or litigation context — to ensure that the language and framing of the report does not foreclose the opportunity for independent expert engineering review and interpretation of the underlying data, recognizing that report language which precludes alternative interpretations or denies access to underlying findings violates professional obligations to produce complete and objective reports.
Pending Allegation Prudential Disclosure Weighing Obligation
'Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.'
Duty of a professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint or allegation to actively weigh all relevant factors — including the nature and seriousness of the charges, the potential impact on current clients or employers, and the risk of material omission — and to take prudent action proportionate to those factors, which may include providing affected parties with appropriate background information even when automatic disclosure is not ethically required, recognizing that the right to privacy in unproven allegations must be balanced against the obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid statements omitting material facts.
Pending Competence Allegation Similar-Services Disclosure Heightening Constraint
Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a pending, unadjudicated ethics complaint alleging incompetence directly concerns services that are substantially similar in nature to those currently being rendered to a different client, the similarity of subject matter heightens — though does not automatically compel — the prudential case for disclosure to the current client, because the allegation bears directly on the engineer's fitness to perform the very work at hand, distinguishing this scenario from complaints about unrelated services where the materiality threshold for disclosure is lower.
Pending Competence Complaint Disclosure Obligation to Current Client
During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B.
Duty of a professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint alleging lack of competence — filed by a prior client for services materially similar to those currently being performed — to disclose the existence of that complaint to the current client receiving those similar services, recognizing that the pending complaint constitutes material information bearing on the client's ability to make an informed decision about the engagement, and that the faithful agent and trustee relationship requires transparency about professional circumstances that could affect the client's interests, even though an unproven allegation does not automatically mandate disclosure and the engineer retains discretion to weigh the allegation-adjudication distinction and other prudential factors.
[Case 147] Relational principle establishing that when an engineer is subject to a pending ethics complaint alleging lack of competence for services materially similar to those currently being rendered to a different client, the engineer bears an affirmative obligation to disclose the existence of that complaint to the current client — because the complaint directly bears on the client's ability to make an informed decision about whether to continue retaining the engineer, and because the faithful agent duty requires transparency about material professional circumstances that could affect service quality or client confidence.
Pending Competence Complaint Materiality-to-Current-Services Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint alleging lack of competence to assess whether the subject matter of that complaint is materially similar to the services currently being performed for another client, and to use that similarity assessment as a key factor in determining whether disclosure to the current client is ethically warranted — recognizing that similarity between the complained-of services and the current engagement amplifies the disclosure obligation.
Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Capability
Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint to recognize when — even absent a strict ethical obligation to disclose the complaint — it would be prudentially advisable and professionally responsible to provide a current client with limited, dispassionate, and non-prejudicial background information about the pending matter, enabling the client to respond to third-party inquiries, demonstrating professional transparency and confidence, and protecting the engineer-client relationship from the damage that would result from the client learning of the complaint through third parties without prior notice from the engineer.
Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Obligation
the Board also clarified that it believed that Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned, although it was not suggesting that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against him.
Defeasible obligation of a professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint to consider providing current clients or employers with limited, dispassionate, and non-prejudicial background information about the pending matter — even when automatic disclosure is not ethically required — so that the client or employer can respond to comments or questions by third parties and so that the engineer demonstrates professional transparency and good faith. This obligation is not mandatory but represents the prudentially advisable course of action that balances the engineer's privacy interest in unproven allegations against the client's interest in early notice of matters that may affect the professional relationship.
Pending Complaint Voluntary Background Disclosure Opportunity State
Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information
State in which a professional who is not ethically compelled to disclose a pending (unresolved) complaint or allegation to a current client nonetheless has a prudential opportunity to provide limited, dispassionate background information to that client, enabling the client to respond to third-party inquiries and demonstrating the professional's transparency and confidence in their own conduct.
Pending Employee Departure Prospective Client Disclosure Obligation State
Engineer B had an obligation, during negotiations with a prospective client, to inform the client of Engineer A's pending termination
State in which a firm is actively negotiating with or soliciting prospective clients while a key employee named in the firm's promotional materials has been given notice of termination but has not yet departed. During this interim window, the firm bears an affirmative ethical obligation to disclose the pending departure to prospective clients in the course of negotiations — because those clients may be selecting the firm in material reliance on the named employee's continued availability. The obligation is calibrated: it does not require amending all distributed brochures (impracticable), but does require oral or written disclosure during active client negotiations. The state terminates upon the employee's formal departure, at which point the obligation escalates to complete removal of the departed employee's name from all promotional materials.
Pending Ethics Complaint Faithful Agent Proactive Disclosure Weighing Capability
Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is simultaneously subject to a pending ethics complaint and rendering services to a current client to weigh the faithful agent and trustee obligation — which requires transparency about material professional circumstances — against the allegation-vs-adjudication distinction, and to reach a principled, documented conclusion about whether proactive disclosure to the current client is ethically required, prudentially advisable, or permissibly withheld, taking into account the nature of the allegation, its similarity to current services, and the client's reasonable interest in knowing.
Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure State
the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
State in which a licensed professional engineer is the subject of a pending ethics complaint or investigation filed with a state licensing board by a prior client, and is currently rendering services to a different client on a similar project, without having disclosed the existence of the pending complaint to the current client — where the ethical question is whether the pending complaint constitutes information material enough to require disclosure, or whether it is a mere unproven allegation that the professional may withhold under privacy rights while continuing to serve the current client.
Pending Termination Notice Active Employment Continuation State
Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm
State in which an engineer has received formal notice of forthcoming termination but continues to perform active employment duties for the employer during the intervening period before the termination takes effect. This creates a dual-obligation condition: the engineer remains a faithful agent of the employer with full loyalty duties, while simultaneously being aware that the employment relationship is ending and potentially planning post-employment activities. The state raises ethical questions about the permissibility of competitive actions (e.g., client solicitation) undertaken during this transitional window.
Perfunctory Self-Certification Competence Prohibition Obligation
the direct mail product described under the facts is not unlike mail order certifications offered by so called 'diploma mills' whereby individuals 'self certify' their competency based upon a perfunctory review process that rarely involves comprehensive study, examination, or practice.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from treating any perfunctory, non-comprehensive review process — including ordering and using a commercial software product, completing a mail-order certification, or engaging in any other superficial credentialing mechanism — as a basis for self-certifying competence to perform engineering services in a technical domain, recognizing that acceptable competence requires substantive engineering education, hands-on experience, and demonstrated qualifications in the specific domain, and that self-certification through diploma-mill-equivalent processes is fundamentally contrary to the ethical principles of the profession and to the public welfare mission of professional engineering licensure.
Permissible But Suboptimal Design Assignment State
the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system
State in which a professional has been assigned to design or specify a system or approach that is technically sound, legally permissible, and not prohibited by applicable codes or regulations, but which falls short of optimal sustainability, efficiency, or best-practice standards — creating a professional context where refusal is not ethically obligatory but improvement through expertise is ethically encouraged.
Permissible Competitive Employment Acceptance With Confidentiality Constraint Navigation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer transitioning from government employment to private employment with a competitor of a company whose confidential information the engineer accessed during government service to correctly navigate the ethical framework governing such employment — recognizing that the employment itself is permissible, that the constraint is on use and disclosure of confidential information rather than on employment acceptance, and that the engineer must implement appropriate information barriers and recusal arrangements to honor the confidentiality obligation while pursuing legitimate career advancement.
He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups'
A supervisory authority role within a state environmental or regulatory agency who directs subordinate engineers to expedite permit issuance and overrides their technical objections, ultimately authorizing a permit that the subordinate engineer believes violates applicable environmental regulations, thereby generating a conflict between institutional or political pressures and the professional obligations of licensed engineers to uphold regulatory standards.
Permit-Refusing Subordinate Regulatory Engineer
Engineer A affirmatively sought the opinion of the state as to whether his approval of the permit could violate the state engineering registration law
A licensed professional engineering role within a state environmental or regulatory agency who, upon reviewing a permit application, forms a professional judgment that issuing the permit would violate applicable environmental or public health regulations, refuses to approve the permit despite supervisory pressure to do so, proactively seeks guidance from the state engineering licensing board regarding the legality of the requested approval, and ultimately withdraws from further work on the project to avoid being placed in a professionally compromising situation — thereby upholding the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare over institutional or political pressures.
Permit Issuance Professional Certification Scope Self-Recognition Capability
Sometimes engineers are asked by employers or clients to sign off on documents in which they may have reservations or concerns.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer assigned to issue construction permits in a regulatory agency role to recognize that the act of issuing a permit constitutes a professional certification — not merely an administrative act — that the submitted plans meet applicable legal and regulatory standards, and that issuing a permit for plans the engineer believes violate applicable law would constitute a false professional certification, thereby triggering the engineer's obligation to refuse issuance and the engineer's right to consult the state licensing board regarding potential license jeopardy.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that providing a professional certification of compliance with specific regulations, standards, or technical requirements constitutes a guarantee that the certified statements are correct — not merely a professional opinion or best-effort assessment — and to correctly conclude that certifying compliance with detailed regulatory frameworks outside one's domain of competence would be misleading, deceptive, and unethical because the engineer cannot perform the exhaustive inspection and analysis required to substantiate the guarantee.
Perpetual Loyal Devotion Non-Extension to Former Client Recognition Capability
While engineers clearly have certain basic professional obligations to their employers and clients to protect their interests, engineers do not have a duty of absolute loyalty under which the engineer can never take a position adverse to the interests of a former client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the faithful agent and trustee obligations owed to a client during an active professional engagement do not extend into a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity after the engagement concludes — including the ability to correctly identify that 'faithful agent and trustee' status does not prohibit the engineer from ever taking a position adverse to a former client's interests in wholly unrelated matters, to distinguish between residual obligations that persist (such as confidentiality of information obtained during prior service) and categorical prohibitions that do not exist (such as a perpetual bar on adverse engagement in unrelated matters), and to apply this bounded loyalty framework when evaluating the permissibility of accepting engagements adverse to former clients.
Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Capability
Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a client's cost-driven refusal to adopt a professionally recommended safety standard creates a substantial risk to public health, safety, and welfare to continue pursuing substantive discussions with the client — attempting to convince the client of the danger to future residents and the general public — before withdrawing from the project, recognizing that withdrawal is a last resort after good-faith persuasion efforts have been exhausted.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material public health, safety, or welfare risk that a client is unwilling to address to pursue a graduated sequence of engagement steps before withdrawing from the project — including first engaging the client in substantive discussion about the need for evaluation and disclosure, then proposing intermediate steps such as submitting a concern report to regulatory agencies, and only withdrawing after both intermediate options have been refused — recognizing that withdrawal is a last resort after good-faith escalation efforts have been exhausted.
Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a client's cost-driven refusal to adopt a professionally required safety standard creates material risk to future residents and the public to continue pursuing substantive discussions with the client — presenting the technical basis for the safety determination, the nature and magnitude of the risk, and the consequences of proceeding below the required standard — before withdrawing from the project, recognizing that withdrawal is the appropriate last resort only after good-faith persuasion efforts have been exhausted.
Persistent Escalation Obligation When Initial Safety Report Is Unacknowledged
the Board decided that although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and by contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction
Professional principle requiring engineers who have reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond or act to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials, alternative agencies, or other parties with jurisdiction, rather than treating an unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation
[Case 132] Professional principle requiring engineers who have reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond or act to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials, alternative agencies, or other parties with jurisdiction, rather than treating an unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation.
[Case 137] Professional principle requiring engineers who have reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond or act to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials, alternative agencies, or other parties with jurisdiction, rather than treating an unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation.
[Case 140] Professional principle requiring engineers who have reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond or act to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials, alternative agencies, or other parties with jurisdiction, rather than treating an unanswered initial report as a discharged obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who have made formal presentations to a regulatory body about public health or safety risks, but whose concerns were not adequately addressed or acted upon, to escalate those concerns to higher-level regulatory authorities rather than treating the initial formal presentation as the terminus of their professional obligation
Persistent Safety Escalation After Unresponsive Authority Obligation
the Board decided that although Engineer A did not believe the building was in danger of imminent collapse, Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and by contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond or take action — including a building official who does not return calls — to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to the supervisor of that official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction, rather than treating the initial unanswered contact as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Capability
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and by contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond — including a county building official who does not return a phone call — to recognize that the initial report does not discharge the professional obligation, and to continue pursuing resolution by escalating to supervisory officials, alternative regulatory bodies, fire marshals, or other agencies having jurisdiction, until the safety concern is adequately addressed or all reasonable escalation pathways have been exhausted.
Persistent Safety Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Authority Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond — such as a county building official who does not return a phone call — must continue pursuing resolution by contacting supervisory officials, alternative agencies with jurisdiction, or other appropriate authorities, prohibiting passive acceptance of non-response as a discharge of the safety reporting obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose documented safety concerns have been formally presented to a regulatory or administrative body but dismissed or overridden without corrective action must escalate those concerns to a higher authority — such as a state environmental regulatory agency — prohibiting passive acceptance of the regulatory body's override as a final discharge of the engineer's public safety obligation when the gravity of the identified risk to public health and welfare remains unmitigated.
Personal Commute Observation Professional Safety Duty Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that observations made during personal, non-work activities — such as commuting to and from work — that are directly relevant to a professional safety obligation must be treated as professionally material information triggering reporting and design obligations, and to correctly identify that the personal or incidental nature of the observation does not diminish its professional significance when it bears on foreseeable risks to construction workers and the public.
Personal Condition Non-Concealment Distinction from Engineering Conduct Concealment Obligation
The facts of the earlier cases indicate an effort to conceal conduct on the part of the individual or associates relating to the practice of engineering or related fields. In contrast, the facts of the present case demonstrate no effort to conceal any conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields.
Obligation of a professional ethics reviewer or engineer to correctly distinguish between (a) concealment of conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields — which triggers disclosure and reporting obligations under the NSPE Code — and (b) non-disclosure of a personal condition with little or no apparent impact on engineering practice — which does not constitute concealment within the meaning of the Code. The obligation requires that the ethical analysis of omission be calibrated to the nature of the withheld information: engineering-practice-related conduct concealment is subject to the Code's full disclosure regime, while personal condition non-disclosure is governed by the engineer's personal privacy right and the ADA framework.
Personal Condition vs. Engineering Conduct Concealment Distinction Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that ethics reviewers, employers, and professional bodies correctly distinguish between (a) concealment of conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields — which falls within the scope of the NSPE Code's deception provisions and may constitute an ethical violation — and (b) non-disclosure of a personal condition with little or no apparent impact on the engineer's ability to competently practice engineering — which does not constitute deceptive conduct under the Code — prohibiting the conflation of these two categories and the application of engineering-conduct disclosure standards to personal medical or disability conditions, as established by the present BER case's explicit contrast with BER Cases 75-5 and 03-6.
Personal Condition vs Engineering Conduct Concealment Distinction Capability
The facts of the earlier cases indicate an effort to conceal conduct on the part of the individual or associates relating to the practice of engineering or related fields. In contrast, the facts of the present case demonstrate no effort to conceal any conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields. Instead, the facts relate to a personal condition with little if any apparent impact on the individual's ability to successfully practice engineering.
Capability of a professional ethics reviewer, engineer, or reviewing body to correctly distinguish between (a) concealment of conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related professional fields — which falls within the scope of ethics code deception provisions — and (b) non-disclosure of a personal condition unrelated to engineering practice — which does not constitute concealment of professional conduct and therefore does not trigger the same disclosure obligations, even when the personal condition is known to the engineer.
Personal Conviction Dissent Permissibility Boundary Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that while a licensed engineer or engineer intern may, as a matter of personal conviction, decline to perform an assigned task that conflicts with their sustainability or ethical beliefs — even when that task is technically and legally permissible and not ethically obligatory to refuse — such personal dissent is permissible but not ethically required, and carries significant professional and career consequences that the engineer must accept as the cost of exercising personal conviction over professional obligation, prohibiting the characterization of permissible personal dissent as an ethically mandatory refusal when the applicable code provision is encouraged rather than mandatory.
Personal Misconduct Disciplined Engineer
personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer has engaged in personal misconduct — conduct unrelated to the direct performance of engineering services — that has been adjudicated by proper legal authority (e.g., criminal conviction, felony, crime involving moral turpitude) and is subsequently subject to professional disciplinary action by a professional society or state registration board on the grounds that such conduct reflects upon the honor and dignity of the engineering profession and undermines public confidence in its integrity.
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Constraint
BER Case 75-5 clearly indicates that the BER must look beyond just the specific practice of engineering to the whole person when addressing ethical issues relating to professional engineers.
Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics extends its jurisdiction beyond conduct directly related to the practice of engineering to encompass personal misconduct that reflects on the engineer's integrity, honesty, and fitness for professional practice — prohibiting the interpretation that a code of ethics applies only to conduct that directly prejudices professional service performance, and establishing that personal misconduct of the kind that undermines public confidence in the profession's integrity is subject to the Code and may be dealt with accordingly, as established by BER Case 75-5 and reaffirmed in the present case.
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Principle
the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that a professional ethics code's jurisdiction extends beyond conduct directly related to the technical practice of engineering to encompass personal misconduct that, while unrelated to engineering services, undermines public confidence in the integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior of the profession — because the foundational purpose of a professional ethics code is to ensure that the public can trust professional practitioners, and that trust depends on character as well as technical conduct
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
the Board found that personal misconduct unrelated to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Obligation of a professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics extends its jurisdiction beyond conduct directly related to the practice of engineering to encompass personal misconduct that reflects on the engineer's integrity, honesty, and fitness for professional practice — because the fundamental purpose of a professional ethics code is to ensure public confidence in the profession's practitioners, not merely to regulate technical engineering conduct. This obligation requires that engineers not treat the Code as limited to purely technical engineering activities when personal conduct bears on professional character and public trust.
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdictional Boundary Recognition Capability
In another case, BER Case 75-5, the Board found that personal misconduct unrelated to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Capability of a professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to correctly identify the jurisdictional boundary of the NSPE Code of Ethics with respect to personal conduct — recognizing that the Code extends to personal misconduct that undermines public confidence in professional integrity (per BER 75-5), while simultaneously recognizing that the Code does not extend to personal conditions or characteristics that have no bearing on professional conduct, integrity, or public confidence, and to apply this boundary correctly to distinguish actionable personal misconduct from non-actionable personal characteristics.
personal misconduct unrelated to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
Professional norms establishing that personal misconduct unrelated to the direct practice of engineering may nonetheless fall within the scope of a professional code of ethics, because the fundamental purpose of a code of ethics is to maintain public confidence in the integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior of professional practitioners.
Personal Misconduct NSPE Ethics Code Scope Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly recognize and apply the principle that the NSPE Code of Ethics extends to personal conduct — including criminal offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — that is not directly related to engineering practice but that reflects on the engineer's character, integrity, and fitness to practice, and to understand that the Code's reach is not limited to conduct performed in a professional engineering capacity but encompasses personal misconduct that undermines public confidence in the profession.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to correctly identify the jurisdictional boundary of the NSPE Code of Ethics with respect to personal conduct — recognizing that the Code extends to personal misconduct that undermines public confidence in professional integrity (per BER 75-5), while simultaneously recognizing that the Code does not extend to personal conditions or characteristics that have no bearing on professional conduct, integrity, or public confidence, and to apply this boundary correctly to distinguish actionable personal misconduct from non-actionable personal characteristics.
Personal Misconduct Non-Engineering Nexus Ethics Code Jurisdiction Non-Exclusion Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics is not limited in its jurisdiction to conduct that directly prejudices or tends to prejudice the performance of professional engineering services — prohibiting the interpretation that personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice falls categorically outside the Code's reach, and establishing that when personal conduct has been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of socially sanctioned behavior, the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession, as definitively resolved in BER Case 72-6 after being reserved in BER Cases 62-14 and 68-7.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics extends its jurisdiction beyond conduct directly related to the practice of engineering to encompass personal misconduct that reflects on the engineer's integrity, honesty, and fitness for professional practice — prohibiting the interpretation that a code of ethics applies only to conduct that directly prejudices professional service performance, and establishing that personal misconduct of the kind that undermines public confidence in the profession's integrity is subject to the Code and may be dealt with accordingly, as established by BER Case 75-5 and reaffirmed in the present case.
Personal Misconduct Outside Engineering Practice Subject to Code Jurisdiction State
personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
State in which a professional engineer has engaged in personal misconduct — criminal or otherwise — that is not directly related to the performance of engineering services, yet is determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of conduct sanctioned by society, thereby activating the professional code of ethics and professional society disciplinary authority on the grounds that such conduct reflects upon the honor, dignity, and integrity of the engineering profession and undermines public confidence in it. This state is distinguished from purely personal habits or conduct that remain private, and is triggered specifically when legal adjudication has established the misconduct's character, enabling the professional society to act on official findings rather than making independent moral judgments about personal behavior.
Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer
Relational principle establishing that engineers retain a personal right of privacy with respect to personal characteristics, medical conditions, and other non-professional facts about themselves that are not directly constitutive of a demonstrated professional qualification deficiency, such that the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure of such personal information even when it might be relevant to an employer's or client's preferences, provided the engineer does not affirmatively misrepresent the personal fact or allow its omission to create a material misrepresentation of professional qualification
Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Prohibition Constraint
Interpreting the meaning of NSPE Code Section II.5.a, we noted that the words 'pertinent facts' are those facts that have a clear and decisive relevance to a matter at hand.
Ethical constraint establishing that a violation of the prohibition against misrepresentation of professional qualifications in marketing materials requires the concurrent presence of two elements: (1) an actual misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts' — defined as facts of clear and decisive relevance, or those that are 'relevant and highly significant' to the matter at hand — and (2) the intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications or work through that misrepresentation; constraining engineers and firms to ensure that both elements are assessed before a violation is found, and equally constraining them to refrain from any communication where both elements are present, as established by BER Case 83-1.
Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to correctly apply the two-part test for determining whether a brochure or promotional material violates NSPE Code Section II.5.a: (1) assessing whether the representation or omission concerns 'pertinent facts' — those with clear, decisive, and highly significant relevance to the matter at hand, such as the current employment status of a named key employee — and (2) assessing whether the distribution of the material was motivated by the 'intent and purpose' to enhance the firm's qualifications and work, recognizing that both elements must be present simultaneously for a violation to exist, and applying this dual-element framework to distinguish permissible from impermissible promotional conduct.
Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation
We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.' We noted that both factors must be present for a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a to exist.
Duty of a professional engineer or engineering firm distributing promotional materials to ensure that any representation of personnel or qualifications satisfies both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test: (1) the fact represented must be 'pertinent' — having clear and decisive relevance to a client's selection decision — and (2) the representation must not be made with the intent and purpose of enhancing the firm's qualifications or work beyond what is accurate. When both elements are present, the representation constitutes a violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.a. Engineers and firms must affirmatively evaluate promotional content against both prongs before distribution, and must refrain from distributing materials that satisfy both elements simultaneously.
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
Professional virtue principle establishing that a violation of the prohibition on misrepresenting pertinent facts in promotional materials requires the simultaneous presence of two elements: (1) the misrepresented information constitutes a 'pertinent fact' — one that is clearly and decisively relevant, relevant and highly significant — to a prospective client's selection decision, AND (2) the engineer or firm acted with the intent and purpose of enhancing the firm's qualifications or work through the misrepresentation; the absence of either element negates the ethical violation, such that inadvertent inclusion of stale information without enhancement intent, or inclusion of non-pertinent information with enhancement intent, does not independently constitute a violation.
Petition-Bearing Public Stakeholder Community
A community stakeholder role representing residents directly affected by a bridge closure who organize a public rally, gather signatures on a petition, and present it to an elected authority requesting reopening of infrastructure to limited traffic, thereby generating political pressure that may conflict with engineering safety determinations.
Physical Address Licensure Jurisdiction Anchoring Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who uses the PE designation on a business card to recognize that the physical address on a business card functions as a jurisdictional anchor — creating a conventional assumption that the engineer is licensed in the state of that address — and to correctly manage this anchoring effect by either listing only addresses in states where licensure is held, or by explicitly identifying the states of licensure when the address state differs from the licensure state, thereby avoiding deception about licensure jurisdiction.
Pile Foundation Adequacy Evaluation Competence
Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
Technical competence to evaluate the load-carrying adequacy of driven pile foundations using multiple analytical methods — including skin friction area calculations, wave equation analysis, and pile driving record interpretation — and to correctly identify when piles driven to essential refusal satisfy design safety factor requirements, including understanding the significance of pile set-up strength gain over time and the role of plug formation in closed-end pipe piles.
Plaintiff-Side Forensic Retaining Attorney
Engineer A is hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case
A legal professional client role in which an attorney representing a plaintiff in personal injury litigation retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert or technical consultant to evaluate the case and provide testimony in support of the plaintiff's position, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations of objectivity and independence.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A legal professional client role in which an attorney representing a plaintiff in product liability litigation retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert or technical consultant, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations regarding independence, objectivity, and disclosure of prior relationships with adverse parties.
Plaintiff-Side Litigation Retaining Attorney
Engineer A was retained by Attorney X who represented a plaintiff in product liability litigation against ABC Manufacturing
A legal professional client role in which an attorney representing a plaintiff in product liability litigation retains a licensed engineer as a forensic expert or technical consultant, bearing authority to define the scope of engagement and subject to the engineer's overriding professional obligations regarding independence, objectivity, and disclosure of prior relationships with adverse parties.
Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and changing routing of the street. Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the requirement that an engineer who modifies, revises, or redesigns plans originally prepared and sealed by another engineer must clearly document and notate all changes made, remove or supersede the original engineer's seal and signature where appropriate, and take explicit responsibility for the modified work in a manner that does not mislead reviewers, regulators, or the public about authorship and accountability.
Planning Board Member Own-Plans Voting Prohibition Constraint
As a member of the county planning board he later voted to approve these plans.
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving as a member of a governmental planning board or approval body from casting a vote to approve or reject engineering plans that the engineer personally prepared in a private consulting capacity, establishing that the financial and professional interest in the approval outcome creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that disqualifies the engineer from participating in the vote, and that this prohibition applies regardless of whether the engineer has already participated in the approval process through a separate governmental role such as county engineer.
Planning Board Member Self-Designed Plan Voting Recusal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a member of a governmental planning board or approval body to recuse themselves from voting on, deliberating about, or otherwise participating in the approval of any subdivision plans, development proposals, or engineering submissions that the engineer personally prepared in a private consulting capacity — recognizing that a vote to approve one's own work is a direct financial conflict of interest that eliminates the independent judgment the board role requires, and that the engineer's private commercial interest in approval is irreconcilable with the public trust obligation of the board member role.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving on a governmental commission or board with permit or approval authority to refrain from taking any action — including discussion, vote, or informal influence — on permit applications or approvals involving private owners for whom the engineer simultaneously provides private engineering services, recognizing that abstention from the formal decision process is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical permissibility of the dual arrangement, and that any action taken to influence the favorable outcome of a permit application — even informally — eliminates the ethical permissibility that abstention would otherwise provide.
Planning Board Member Self-Designed Plan Voting Recusal Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a member of a governmental planning board or approval body to recognize that voting on plans the engineer personally prepared in a private consulting capacity constitutes a direct conflict of interest requiring mandatory recusal — including the ability to identify this conflict at the moment of plan submission, to formally recuse before any deliberation or vote, and to understand that the conflict is not cured by the engineer's belief in the technical adequacy of the plans.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds a governmental planning or approval role and engages in private consulting practice to recognize when plans or projects prepared in a private consulting capacity will come before a governmental body on which the engineer serves — and to recuse from all governmental review, recommendation, and voting functions with respect to those plans, recognizing that the conflict exists even if the engineer does not vote, by virtue of the governmental employment responsibility to submit plans with recommendation.
Policy-Circumvention Design Manipulation State
State in which a senior engineer or supervisor indirectly instructs a subordinate to revise an engineering design in a manner that deliberately creates an otherwise-avoidable utility conflict, for the purpose of shifting project costs to a third party (such as a municipality) under a policy framework that only funds unavoidable conflicts — thereby circumventing the intent of the governing cost-allocation policy while maintaining plausible deniability through indirect communication.
State in which a client authority selects a design or project approach that the responsible engineer has identified as inconsistent with the client's own formally adopted policies — such as climate resilience or sustainability mandates — creating tension between client decision-making authority and the engineer's obligation to ensure the client's decisions are informed by and evaluated against the client's stated policy commitments.
Policy-Violating Design Revision Refusal Obligation
Duty of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer who has been directed — whether directly or indirectly — by a supervising engineer to revise a policy-compliant design in a manner that would violate an explicit agency policy (such as a DOT cost-allocation policy requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of highway projects) to refuse to implement that revision, notwithstanding the supervisor's promise to 'sign off' on the revised work, recognizing that the supervisor's willingness to seal the document does not relieve the subordinate of independent ethical responsibility to decline participation in a policy-violating design.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has signed and sealed engineering documents to refuse to revise those documents based solely on the direction of an unlicensed individual who lacks the authority, qualifications, and legal standing to direct changes to sealed engineering work product, recognizing that the engineer's professional seal represents personal accountability for the technical content and that subordinating sealed document authority to unlicensed direction undermines responsible charge and public safety.
Policy-Violating Directive Recognition Capability
Capability of an engineer intern or subordinate engineer to recognize when a directive from a supervisor — whether communicated directly or indirectly — would require implementing a design revision that violates an explicit agency policy, including the ability to identify the policy at issue, understand how the directive conflicts with it, and correctly classify the directive as one that must be refused rather than followed, regardless of the supervisor's promise to 'sign off' on the result.
Political Bargain Safety Non-Concurrence Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role who is presented with a political bargain — in which concurrence with a safety-compromising measure (such as grandfathering buildings under less rigorous code requirements) is offered in exchange for a beneficial administrative outcome (such as additional inspection staff) — to refuse the bargain and to make plain to the political authority that trading one public safety wrong for another increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety, recognizing that public safety obligations cannot be traded against political or administrative concessions regardless of the net benefit calculus.
Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Compromise Constraint
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer responsible for a public inspection or safety program from agreeing to compromise, reduce, or conditionally apply safety inspection standards — including endorsing grandfathering ordinances that exempt structures from current code requirements — as a condition of receiving resources necessary to adequately perform the inspection program, establishing that safety standards are non-negotiable regardless of resource pressures or political inducements.
Political Bargain Safety Standard Non-Concurrence Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role from concurring with a politically-motivated proposal — such as a grandfathering ordinance exempting specified buildings from current code requirements — as a condition of receiving resources necessary to adequately perform a public safety function, establishing that the logic of political trade-offs does not apply to engineering safety standards and that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' causes grave damage to public health and safety, as established by BER Case 98-5 and the principle that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount regardless of political inducements.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer responsible for a public inspection or safety program from agreeing to compromise, reduce, or conditionally apply safety inspection standards — including endorsing grandfathering ordinances that exempt structures from current code requirements — as a condition of receiving resources necessary to adequately perform the inspection program, establishing that safety standards are non-negotiable regardless of resource pressures or political inducements.
Political Influence Non-Substitution Capability
They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor.
Capability to recognize when political lobbying, personal relationships, or non-technical influence efforts are being used — or are tempting to be used — as substitutes for genuine technical qualification in competing for a public engineering contract, and to refrain from such conduct, competing instead on the basis of demonstrated technical competence through proper qualification-based selection processes.
Political Lobbying Non-Substitution for Technical Qualification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer seeking a public engineering contract to refrain from substituting political lobbying, personal relationships, or direct advocacy to elected officials for the technical qualification-based selection process, and to compete for public contracts solely on the basis of demonstrated technical qualifications, experience, and merit — consistent with the integrity of qualification-based selection procurement systems.
Political Trade-Off Safety Non-Compromise Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role who is presented with a political bargain — in which concurrence with a safety-compromising measure (such as grandfathering buildings under less rigorous code requirements) is offered in exchange for a beneficial administrative outcome (such as additional inspection staff) — to refuse the bargain and to make plain to the political authority that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety, recognizing that public safety obligations cannot be traded against political or administrative concessions regardless of the net benefit calculus.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency inspection or regulatory role to refuse to concur with, sign, or endorse inadequate inspection reports, grandfathering ordinances, or other safety-compromising measures as part of a political or budgetary bargain — even when the bargain offers tangible benefits such as additional staff or resources — recognizing that public safety obligations cannot be traded against political or administrative concessions.
Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Capability
The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving 'trade-offs' in which one must weigh one 'public good' (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent 'public good' (a consistent code enforcement process)
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role to recognize when a political or institutional authority is presenting a situation as involving legitimate 'trade-offs' between competing public goods — such as better inspection processes versus consistent code enforcement, or project efficiency versus policy compliance — and to correctly identify that professional ethics obligations to public safety, truth, and policy integrity cannot be compromised through political bargaining, even when the trade-off appears to produce net public benefit.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency inspection or regulatory role to recognize when a political or institutional authority is attempting to condition resource allocation — such as hiring additional inspectors — on the engineer's agreement to compromise safety reporting standards or concur with inadequate regulatory measures, and to refuse such bargains, maintaining the integrity of safety reporting and inspection standards regardless of the institutional pressures or resource constraints involved.
Political Trade-Off Safety and Truth Non-Compromise Constraint
The Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5, concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety.
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from agreeing to compromise core professional ethical values — including public safety standards or truthfulness in public fund allocation — as a condition of receiving political or administrative resources, establishing that the logic of political trade-offs does not apply to engineering ethics and that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' is impermissible regardless of the perceived public benefit of the resource obtained through the compromise, as established by BER Case 98-5 and the present case analysis.
Politically Conditioned Resource Offer State
the chairman seeks Engineer Adam's concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be 'grandfathered' under the older existing enforcement requirements
State in which a public official or authority offers resources necessary to fulfill a professional engineer's legitimate safety or compliance mandate — such as additional inspection staff — contingent on the engineer's agreement to a policy concession that would reduce or defer safety protections for other structures or populations, creating direct tension between the engineer's need for resources to fulfill their safety mandate and the obligation to refuse participation in arrangements that compromise public safety standards.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a public official or authority conditions their willingness to provide resources necessary for adequate safety or code compliance on the professional engineer's agreement to accept a policy concession that would reduce or defer safety protections for other structures or populations — creating direct tension between the engineer's need for resources to fulfill their safety mandate and the obligation to refuse participation in arrangements that compromise public safety standards.
Politically Conditioned Safety Compliance State
State in which a public official or authority conditions their willingness to provide resources necessary for adequate safety or code compliance on the professional engineer's agreement to accept a policy concession that would reduce or defer safety protections for other structures or populations — creating direct tension between the engineer's need for resources to fulfill their safety mandate and the obligation to refuse participation in arrangements that compromise public safety standards.
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste into a receiving body of water
A public regulatory body role responsible for overseeing environmental compliance, issuing discharge permits, and holding public hearings on environmental matters affecting public health and safety.
Pollution Insurance Market Re-Entry State
In recent years, the insurance industry has re-entered the pollution insurance market and now provides limited pollution coverage for an additional premium
State in which professional liability insurance for pollution-related engineering services has become available again after a period of market absence, providing engineers with an alternative risk management mechanism and thereby altering the ethical justification for broad client indemnification provisions that were adopted during the period of unavailability.
[proethica-intermediate] Resource sufficiency enabling full options
Pollution Insurance Market Unavailability State
State in which professional liability insurance covering pollution-related engineering services is unavailable in the market, compelling engineers to seek alternative risk-transfer mechanisms such as broad contractual indemnification provisions from clients in order to continue providing pollution-related services.
Pollution Liability Insurance Availability Standard
A professional and market-based standard reflecting the availability, scope, and adequacy of pollution liability insurance coverage for engineers providing pollution-related services, used to evaluate whether contractual risk-shifting mechanisms such as indemnification clauses remain ethically justified given current insurance market conditions.
Pollution Professional Liability Insurance Market Monitoring and Procurement Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing pollution-related consulting services to actively monitor the professional liability insurance market for the availability of pollution-specific coverage, to recognize when such coverage becomes available after a period of market absence, and to procure available pollution-related professional liability insurance as an ethical obligation that reduces the need to transfer negligence risk to clients through indemnification clauses.
Pollution Services Indemnification-Requiring Engineer
A licensed civil engineering role in which the engineer provides pollution-related consulting services under agreements that require clients to indemnify and hold harmless the engineer for damages or legal costs arising from the engineer's own negligence, typically adopted in response to unavailability of pollution liability insurance coverage and raising ethical questions about the appropriateness of shifting negligence liability to clients.
the client is required to 'indemnify and hold harmless Engineer A for any damages or legal costs (including attorneys fees) arising from Engineer A's negligence in the performance of pollution-related services'
A client role in which the party retaining pollution-related engineering services is contractually required to indemnify and hold harmless the engineer for damages or legal costs arising from the engineer's own negligence, raising ethical questions about the fairness of such risk transfer and the client's informed consent to the arrangement.
Pollution Services Professional Liability Insurance Procurement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer providing pollution-related consulting services to procure available professional liability insurance coverage — including pollution-specific coverage — when such coverage is commercially available, rather than contractually transferring the risk of the engineer's own negligence to clients, recognizing that the re-entry of insurers into the pollution coverage market creates an affirmative obligation to obtain coverage as the ethically preferred risk-management mechanism over client indemnification.
Positional Influence Threshold for Organizational Affiliation Exploitation Determination
We might be inclined to a different result if it were shown that Engineers A and B had a position of special influence in the chapter other than normal membership, such as holding office or membership on a committee involved in the question, or that they had exerted influence of some sort on the officers or members of the chapter.
Relational principle establishing that the ethical permissibility of an engineer's use of professional society membership to advance a client position turns critically on whether the engineer occupies a position of special influence within the organization — such as an elected office, committee chair, or advisory role on the matter in question — beyond that of an ordinary dues-paying member; ordinary membership status, combined with transparent disclosure of the engagement circumstances, does not cross the threshold into impermissible exploitation of affiliation, whereas positional authority that gives the engineer disproportionate influence over the organization's deliberations or outputs does cross that threshold
Post-Accident Design Self-Assessment and Error Threshold Determination Capability
Following the accident, Engineer T revisited the site and realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, following a construction accident or adverse project outcome, conducts an honest and objective self-assessment of prior design decisions — including evaluating whether the failure to explore alternative, safer design approaches constitutes a professional error requiring acknowledgment — and correctly determines the threshold at which a design decision crosses from a reasonable professional judgment into an error requiring formal acknowledgment under professional ethics codes, including the ability to distinguish between hindsight-informed regret and an actual professional error.
Post-Accident Hindsight Non-Retroactive Error Imposition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting the retroactive characterization of a design decision as a professional error solely on the basis of post-accident hindsight — establishing that a licensed professional engineer who met the applicable standard of care at the time of design is constrained from being required to acknowledge an error merely because post-accident reflection reveals that alternative approaches existed that might have reduced harm, absent evidence that the standard of care required exploration of those alternatives at the time of design.
Post-Accident Objective Self-Assessment and Honest Characterization Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, following a construction accident or adverse project outcome, conducts a self-assessment of their prior design decisions, to characterize that self-assessment honestly and objectively — acknowledging both what was done correctly and what could have been done differently — without either falsely claiming error where none occurred or suppressing recognition of missed opportunities, and to communicate that honest characterization to supervisors, legal counsel, and relevant stakeholders as appropriate.
Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Cessation Absolute Obligation
Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
Absolute duty of an engineering firm principal to immediately cease distributing any promotional brochure or marketing material that lists a named engineer as a current key employee once that engineer has formally departed the firm, regardless of: (1) whether the brochure was printed before the departure; (2) the cost or logistical difficulty of reprinting; (3) whether the departure was voluntary or employer-initiated; or (4) whether the firm has had time to prepare replacement materials. Continued distribution after actual departure constitutes a per se misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance firm qualifications under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, satisfying both prongs of the dual-element test without requiring further analysis of subjective intent, because the firm's actual knowledge of the departure eliminates any innocent explanation for continued distribution.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute duty of an engineering firm principal to cease distributing any promotional materials — including previously printed brochures — that list a named engineer as a current key employee or staff member after that engineer has actually departed the firm, regardless of whether the materials were printed before the departure, whether the departure was voluntary or involuntary, or whether the firm has had time to reprint materials. Distribution of such materials after actual departure constitutes a per se misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance firm qualifications, violating NSPE Code Section II.5.a without requiring further analysis of intent.
Post-Actual-Departure Brochure Personnel Listing Prohibition Obligation
The Board also ruled that it was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.
Absolute duty of an engineering firm principal to cease distributing any promotional materials — including previously printed brochures — that list a named engineer as a current key employee or staff member after that engineer has actually departed the firm, regardless of whether the materials were printed before the departure, whether the departure was voluntary or involuntary, or whether the firm has had time to reprint materials. Distribution of such materials after actual departure constitutes a per se misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance firm qualifications, violating NSPE Code Section II.5.a without requiring further analysis of intent.
Post-Actual-Departure Key-Employee Brochure Cessation Absolute Constraint
once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely.
Ethical constraint establishing an absolute, inviolable prohibition on an engineering firm's continued distribution of any promotional brochure or marketing material listing a named engineer as a key employee after that engineer has formally and actually departed from the firm — regardless of printing costs, logistical difficulty, or the firm's belief that the engineer's credentials still reflect the firm's general capability; establishing that actual departure constitutes a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients, that continued distribution after actual departure satisfies both prongs of the misrepresentation test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a (misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications), and that no exception or mitigation applies once the employment relationship has fully terminated, as established by BER Case 82-5.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing an absolute prohibition on the distribution of promotional materials listing a named engineer as a 'key employee' after that engineer has actually departed from the firm — regardless of whether the materials were previously printed, whether reprinting is costly, or whether the firm believes the engineer's credentials still reflect the firm's general capability; establishing that actual departure of a key employee constitutes a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients, and that continued distribution of materials implying that employee's availability constitutes a misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications, as established by BER Case 83-1.
Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Principle
Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
Relational principle establishing that while an engineering firm may have conditional permissibility to continue distributing previously printed brochures listing a named engineer during that engineer's active notice period (subject to disclosure obligations), no such permissibility extends beyond the date of actual termination: once the engineer has in fact departed, continued distribution of brochures listing that engineer as a current key employee constitutes an unambiguous misrepresentation of a pertinent fact, regardless of the cost or inconvenience of reprinting, and regardless of whether the original distribution was inadvertent.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that once an engineer or engineering firm receives actual notice that a marketing or promotional material contains inaccurate information that could mislead or deceive clients or prospective clients, the firm bears an affirmative ethical obligation to take expeditious corrective action — including errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints — within a reasonable time; the obligation is triggered by actual knowledge of the inaccuracy, not merely by the passage of time, and continued inaction after actual knowledge independently constitutes a risk of ethical violation regardless of whether the original omission was inadvertent.
Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Personnel Listing Absolute Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Capability of an engineering firm principal to recognize and self-apply the absolute prohibition on distributing promotional brochures listing a former employee as a current key employee after that employee has actually departed — as distinguished from the notice period where conditional permissibility may apply — understanding that post-actual-termination listing constitutes an unambiguous misrepresentation of pertinent facts regardless of the cost of correction, the age of the printed materials, or the absence of intent to deceive, and to take immediate corrective action upon actual termination.
Post-Alteration Third-Party Harm Notification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed reports have been altered without authorization — resulting in direct harm to identifiable third parties such as property owners whose insurance claims were wrongfully denied — to recognize the professional obligation to directly notify those affected third parties of the alteration, provide them with accurate information about the original findings, and take affirmative steps to correct the record so that the third parties can pursue appropriate remedies.
Post-Approval Construction Monitoring and Escalation Capability
After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who raised environmental or public safety concerns at a public regulatory hearing — and whose concerns were not adopted — to monitor subsequent construction activities to determine whether the approved plans were implemented as presented, and upon discovering that identified risks were not mitigated (e.g., tank locations were not changed), to assess whether escalation to a higher regulatory authority is warranted, consistent with the principle from BER Case 20-4 that formal presentations satisfy the duty to report but do not extinguish escalation obligations when grave dangers persist.
Post-Approval Error Correction Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who receives credible independent evidence — such as third-party modeling or post-construction performance data — demonstrating that previously approved and constructed engineering work contains material calculation errors or fails to meet applicable regulatory standards, must acknowledge those errors, revise affected calculations and conclusions, and take affirmative corrective action, prohibiting continued defense of erroneous work product in the face of contradicting technical evidence, as established by NSPE Code Section III.1.a and BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5.
Post-Award As-Built Disclosure Adequacy Constraint
Ethical and safety constraint arising when a public agency engineer provides existing technical documents — such as as-built fire suppression system drawings — to awarded contractors only after contract award rather than before bid submission, requiring that the engineer assess whether post-award disclosure is adequate to protect worker and occupant safety during renovation work, and prohibiting the engineer from treating post-award disclosure as fully satisfactory when the absence of pre-bid access may have caused contractors to underprice safety-critical work or to plan renovation sequences without knowledge of existing system configurations.
State in which a public agency engineer shares existing technical documents (such as as-built drawings of existing systems) with a successful contractor after bid opening and contract award — outside of any formal procurement disclosure process referenced in bid documents — raising questions about whether post-award selective disclosure is equitable, whether it creates information asymmetry among future bidders, and whether the omission of those documents from bid solicitation materials constitutes an inequitable procurement practice, even though the immediate competitive bid phase has concluded.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a public agency engineer shares or makes available existing technical documents (such as as-built drawings) with contractors after bid opening but before or during contract execution, raising questions about whether post-bid selective disclosure is equitable, whether it constitutes sharing employer information without consent, and whether it affects the integrity of the procurement process even though the competitive bid phase has concluded.
Post-Award Competence Remediation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer has accepted a contract for work outside their demonstrated domain competence, requiring the engineer to immediately obtain qualified assistance, associate with competent professionals, or disclose the competence gap to the client before proceeding with design work — prohibiting the engineer from proceeding through design completion without either acquiring the requisite competence or disclosing the limitation, and establishing that the obligation to remediate competence gaps does not terminate upon contract award.
Post-Award Competitor Selection Conflict Deferred Resolution Capability
We leave for another day and time the question whether in circumstances such as those presented Firms B and C could properly be selected for the same assignment if the award to Firm A was cancelled.
Capability of a professional ethics review body — and by analogy, of a public agency or ethics officer — to recognize when a secondary ethical question (such as whether competing firms that filed a protest could properly be selected for the same assignment if the original award were cancelled) is not yet ripe for resolution because the predicate facts have not yet occurred, and to appropriately defer that question to a future proceeding rather than issuing a premature advisory opinion that could prejudge unresolved factual and ethical issues.
Post-Award Competitor Selection Conflict Deferred Resolution Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that when a public agency cancels an engineering contract award and the question arises whether a competing firm that filed a protest against the original award may properly be selected for the same assignment, resolution of that conflict-of-interest question must be deferred to a separate proceeding with full factual development — prohibiting ethics bodies and agencies from resolving the question summarily or as an incidental matter in the protest proceeding, as established by the BER's explicit deferral: 'We leave for another day and time the question whether in circumstances such as those presented Firms B and C could properly be selected for the same assignment if the award to Firm A was cancelled.'
Post-Award Competitor Selection Conflict Deferred Resolution Obligation
Duty of a professional ethics review body — and by analogy, of a public agency — to defer resolution of the question whether competing protesting firms could properly be selected for the same assignment if the award to the winning firm were cancelled, recognizing that this question raises distinct conflict-of-interest and procurement integrity concerns that require separate analysis, and that the immediate ethics question (permissibility of the protest) can and should be resolved independently of the downstream procurement question (who should receive the contract if the protest succeeds).
Post-Award Document Disclosure Safety Adequacy Constraint
After bids are opened and contracts are awarded, the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system.
Post-Award Safety Documentation Provision Capability
Capability of a public agency fire protection engineer who possesses as-built drawings of existing fire suppression systems to recognize the safety obligation to provide those drawings to awarded contractors before renovation work commences — ensuring that contractors can perform compliant installation and modification work without creating fire suppression system deficiencies — and to act on that recognition by proactively providing complete and accurate as-built documentation at the appropriate stage of the project lifecycle.
Post-Award Unbuildability Discovery State
State in which, after a construction contract has been awarded to a low bidder through a competitive procurement process, the contractor identifies that portions of the engineering design are materially deficient, incomplete, or physically impossible to construct as specified — requiring major design changes before construction can proceed, and triggering obligations on the engineer of record to address the deficiencies and disclose their origin.
State in which a public agency engineer shares or makes available existing technical documents (such as as-built drawings) with contractors after bid opening but before or during contract execution, raising questions about whether post-bid selective disclosure is equitable, whether it constitutes sharing employer information without consent, and whether it affects the integrity of the procurement process even though the competitive bid phase has concluded.
Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation Capability
Recent BER Case 20-4 addressed a public board (a municipal water commission) choosing to change the source of their potable water system to reduce public expenditures despite the recommendations of two engineers that further study was needed to ensure public safety.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated grid reliability and public safety concerns — including rolling blackout risk and vulnerable population impacts — to an organizational board, and whose recommendations have been overridden by the board's decision to proceed with a solar-without-storage energy system, to assess whether the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety requires escalation beyond the organizational relationship to formal reporting to a state regulatory agency or other appropriate authority, and to act on that assessment by making the formal regulatory report when the threshold is met, by analogy to BER Case 20-4.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated public health and safety concerns to a client or public authority — and whose recommendations have been overridden or rejected — to assess whether the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety requires escalation beyond the client relationship to formal reporting to a state regulatory agency, and to act on that assessment by making the formal regulatory report when the threshold is met, consistent with BER Case 20-4 precedent.
Post-Board-Override Energy Grid Safety Regulatory Escalation Obligation
The BER found that the engineers have an obligation to formally communicate their concerns to the water commission. The BER also found that given the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety, the engineers have an obligation to formally report their concerns to the state regulatory agency.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated grid reliability and public safety concerns — including rolling blackout risks — to an organizational board, and whose recommendations have been overridden or disregarded by that board's decision to proceed with an energy system replacement, to escalate those concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency, recognizing that the gravity of potential danger to public health and safety from increased rolling blackout probability requires reporting beyond the immediate organizational client relationship, by analogy to the BER 20-4 obligation of engineers advising a municipal water commission.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated public health and safety concerns to a public board — such as a municipal water commission — and whose recommendations have been overridden by that board's decision to proceed with a course of action the engineer believes is unsafe, to escalate those concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency, recognizing that the gravity of potential danger to public health and safety from a compromised potable water system requires reporting beyond the immediate client relationship.
Post-Certificate-of-Occupancy Structural Safety Concern State
the changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued
State in which a professional engineer identifies a structural safety concern in a building for which a governmental authority has already issued a certificate of occupancy — creating a conflict between the official regulatory approval record and the engineer's professional assessment, and triggering obligations to notify the current owner, the issuing authority, and any other agencies with jurisdiction to determine whether a post-issuance investigation is warranted.
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Obligation
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach, ultimately concluding that any action to mitigate the impact on this community would delay the project further and reinforcing the low probability of such conditions occurring
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has fully disclosed a public safety risk to a client — including a disproportionate risk to a vulnerable community — and whose client has declined to act on that risk, to evaluate whether the residual risk is sufficiently serious to require escalation beyond the client relationship to appropriate regulatory, public, or oversight authorities, and to take such escalation steps when the risk to public welfare warrants it, notwithstanding the client's decision to proceed.
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated public health and safety concerns to a public board or client authority — and whose recommendations have been overridden by that authority — must escalate those concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency when the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety warrants such escalation, prohibiting passive acceptance of the client authority's override as a complete discharge of the engineer's public safety obligation, as established by BER Case 20-4 and the principle that the engineer's obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare extends beyond the immediate client relationship.
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated public health and safety concerns to a client or public authority — and whose recommendations have been overridden or rejected — to assess whether the gravity of the potential danger to public health and safety requires escalation beyond the client relationship to formal reporting to a state regulatory agency, and to act on that assessment by making the formal regulatory report when the threshold is met, consistent with BER Case 20-4 precedent.
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation in Water Safety Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has formally communicated public health and safety concerns to a public board — such as a municipal water commission — and whose recommendations have been overridden by that board's decision to proceed with a course of action the engineer believes is unsafe, to escalate those concerns to the applicable state regulatory agency, recognizing that the gravity of potential danger to public health and safety from a compromised potable water system requires reporting beyond the immediate client relationship.
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
Professional principle requiring engineers who have disclosed a material public safety or welfare risk to a client and whose recommendation for mitigation has been rejected to critically assess whether the client's refusal to act — combined with the nature, probability, and severity of the identified risk — triggers an obligation to escalate the concern to higher authorities, notify affected third parties, or take other protective action, rather than treating the client's rejection as a complete discharge of the engineer's professional obligation
[Case 86] Professional principle requiring engineers who have disclosed a material public safety or welfare risk — including an environmental law violation — to a client and whose recommendation for mitigation or remediation has been rejected to critically assess whether the client's refusal to act triggers an obligation to escalate the concern to higher authorities, notify affected parties, or take other protective action, rather than treating the client's rejection as a complete discharge of the engineer's professional obligation.
[Case 88] Professional principle requiring engineers who have disclosed a material public safety or welfare risk to a client and whose recommendation for mitigation has been rejected to critically assess whether the client's refusal to act — combined with the nature, probability, and severity of the identified risk — triggers an obligation to escalate the concern to higher authorities, notify affected third parties, or take other protective action.
Post-Client-Refusal Governmental Code Advocacy Obligation State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having been refused by a client on a safety standard recommendation and having determined that withdrawal from the project is appropriate, faces a continuing obligation — as both a professional and a citizen — to contact local government officials and advocate for the adoption of updated, region-wide building codes that would implement the safety standard the client refused, in order to protect the broader public beyond the immediate project.
Post-Client-Refusal Public Safety Authority Escalation Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has informed a client of known safety code violations and received no remedial response — where the client has explicitly declined to take corrective action — to assess whether the residual public safety risk is sufficient to trigger an obligation to escalate to appropriate public authorities (such as building code officials, fire marshals, or other regulatory bodies), and to correctly determine that the client's refusal to remediate does not extinguish the engineer's independent professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare through regulatory notification.
Post-Client-Refusal Regional Code Advocacy Permissibility Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has withdrawn from a project following a client's refusal to adopt a professionally required safety standard — and who operates in a jurisdiction with no applicable building code — is permitted and should consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the adoption of updated region-wide building codes that address the identified safety risk, establishing that such advocacy is a permissible and encouraged post-withdrawal action that serves the broader public interest without violating the engineer's confidentiality or faithful agent obligations to the former client.
Post-Code-Amendment BER Precedent Supersession Constraint
BER Case 86-4 was rendered before a significant change was made to Section III.9. of the Code.
Ethical and interpretive constraint establishing that a BER case precedent decided prior to a material amendment to the NSPE Code of Ethics provision under which it was decided cannot be applied as controlling authority to cases arising after the amendment, because the amendment reflects a deliberate policy change by the NSPE Board of Directors that supersedes the normative basis of the prior precedent; prohibiting the mechanical application of pre-amendment BER precedents as complete authority for post-amendment cases, and requiring that the analysis of post-amendment cases be grounded in the amended code provision rather than the pre-amendment standard, even where the factual circumstances are otherwise analogous.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that BER case precedents decided prior to the addition of NSPE Code Section III.2.d. (sustainable development provision) in January 2006 — including BER Cases 89-7, 97-13, and 04-8 — cannot be applied without modification to cases arising after the code addition, because the addition of the sustainable development provision imposes additional professional responsibilities on engineers for environmental protection that were not present at the time those precedents were decided; prohibiting the mechanical application of pre-code-addition precedents as complete authority for post-addition cases involving environmental findings, and requiring that the additional responsibilities imposed by Section III.2.d. be integrated into the analysis of post-addition cases even when the encouraged language of the provision does not create mandatory task-refusal authority.
Post-Code-Revision Stricter Standard Retroactive Precedent Non-Controlling Constraint
Interpretive and ethical constraint establishing that when the NSPE Code of Ethics is revised to add or strengthen a provision governing engineer conduct, a prior BER precedent decided under the pre-revision code cannot serve as controlling authority for cases arising after the revision — requiring that post-revision cases be evaluated under the revised code standard even where the factual circumstances are otherwise analogous to the pre-revision precedent, and prohibiting the mechanical application of pre-revision BER decisions as complete authority when the revised code imposes a stricter obligation than the prior standard.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and interpretive constraint establishing that a BER case precedent decided prior to a material amendment to the NSPE Code of Ethics provision under which it was decided cannot be applied as controlling authority to cases arising after the amendment, because the amendment reflects a deliberate policy change by the NSPE Board of Directors that supersedes the normative basis of the prior precedent; prohibiting the mechanical application of pre-amendment BER precedents as complete authority for post-amendment cases, and requiring that the analysis of post-amendment cases be grounded in the amended code provision rather than the pre-amendment standard, even where the factual circumstances are otherwise analogous.
Post-Completion Contract-Terminated Peer Review Notification Exemption Recognition Capability
The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to inspect or review a facility to recognize that when the original engineer's contractual relationship with the client was fully completed and paid — rather than actively terminated mid-project — the reviewing engineer is not ethically required to notify the original engineer before conducting the review, because the original professional relationship has naturally concluded and no active incumbent relationship exists that would trigger the collegial notification obligation under NSPE Code Section III.8.a.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a successor to recognize that when a client has formally and unambiguously discharged the original engineer from the project, the successor engineer is not ethically required under NSPE Code Section III.8.a. to notify the discharged engineer before reviewing their work — because the original professional relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated — while also recognizing that this permissibility does not extend to subsequent undocumented modifications of the discharged engineer's sealed plans.
Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Peer Review Notification Non-Requirement Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when an original engineer's contractual relationship with a project has been fully completed and terminated — including full payment — years before a new owner commissions a successor engineer to inspect the facility, the successor engineer is not ethically required under NSPE Code Section III.8.a to notify the original engineer before proceeding with the post-occupancy inspection, because the original engineer's relationship with the client has ended and the exception clause of the notification requirement is satisfied; the constraint further establishes that the purpose of the notification requirement (to give the original engineer an opportunity to explain or comment) is inapplicable when the original engineer's contractual relationship has long since concluded.
Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Incumbent Notification Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicators to recognize that when an original engineer's contractual relationship with a client has been fully completed and terminated — through full payment and project closeout — a subsequently retained inspection or review engineer is not ethically required to notify the original engineer before commencing review, because the Code provision requiring notification (NSPE III.8.a.) applies only when the original engineer's connection with the work has not been terminated; a fully paid, project-complete engineer whose engagement ended years prior does not retain an active relationship that triggers the notification prerequisite.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicators to recognize that when a client has formally and unambiguously discharged an original engineer from a project — terminating the professional relationship — a successor engineer retained to review and redesign that work is not ethically required to notify the discharged engineer before commencing review, because the Code provision requiring notification (NSPE III.8.a.) applies only when the original engineer's relationship with the client has not been terminated; the permissibility of proceeding without notification in the discharged-engineer context does not, however, relieve the successor engineer of subsequent collegial and documentation obligations arising from the redesign itself.
Post-Contract Environmental Observation Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has completed a contracted scope of work — such as wetland delineation — and subsequently observes, through incidental post-contract contact with the site, that the client has violated environmental laws in the area covered by the prior engagement, to recognize that the completion and termination of the contract does not excuse the engineer from the obligation to report the observed violation and demand remediation, and to refrain from treating the absence of an ongoing contractual relationship as a justification for inaction.
Post-Contract Incidental Observation Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, after completing a contracted scope of work, incidentally observes — such as while driving by a former client's property — that the client has installed fill material or otherwise modified a wetland or environmentally protected area without required permits, variances, or permissions in substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws, to contact the client, inquire about the actions taken, point out that the actions constitute a violation of law, and advise that steps must be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from proper authorities, notwithstanding the absence of any ongoing contractual relationship or monitoring obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes that a former or current client has installed fill material or otherwise modified a wetland or environmentally protected area without required permits, variances, or permissions — in substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws — to contact the client, inquire about the actions taken, point out that the actions constitute a violation of law, and advise that steps must be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from proper authorities, with all remedial actions in full compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, including review by a licensed engineer where appropriate.
Post-Contract Incidental Observation Environmental Reporting Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who incidentally observes a client's unauthorized environmental law violation — such as unpermitted wetland fill — after completing a contracted scope of work must contact the client, inquire about the actions, point out the legal violation, and direct the client to take remedial steps in full compliance with applicable environmental laws, prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about an observed environmental law violation on the grounds that the observation occurred outside the contracted scope of services or after contract completion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer incidentally observes that a former or current client has taken actions constituting a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws — such as installing fill material on wetlands without permits — requiring the engineer to contact the client, inquire about the actions, point out the legal violation, and direct the client to take remedial steps in full compliance with applicable environmental laws, prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about an observed environmental law violation on the grounds that the observation occurred outside the contracted scope of services.
Post-Contract Incidental Observation Environmental Violation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize, upon incidental post-contract observation — such as driving past a former client's property — that a client has taken unauthorized actions constituting a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws, including the ability to connect the observed physical condition (fill material on wetlands) to the legal violation framework, to recognize that the observation triggers professional obligations despite the absence of any ongoing contractual relationship, and to correctly classify the situation as one requiring professional action rather than passive disregard.
Post-Cost-Refusal Storm Surge Escalation Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has recommended a 100-year storm surge design standard to a client and been refused on cost grounds to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified storm surge risk — including the risk to future residents of a coastal residential development — is sufficiently serious to require escalation beyond the client relationship to local government officials, regulatory authorities, or the public, and to take such escalation steps when the risk warrants it.
Post-Council-Override Traffic Safety Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has formally objected to a proposed traffic engineering ordinance change on safety and legal grounds, and whose objections have been overridden by a city council vote to proceed, to escalate those safety concerns to appropriate state regulatory authorities — including state transportation agencies, the state engineering licensure board, and other bodies with jurisdiction — recognizing that the city council's override of professional safety objections and state law requirements does not extinguish the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public welfare.
Post-Council-Override Traffic Safety State Authority Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has formally objected to a proposed traffic engineering ordinance change — and whose objections have been overridden by a city council vote to proceed despite state law requirements and engineering standards violations — to escalate the identified public safety risk beyond the city council relationship to state regulatory authorities, professional organizations, and other parties with jurisdiction, recognizing that the legislative override does not discharge the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is aware that a public safety situation has already been brought to the attention of some public authorities — including a city attorney and city council — and whose concerns have been overridden by a legislative vote, to assess whether the gravity of the danger requires escalation beyond those already-informed authorities to additional regulatory bodies, state agencies, professional organizations, or other parties with jurisdiction or influence, and to act on that assessment by pursuing further escalation rather than treating the legislative override as a final resolution.
Post-Decision Faithful Agent Deference Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has fully presented design alternatives and recommendations to a client decision-maker to defer to and faithfully implement the client's chosen alternative once a legitimate decision has been made by authorized decision-makers, refraining from continued advocacy for the engineer's preferred alternative, self-interested influence efforts, or actions that would undermine the client's legitimate authority — while remaining bound by all overriding public safety and ethics obligations.
Post-Decision Faithful Agent Execution Capability
Capability to recognize when a client or authorized decision-making body has made a legitimate, informed decision among fully presented alternatives, and to transition from independent professional advisor to faithful agent executing that decision — including suppressing personal professional preferences for alternative approaches, refraining from efforts to re-litigate or undermine the client's choice, and avoiding any conduct that could constitute improper influence over a public authority's award decision.
Post-Decision Self-Interest Recusal Obligation
Engineer K should respect that accountability and not be motivated by self-interest in a sustainable solution if the City decides against it.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who have advocated for a particular design or policy approach during the professional advisory phase to refrain, after the client has made a contrary lawful decision, from taking further actions motivated by personal or professional self-interest in the rejected approach — including actions that would improperly influence contract awards or circumvent the client's decision — recognizing that the engineer's professional role transitions from trustee-advisor to faithful agent upon the client's decision
Post-Department-Override Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Permissibility Constraint
The department authorized the issuance of the permit.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a regulatory agency who has formally refused to issue a permit on public safety grounds, submitted findings to a superior, and had the permit authorized by the department over the engineer's objection, retains the ethical right — as a matter of personal conscience — to escalate concerns to appropriate external authorities or the public, while recognizing that such escalation is permissible but not mandated as a professional obligation once internal channels have been exhausted and the matter is already under public and regulatory scrutiny, and subject to the constraint that the engineer must not exploit employer resources or confidential information in doing so.
Post-Department-Override Whistleblowing Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has formally refused to issue a permit on safety grounds, submitted findings to a superior, and then seen the department override the refusal and authorize the permit, to correctly assess that the engineer retains an ethical right — as a matter of personal conscience — to escalate concerns to external authorities (including state investigative bodies or the public), and to distinguish this permissible right from a mandatory duty, understanding that the case's receipt of widespread media publicity and state investigation does not retroactively render the engineer's conduct unethical.
Post-Departure Client Solicitation Uncertainty Acknowledgment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer and subsequently solicits a former employer's client to recognize and acknowledge that prior client interest — even if expressed clearly before departure — does not guarantee future contract award, that the passage of time and the engineer's prior declination of active work may have diminished client interest, and that competitive solicitation must proceed without assuming entitlement to the client's business based on pre-departure expressions of interest.
Post-Departure Firm Brochure Personnel Listing Correction Initiation Capability
Engineer A was obligated to take affirmative steps to ensure that Engineer B's firm brochures and marketing materials were corrected
Capability of a departing or terminated professional engineer to take affirmative steps — upon giving or receiving notice of departure — to ensure that the former employer's firm brochures, marketing materials, and personnel listings are promptly corrected to remove the departing engineer's name and credentials, including directly communicating to firm principals the obligation to update materials and, where necessary, escalating to professional bodies if the firm fails to act.
Post-Departure Former-Client Solicitation Permissibility Boundary Recognition Obligation
We do not mean to suggest than an employee who severs all ties with the employer and then seeks to contact clients of the employer in order to offer engineering services is in violation of the Code.
Duty of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and ethics evaluators to recognize that an engineer who has fully severed all ties with a former employer and then seeks to contact the former employer's clients to offer engineering services does NOT violate the NSPE Code of Ethics — provided: (1) no active contracts are supplanted; (2) no particular and specialized knowledge gained during employment is exploited without disclosure; and (3) solicitation is conducted honestly and without disparagement. This obligation establishes the permissibility boundary: post-departure solicitation of former clients is ethically permissible as a matter of free enterprise and client autonomy, while pre-departure solicitation of current clients without employer disclosure is not. Ethics evaluators must apply this distinction consistently and must not interpret the Code to give any engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics evaluators, to recognize that the voluntary departure of employees from an engineering firm — even when multiple key employees depart simultaneously following internal policy disagreements — and the subsequent formation of a competing firm does not in itself constitute an ethics violation, provided no confidential information is misappropriated and no active contracts are supplanted; the right to depart and compete is a fundamental expression of the free enterprise system and at-will employment symmetry.
Post-Departure Former Client Solicitation Supplanting Allegation State
State in which engineers who have departed from a firm and formed a competing enterprise have contacted the former firm's clients — including clients with projects under active discussion but not yet formally awarded — and the former employer alleges that such contact constitutes unethical supplanting of the existing professional relationship. This state captures the tension between the departing engineers' legitimate right to compete and the former employer's claim that the contacts violate anti-supplanting norms, particularly where no formal engagement or contract existed with the prospective clients.
Post-Departure Key Employee Brochure Distribution Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing an absolute prohibition on the distribution of promotional materials listing a named engineer as a 'key employee' after that engineer has actually departed from the firm — regardless of whether the materials were previously printed, whether reprinting is costly, or whether the firm believes the engineer's credentials still reflect the firm's general capability; establishing that actual departure of a key employee constitutes a pertinent fact of clear and decisive relevance to prospective clients, and that continued distribution of materials implying that employee's availability constitutes a misrepresentation of pertinent facts with intent to enhance firm qualifications, as established by BER Case 83-1.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that engineers and engineering firms continuously maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they are accurate, truthful, and not deceptive regarding the engineer's or firm's qualifications, licensure status, and service offerings, prohibiting the continued use of outdated or inaccurate marketing materials that may create public misunderstanding about qualifications, and establishing that the reduced time and cost of updating materials in the electronic era heightens the obligation to keep such information current.
Post-Discharge Collegial Consultation Prudential Obligation
we think it would have been wiser and more professional for Engineer B to consult with Engineer A before undertaking to modify the plans prepared by Engineer A
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to redesign a project using a discharged engineer's sealed plans as a guide to recognize that — even though formal notification of the discharged engineer is not ethically required under NSPE III.8.a. — professional wisdom and collegial norms make it wiser and more professional to consult with the original engineer before undertaking modifications to plans that the original engineer prepared and sealed, so that the successor engineer can benefit from the original engineer's technical understanding of design decisions, and so that the original engineer's professional interest in the integrity of their sealed work product is respected; this obligation is prudential rather than mandatory, but its breach reflects adversely on professional conduct.
Post-Discharge Collegial Consultation Prudential Principle
For the reasons cited in Case 79-7 we think it would have been wiser and more professional for Engineer B to consult with Engineer A before undertaking to modify the plans prepared by Engineer A.
Relational principle establishing that even when a client has formally discharged an original engineer and the successor engineer is therefore not ethically prohibited from accepting the engagement or reviewing the prior work, it remains professionally wise and collegially appropriate for the successor engineer to consult with the discharged original engineer before undertaking material modifications to the original engineer's sealed plans — because such consultation serves the professional interest in design quality, enables the successor engineer to understand design intent and known constraints, and respects the original engineer's continuing connection to work bearing their seal; while not a mandatory ethical obligation in discharge contexts, failure to consult represents a missed professional best practice with foreseeable negative consequences.
Post-Discharge Collegial Consultation Prudential Wisdom Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to modify a discharged engineer's sealed plans to recognize that — even when formal notification is not ethically required — it is professionally wiser and more collegial to consult with the original engineer before undertaking modifications to their plans, because the original engineer retains a professional connection to the work through their seal, possesses knowledge of design intent and technical rationale that would benefit the successor, and because such consultation reflects the underlying purpose of Section III.8.a. even when its strict requirements do not apply.
Post-Discharge Continuing Safety Obligation State
The MWC discharged Engineer B and ABC Engineers from project involvement in the water source change
State in which a licensed professional engineer has been discharged from a project by a client following the engineer's escalation of public safety concerns, but the underlying public health risk identified by the engineer remains unresolved and active, creating an ongoing ethical obligation to consider further action as both a professional and a citizen — independent of any continuing contractual relationship.
Post-Disclosure Continued Participation Ethical Boundary Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing the boundaries within which a licensed professional engineer may continue project participation after fully disclosing a known public safety risk — including a disproportionate impact on an underserved community — and having that disclosure overridden by client authority, requiring the engineer to assess whether continued participation constitutes implicit endorsement of an unmitigated risk to public welfare, and prohibiting continuation when the residual risk rises to a level that cannot be reconciled with the paramount public safety obligation.
Post-Dismissal Safety Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose documented safety concerns have been formally presented to a regulatory or administrative body but dismissed or overridden without corrective action must escalate those concerns to a higher authority — such as a state environmental regulatory agency — prohibiting passive acceptance of the regulatory body's override as a final discharge of the engineer's public safety obligation when the gravity of the identified risk to public health and welfare remains unmitigated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers, through independent review, that a structural failure has occurred and that additional unbuilt portions of the same structure contain serious design errors must immediately escalate those findings to all relevant parties — including the client, the responsible engineer, and if necessary the State Board — prohibiting passive acceptance of the situation or limitation of response to private confrontation alone when ongoing public safety risk from unbuilt defective design remains unmitigated.
Post-Employment Client Solicitation Ethics Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing how engineers may ethically approach former employers' clients after leaving a firm, including prohibitions on making false or misleading statements about the former employer's capacity to perform work in order to divert business to a newly formed competing firm.
Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Exploitation Constraint
Engineer D has been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has left public employment from exploiting confidential information, insider knowledge, privileged contacts, or non-public procurement intelligence acquired during their public tenure to benefit a private employer in subsequent dealings with the former public agency, arising from NSPE Code Section III.4 and the principle that confidentiality obligations survive employment termination.
Post-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Prohibition
Relational principle prohibiting engineers who, during prior employment (public or private), gained access to confidential and proprietary information from clients or employers from using, disclosing, or exploiting that information in subsequent employment — particularly when the subsequent employer is a competitor of the party whose information was accessed — recognizing that the duty of confidentiality and trust survives the termination of the employment relationship and is not extinguished by the engineer's departure
[Case 178] Relational principle prohibiting engineers who, during prior employment, gained access to confidential and proprietary information from clients or employers from using, disclosing, or exploiting that information in subsequent employment — particularly when the subsequent employer is a competitor of the party whose information was accessed — recognizing that the duty of confidentiality and trust survives the termination of the employment relationship and is not extinguished by the engineer's departure
Post-Employment Confidential Information Retention State
State in which a professional engineer, having concluded employment with a government agency or other entity that was entrusted with a third party's confidential and proprietary information, retains knowledge of that confidential information after employment ends — creating a continuing obligation not to disclose or exploit that information in subsequent private employment, even when the subsequent employer is a direct competitor of the party whose information was entrusted to the former employer, and even when no formal contractual prohibition on the transition exists.
Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance in Public Testimony Obligation
Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who participates as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing following resignation or termination from an employer to refrain from disclosing any information regarding the former employer's product, processes, or business affairs that would violate any confidentiality agreements — express or implied — with that former employer, recognizing that the post-employment public welfare testimony obligation does not override contractual confidentiality obligations with respect to proprietary product information, and that the permissibility of public testimony is conditioned on this confidentiality compliance.
Post-Employment Confidentiality Boundary in Public Testimony Constraint
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
Ethical and legal constraint limiting a former employee engineer's ability to disclose proprietary, trade secret, or confidential internal company information — including internal deliberations, rejected recommendations, and non-public product data — when participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing, requiring the engineer to calibrate testimony to share general safety knowledge and professional observations without crossing into disclosure of information that remains protected by post-employment confidentiality obligations to the former employer.
Post-Employment Conflict of Interest State
Engineer D announced plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicated that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm in the City
State in which a former public official or senior employee, who held procurement or contract authority over private firms, accepts employment with one of those firms shortly after leaving public service, creating an appearance of impropriety and potential conflict between prior public duties and current private interests, even in the absence of a formal revolving-door contractual prohibition.
Post-Employment Duty of Trust and Loyalty Duration Indeterminacy Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty of trust and loyalty to a former client — including the obligation to protect confidential information and facts obtained during the professional relationship — persists after formal termination of the professional relationship for an indeterminate period, the precise duration of which the Board declines to specify, prohibiting the engineer from treating the mere passage of time or the formal end of the contractual relationship as a complete discharge of the residual duty of trust and loyalty, and establishing that the engineer must assess the continuing vitality of that duty in light of the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Post-Employment Former Employer Client Competitive Solicitation Permissibility Boundary Obligation
Six months later, Engineer A decides to establish his own firm in Clover City without soliciting work from ABC's clients, including Clover City for a period of time.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has departed from an employer and established an independent competing firm to recognize that solicitation of the former employer's clients — including clients with whom the engineer had a strong working relationship during employment — is ethically permissible after a reasonable period, provided no no-compete agreement exists, no confidential information is exploited, and solicitation is conducted honestly and without disparagement of the former employer; the engineer must not treat the absence of a no-compete agreement as license to engage in deceptive or unfair competitive practices.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer firm and subsequently solicits the former employer's clients for the engineer's new competing practice to conduct such solicitation honestly, accurately, and without misrepresentation of the former employer's capabilities, capacity, or prospects — including refraining from using knowledge of internal staffing changes (whether caused by the departing engineer or otherwise) as a basis for making misleading or disparaging representations about the former employer's ability to serve those clients.
Post-Employment NSPE Code III.4 Adversarial Promotional Confidentiality Tripartite Constraint
The Code addresses the use of confidential information concerning the technical affairs or processes of the former employer, promotional activities and negotiations for employment or business, and the involvement of the engineer in adversarial situations relating to the former employer. (See NSPE Code Sections III.4., III.4.a., III.4.b.)
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has departed from an employer and established a competing practice remains subject to three distinct but related post-employment obligations derived from NSPE Code Sections III.4, III.4.a, and III.4.b: (1) the prohibition on using confidential information concerning the technical affairs or processes of the former employer; (2) the obligation to conduct promotional activities and negotiations for employment or business in conformance with ethical standards; and (3) the obligation to avoid improper conduct in adversarial situations relating to the former employer — establishing that these three obligations operate concurrently and that compliance with one does not discharge the others, as established by NSPE Code Sections III.4, III.4.a, and III.4.b.
Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation State
State in which a departing professional engineer made an explicit representation to a former employer that they would not compete with that employer, and subsequently acts in direct contradiction to that representation by establishing a competing practice, soliciting the former employer's clients and employees — creating a condition where the former employer's reasonable reliance on the representation has been violated and the professional's conduct is ethically compromised by the gap between stated intent and actual behavior.
Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary Calibration in Public Testimony Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who participates as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing after resigning from a former employer to correctly calibrate testimony so as to share safety-relevant information in the public interest while refraining from disclosing proprietary or confidential information belonging to the former employer — including the ability to distinguish between safety-relevant factual observations that may be shared and proprietary technical processes, trade secrets, or confidential business information that must be protected, and to structure testimony accordingly.
Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary in Public Testimony Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who participates as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing following resignation from an employer to calibrate testimony so as to share safety-relevant observations and professional judgments without disclosing the former employer's proprietary technical processes, trade secrets, or confidential business information — recognizing that the public welfare obligation to share safety knowledge does not override the continuing confidentiality obligation owed to the former employer with respect to genuinely proprietary information, and that the engineer must draw a principled distinction between safety observations (disclosable) and proprietary technical details (protected).
Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which a former employee-engineer who identified safety concerns during employment at a product manufacturer, and whose recommendations were rejected, subsequently participates as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing concerning the same product category, bearing obligations to provide complete, objective, and accurate technical testimony in the public interest, to disclose prior employment and potential conflicts, and to contribute professional expertise to the standard-setting process even when doing so may be adverse to a former employer.
Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's ethical obligation to protect public safety through truthful, objective testimony at governmental regulatory or standards hearings survives the termination of employment — the engineer's duty to the public is not extinguished by resignation, and former employees who possess unique safety-relevant knowledge about a product or system are not only permitted but ethically obligated to share that knowledge in appropriate regulatory forums, provided the testimony is grounded in factual professional observation and does not improperly disclose confidential proprietary information beyond what is necessary for public protection
Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Participation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has resigned from an employer to recognize the professional obligation to participate as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing when the engineer possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about a product or system directly relevant to the hearing — including the ability to assess whether post-employment participation is ethically required, to navigate the tension between former employer loyalty and public safety obligations, and to determine that the public interest in safety information outweighs residual loyalty to the former employer.
Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Participation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, after resigning from an employer, possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about a product or system — concerns that were raised internally but rejected by the employer on cost or schedule grounds — to participate as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing covering that product category, sharing safety observations in a manner that informs regulatory decision-making without disclosing the former employer's proprietary or confidential information, recognizing that the public welfare obligation survives the employment relationship and that the engineer's unique technical knowledge is directly relevant to the regulatory body's mission.
Post-Employment Safety Concern Witness Participation State
State in which a professional engineer who previously identified and internally escalated a safety concern during employment — and whose recommendation was rejected by the employer — has since resigned and is now considering participating as a witness at a public regulatory or standards-setting hearing directly related to that safety concern, creating a context in which the engineer's prior insider knowledge, professional obligation to protect public safety, and post-employment confidentiality obligations must be balanced against the public benefit of their testimony.
Post-Engagement Termination Same-Matter Adverse Expert Witness Declination Obligation
Under the facts of this case, Engineer A was paid in full for his services to the government and apparently was no longer retained by the government and was free to oppose its position on behalf of an adverse party.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose engagement with one party in adversarial litigation has been fully completed and compensated — such that the engineer is no longer under retainer and is formally free from the prior engagement — to nonetheless decline retention as an expert witness by the opposing party in the same matter, recognizing that the 1981 revision of NSPE Code Section III.4.b establishes that the prohibition on adverse participation using specialized knowledge gained for a former client applies regardless of whether the prior engagement has been formally terminated, and that payment in full and termination of the retainer do not extinguish the continuing ethical prohibition on adverse participation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation to recognize that the mere cessation or termination of that engagement does not cure the ethical conflict that would arise from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same matter — because the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information, documents, and cooperative analytical access cannot be erased from professional judgment, and the termination of the formal relationship does not extinguish the continuing duty of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality owed to the former client for at least the duration of the proceeding.
Post-Error Independent Verification Before Acknowledgment Obligation
After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been presented with third-party analysis alleging errors in their own prior design work to independently review and verify that third-party analysis against their own original work before formally acknowledging the error, so that any acknowledgment is grounded in the engineer's own professional judgment rather than uncritical acceptance of external findings, while not using the verification process as a mechanism to delay or avoid required error acknowledgment.
Post-Error Peer Review Facilitation Obligation
As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose prior design work has been found to contain significant errors to actively facilitate — or at minimum refrain from obstructing — any legitimately commissioned independent peer review of related or subsequent design work, recognizing that the discovery of significant errors in prior work creates a heightened public safety interest in independent verification of related work, and that the engineer's professional accountability obligations require cooperation with quality assurance processes initiated by the client in response to known deficiencies.
Post-Error Professional Accountability Acceptance Capability
Capability to accept full professional accountability for significant design errors discovered in one's own prior work — including acknowledging the errors to the client and affected parties, refraining from defensive obstruction of independent review, actively facilitating corrective processes, and recognizing that professional integrity requires transparent accountability rather than self-protective resistance when one's work is found to be deficient.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when professional obligations under NSPE Code III.1.a (acknowledging errors) and III.8 (accepting responsibility for professional activities) require formal acknowledgment of a design error — including understanding that actual adverse consequences (flooding) combined with independent third-party analysis confirming the error create an affirmative obligation to acknowledge the error to the client and affected parties, drawing on BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 as precedent.
Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening Obligation
Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has acknowledged or confirmed a design error with public safety or property damage consequences to convene the firm's risk management team — including legal, technical, and professional liability stakeholders — to collectively assess the error, determine fault allocation among all parties involved, and develop a remediation plan, rather than acting unilaterally or allowing the error to remain unaddressed.
Post-Feedback QBS Qualification Amendment Honest Disclosure to Procuring Authority Obligation
Firm A proceeded to arrange for other participation as part of the joint venture to overcome the apparent deficiencies in its overall ability to provide the total services needed to be selected for negotiations.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm competing in a qualifications-based selection process that restructures its joint venture team or otherwise materially changes its qualification profile in response to screening committee feedback to openly and honestly disclose that restructuring to the procuring authority — rather than submitting an amended qualification statement without explanation — and to formally request authorization for the amendment through proper channels, ensuring the authority can make an informed decision about whether and how to accommodate the change within the procurement framework.
Post-Feedback Qualification Amendment Permissibility Under Equal Treatment Condition
Domain-specific principle establishing that a competing firm in a qualifications-based selection process does not act unethically by requesting permission to amend its qualification statement after receiving public screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies, provided that the request is made openly, prior to final selection, and is conditioned on equal amendment opportunity being extended to all competing firms — recognizing that the ethical permissibility of such a request turns on the equal treatment condition rather than on the mere fact of amendment itself
Post-Formal-Presentation Continued Safety Pursuit Capability
The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A's and Engineer B's duty to report.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has completed formal presentations of public health and safety concerns to both the client authority and the state regulatory agency — and whose presentations have not changed the client's plans — to recognize that the formal presentation obligation has been satisfied but does not discharge the continuing professional duty, and to further pursue the matter through additional escalation pathways given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, including identifying and engaging additional regulatory bodies, public officials, or other agencies with jurisdiction.
Post-Formal-Presentation Persistent Safety Pursuit Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has made formal presentations of public health and safety concerns to both the client authority and the applicable regulatory agency — and whose formal presentations have failed to change the client's plans — to further pursue the matter through additional escalation channels when the gravity of the danger to public health and safety warrants continued action, recognizing that the formal presentations discharge the minimum reporting obligation but do not extinguish the professional duty to protect the public when serious danger persists.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public health and safety risk to a state regulatory authority, and who subsequently learns that the regulatory authority has approved a course of action the engineer believes remains unsafe, to evaluate whether further escalation — to higher regulatory bodies, elected officials, or the public — is warranted, and to take such escalation steps when the residual risk to public welfare is sufficiently serious, notwithstanding the regulatory approval.
Post-Government-Employment Competitive Conflict Pre-Acceptance Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is transitioning from a government agency role — in which the engineer had access to confidential and proprietary information submitted by private companies — to assess, before accepting private employment, whether the prospective employer is a competitor of any company whose confidential information the engineer accessed, and to correctly determine whether accepting such employment would create an irreconcilable conflict of interest or obligation to refrain from work adverse to the former submitting company.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when a transition from a senior public agency role with contracting authority to a private firm that benefited from that authority creates a conflict of interest — including identifying the specific relationships, contract histories, and authority patterns that constitute a revolving door situation — and to correctly classify the ethical and professional obligations triggered by that recognition, including disclosure, recusal, and employment acceptance integrity obligations.
Post-Harm Speculative Causation Without Confirmed Defect State
there is nothing under the facts to indicate anything more than Engineer A's general surmise and speculation about the cause of the structural failure of the wall
State in which a harm (such as loss of life or structural failure) has already materialized, but the engineer's assessment of a potential contributing cause is based solely on visual inspection and general surmise — without technical confirmation, specialist evaluation, or domain competence — such that the speculative nature of the causal attribution prevents the engineer from including it in a final professional report, while still creating an obligation to document it informally and report it through appropriate channels for further evaluation.
Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Capability
A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
Capability of an engineer intern or engineering candidate hired under a PE licensure condition to recognize when a post-hire event — such as a further examination failure, board-imposed restriction, or other barrier — materially impairs their ability to satisfy the licensure condition, and to promptly and completely disclose that impediment to their employer, including the full scope of any board-imposed restrictions on re-examination eligibility, rather than minimizing or delaying disclosure.
Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that an engineer intern or engineering candidate who, after accepting employment conditioned on obtaining PE licensure within a specified period, learns of a material impediment to fulfilling that condition — including a third or subsequent examination failure triggering a board-imposed re-examination bar — must promptly and completely disclose that impediment to the employer, including not only the fact of failure but also the full scope of any regulatory restriction on re-examination eligibility, prohibiting delayed, partial, or minimized disclosure that would allow the employer to continue operating under a materially false assumption about the candidate's licensure trajectory.
Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Timely Notification Obligation
Duty of an engineer intern or engineering candidate who, after accepting employment conditioned on obtaining PE licensure within a specified post-hire period, learns of a new or previously undisclosed impediment to satisfying that condition — including a failed examination attempt and resulting board-imposed additional requirements — to notify their employer promptly and completely upon learning of the impediment, so that the employer can assess project staffing, client commitments, and contractual obligations in a timely manner.
Post-Hire Material Qualification Change Notification Obligation
Professional virtue principle requiring an engineer who, after accepting employment conditional on meeting a stated licensure requirement, learns of a material change in their qualification trajectory — such as a failed examination attempt or a regulatory restriction on re-examination eligibility — to promptly disclose that change to their employer, because the employment relationship was formed on the basis of an expectation that is now materially altered and the employer is entitled to make an informed decision about how to proceed
Post-Internal-Exhaustion Conditional External Reporting Obligation
Only if such efforts do not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenue for action.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has exhausted all available internal escalation mechanisms — including initial reporting, monitoring of internal investigation, additional inquiries, and pursuit of internal recourse channels — and determined that no meaningful corrective action is being taken, to consider and pursue external reporting to appropriate governmental or regulatory authorities, recognizing that the conditional nature of this obligation means it is triggered only after genuine exhaustion of internal mechanisms and that the engineer's ultimate obligation to protect public welfare cannot be permanently deferred by employer inaction.
Post-Legislative-Override Public Safety Escalation Beyond Known Authorities Capability
Engineer A is the professional engineer in the present case who is aware of a public safety situation already known to some public authorities
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is aware that a public safety situation has already been brought to the attention of some public authorities — including a city attorney and city council — and whose concerns have been overridden by a legislative vote, to assess whether the gravity of the danger requires escalation beyond those already-informed authorities to additional regulatory bodies, state agencies, professional organizations, or other parties with jurisdiction or influence, and to act on that assessment by pursuing further escalation rather than treating the legislative override as a final resolution.
Post-Mandatory-Obligation-Discharge Regulatory Disassociation Permissibility Assessment Capability
This case involves a question of public health and welfare and Engineer A's decision to disassociate himself from further work on this project avoids having Engineer A being placed in a professionally compromising situation.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has fully discharged mandatory professional obligations — including refusing to issue a non-compliant permit, formally submitting findings to a superior, and consulting the state licensing board — to correctly assess that disassociating from further work on the project is ethically permissible and avoids placing the engineer in a professionally compromising situation, while distinguishing this permissible disassociation from an impermissible withdrawal that would abandon the professional position before mandatory obligations are fulfilled.
Post-Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Expeditious Correction Obligation
Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
Duty of an engineering firm principal who has continued distributing brochures listing a voluntarily departing non-key employee during the notice period to take expeditious corrective action — including reprinting, issuing errata sheets, or withdrawing existing materials — once the engineer has actually departed the firm, so that prospective clients are not misled about current firm personnel. This obligation arises at the moment of actual departure and is not excused by printing costs, logistical difficulty, or the non-key status of the departed engineer. The non-key status of the departed engineer may reduce the urgency of correction relative to a key employee departure, but does not eliminate the obligation to update materials within a reasonable timeframe.
Post-Obligation Citizen Advocacy Boundary Navigation Capability
Capability to recognize when all formal professional reporting obligations have been discharged and to correctly identify the transition point at which further advocacy becomes a personal citizen choice rather than a professional obligation — including understanding the distinction between professional duties and personal advocacy rights, assessing the interests of the employing firm before taking additional steps, obtaining employer concurrence for citizen advocacy that could affect employer interests, and recognizing that whistleblower protections apply when public health and safety are at risk.
Post-Obligation Citizen Advocacy Employer Concurrence Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has fulfilled all formal professional reporting obligations regarding a public health and safety risk, and who wishes to pursue additional advocacy as a private citizen — including communication with political bodies, higher regulatory levels, or the public — to obtain the full knowledge and concurrence of their employer before taking such steps, recognizing that the employer has legitimate business and legal interests in any additional advocacy actions taken by an employee engineer, while also recognizing that the obligation to protect public health and safety is paramount and that employer concurrence does not override the engineer's rights and duties as a citizen when public welfare is at stake.
Post-Occupancy Design Adequacy Dispute State
Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner
State in which, years after a facility has been completed, occupied, and fully paid for, a new owner commissions an independent engineering inspection that identifies alleged design inadequacies in the original engineer's work — triggering competing professional assessments, potential reputational harm to the original engineer, and ethical questions about the objectivity and completeness of the reviewing engineer's report.
Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a new property owner to conduct a technical inspection and evaluation of an existing facility's mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems originally designed by another engineer, bearing obligations of objectivity, thoroughness, and inclusion of all pertinent information in the resulting report, while avoiding self-serving conclusions that unfairly disparage the original design engineer's work.
Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Non-Suppression Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a post-occupancy inspection of a facility to report all material findings honestly and completely to the retaining client — including findings that identify design inadequacies in the original engineer's work — without suppressing, softening, or omitting adverse conclusions out of collegial deference to the original design engineer, recognizing that the inspecting engineer's primary obligation runs to the client and to public safety, and that honest adverse findings do not constitute improper conduct merely because they reflect negatively on a prior engineer's work.
Post-Occupancy Inspection Scope Completeness and Objectivity Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer retained to conduct a post-occupancy inspection of a facility must report all material findings honestly, completely, and objectively — including both favorable findings (e.g., no plumbing design problem) and adverse findings (e.g., inadequate heating equipment sizing) — prohibiting selective reporting that omits favorable findings to make the original design appear worse than it is, or that omits adverse findings to protect the original designer or avoid controversy; the constraint establishes that objectivity and completeness are non-negotiable requirements of professional inspection reports regardless of the commercial or competitive context in which the inspection was commissioned.
Post-Occupancy MEP Systems Inspection and Deficiency Identification Capability
a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to conduct a systematic post-occupancy inspection of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems in a completed facility — including wiring, plumbing design, and HVAC/hot water heating equipment sizing — to identify design inadequacies, capacity deficiencies, and performance shortfalls relative to applicable engineering standards, and to formulate technically grounded remediation recommendations.
Post-Override Environmental Justice Escalation Capability
Capability to recognize when a client has declined to address an identified disproportionate environmental justice risk — particularly a flood risk to an underserved community — after full disclosure, and to assess whether the residual risk to public health, safety, and welfare is sufficient to trigger escalation obligations beyond the client relationship, including reporting to regulatory authorities, public bodies, or other appropriate external parties, while navigating the tension between faithful agent duties and paramount public welfare obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when identified risks to public health and safety exceed the client relationship and require escalation to regulatory authorities or public bodies, and to act on that recognition by reporting to appropriate external parties
Post-Override Full-Bore Multi-Authority Bridge Safety Campaign Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has overridden a professional engineering safety determination — such as a bridge closure — to immediately pursue a full-bore multi-authority escalation campaign contacting the county governing authority, county prosecutors, state and federal transportation and highway officials, the state engineering licensure board, and other appropriate authorities, recognizing that the imminent and widespread nature of the danger requires simultaneous contact with all available authorities rather than a graduated sequential approach.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk and received an inadequate response from an initial regulatory contact to identify all additional agencies, officials, and authorities having jurisdiction over the safety concern — including supervisors of unresponsive officials, fire marshals, state and federal transportation authorities, state engineering licensure boards, county commissioners, and other relevant bodies — and to systematically contact each in a manner calibrated to the severity and imminence of the risk.
Post-Peer-Review Competitive Participation Conflict Self-Assessment Capability
The potential for a conflict of interest may also enter into situations of this type.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has completed an independent external peer review to conduct a thorough self-assessment of whether subsequent participation in a competitive procurement — such as a design-build joint venture — for the same project raises a conflict of interest, including evaluating the nature of privileged access obtained, the elapsed time since the review, the absence or presence of a confidentiality agreement, applicable state law variations, and whether agency approval is required before proceeding.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to assess whether a firm that previously conducted an independent external review of a project may ethically participate in a subsequent design-build procurement for that same project — including evaluating whether agency approval has been obtained, whether applicable state conflict-of-interest laws are satisfied, and whether the prior review role creates an unfair competitive advantage or compromises the integrity of the subsequent procurement process.
Post-Peer-Review Design-Build Participation Conflict Clearance Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer or firm that has previously conducted an independent external review of an agency-prepared project is subsequently invited to participate in a design-build procurement for that same project — requiring the engineer to obtain agency approval and verify compliance with applicable state conflict-of-interest laws and regulations before participating — prohibiting participation without such clearance on the grounds that prior review access to non-public project information may confer an unfair competitive advantage, as established by BER Case 18-10.
Post-Peer-Review Design-Build Participation Conflict of Interest Assessment Obligation
Turning to the facts, the access to confidential, nonpublic information could provide Engineer A with some advantages.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has completed an independent external peer review of a public agency project — thereby obtaining access to confidential, nonpublic project information — to assess whether participation in a subsequent design-build procurement for the same project raises a conflict of interest, taking into account applicable state laws that may vary on this question, and to seek agency approval and legal guidance before proceeding with such participation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer or firm that has conducted an independent external review of an agency-prepared project to refrain from participating in a subsequent design-build procurement for that same project unless and until the agency has approved such participation and the participation complies with all applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, recognizing that prior review access creates informational advantages that must be managed through explicit agency approval and legal compliance.
Post-Peer-Review Design-Build Procurement Participation State
ABC Engineering is retained by a state agency to participate in an independent external peer review
State in which a professional engineering firm that has completed an independent external peer review of a project's design — where that review shaped or refined the construction plans and specifications ultimately incorporated into a design-build RFP — is subsequently invited to participate as a design-build proposer on that same project, creating a structural conflict of interest arising from the insider knowledge, evaluative access, and design influence gained during the peer review engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer who previously conducted an independent external review of a project is subsequently invited to participate in a competitive procurement (such as a design-build RFP) for that same project, creating a potential conflict of interest arising from insider knowledge and prior evaluative access to the project's technical details, requiring assessment of whether participation is ethically permissible under applicable conflict of interest standards and state law.
Post-Peer-Review Insider Knowledge State-Law-Variable Conflict Assessment Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer or firm that has gained access to confidential, non-public project information through an independent peer review engagement must assess whether participation in a subsequent design-build procurement for the same project constitutes a conflict of interest — recognizing that the ethical analysis may not categorically prohibit such participation at the federal professional ethics level, but that state laws vary and may independently impose a conflict-of-interest bar — requiring the engineer to obtain agency approval and verify compliance with applicable state conflict-of-interest laws before participating, and prohibiting participation without such clearance.
Post-Peer-Review Procurement Conflict Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing whether an engineer or firm that has performed an independent peer review of a project design may subsequently compete for a design-build or construction contract on the same project, addressing conflicts of interest arising from insider knowledge, compromised independence, and the appearance of impropriety in public procurement contexts.
After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
State in which a completed engineering project has resulted in documented harm to third parties — such as flooding damage to neighboring properties — triggering obligations of investigation, accountability, and remediation, and activating heightened scrutiny of the original design's compliance with applicable regulatory standards.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a completed engineering design, produced by a professional who lacked competence in the relevant domain, has been bid, entered construction, and is producing concrete adverse consequences — including field revisions, miscalculated quantities, and excessive remediation burden on the client — thereby confirming that the competence deficiency caused actual harm to the client and public project.
Post-Public-Authority-Decision All-Engineers Code-Conformance Recognition Capability
if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — whether as a challenger, designer, or ethics reviewer — to recognize that when appropriate public authority has considered all views and decided to proceed with a contested engineering design, all engineers involved in the debate (both those who supported and those who challenged the design) may have acted in conformance with the professional code, and that the existence of conflicting professional views does not imply that any engineer acted unethically — enabling acceptance of the outcome without continued professional disparagement and without treating the disagreement as an ethics violation by any party.
Post-Public-Employment Competitor Non-Exploitation Constraint
Ethical and legal constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who, during government agency employment, received access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by private companies seeking regulatory approval, from exploiting that information — directly or indirectly — after transitioning to employment with a competitor of those submitting companies, establishing that the engineer may accept private-sector employment with a competitor but must not use, disclose, or leverage the confidential information accessed in the regulatory role to benefit the new employer or disadvantage the former submitting company, as established by NSPE Code Section III.4 and BER Case No. 82-6.
Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Obligation
During Engineer A's tenure with the government agency, Engineer A receives access to confidential and proprietary design information provided by companies seeking approval from the government agency for their facility designs.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, during public agency employment, received access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by private companies for regulatory approval, to refrain from using, disclosing, or exploiting that confidential information in subsequent private employment — particularly at a competitor of the submitting company — recognizing that the confidentiality obligation created during public service survives the termination of public employment and cannot be waived by the engineer's transition to private practice.
Post-Public-Employment Confidential Information Non-Use Prohibition
Relational principle prohibiting engineers who, during public agency employment, received access to confidential and proprietary information submitted by private companies for regulatory approval from using, disclosing, or exploiting that information in subsequent private employment — particularly when the subsequent employer is a competitor of the submitting company — recognizing that the public trust relationship that enabled access to the confidential information creates a continuing obligation that survives the termination of public employment
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring engineers who have held public positions with authority over private firms to avoid accepting employment with, or providing services to, those firms in circumstances where the prior public relationship creates an appearance or reality of improper advantage, unfair competitive benefit, or betrayal of public trust
Post-Public-Policy-Decision Engineering Acceptance Capability
Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern. However, in such a matter of important public policy, if, after due consideration of his views and those of others, the decision should be to proceed with the proposed design of the expanded landfill, all involved should accept that each engineer had acted in conformance with the code.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or disagreed with a design decision made by other engineers — including through public letters, testimony, or civic advocacy — to accept, after due consideration of all views, that the decision to proceed with the challenged design was made by appropriate public authority, that all involved engineers acted in conformance with the code, and that conflicting professional views between engineers on public policy matters are not ethically problematic, thereby refraining from continued obstruction or professional disparagement of the engineers who reached a different conclusion.
Post-Public-Service Competitor Employment Conflict Avoidance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a government agency role — in which the engineer received access to confidential and proprietary design information submitted by private companies for regulatory approval — to refrain from accepting employment with a direct competitor of those submitting companies when such employment would create a substantial risk that the confidential information would be used to the competitive disadvantage of the submitting company, recognizing that the revolving door from public regulatory access to private competitive employment creates inherent conflicts of interest that cannot be adequately managed through disclosure alone when the confidential information is directly relevant to the competitive relationship.
Relational principle requiring engineers who have held public positions with authority over private firms to avoid accepting employment with, or providing services to, those firms in circumstances where the prior public relationship creates an appearance or reality of improper advantage, unfair competitive benefit, or betrayal of public trust
Post-Public-Service Private Engineering Associate
A licensed professional engineering role in which a former senior municipal engineering official joins a private AE firm as an associate following their public service tenure, where the firm previously conducted business with the municipality under the engineer's oversight authority, generating obligations to manage conflicts of interest, avoid leveraging prior insider relationships, and uphold public confidence in the profession.
Post-Public-Service Recusal Judgment Capability
the firm plans to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City
Capability to correctly identify the scope and duration of recusal obligations that arise when a licensed professional engineer transitions from a senior public agency role with contracting authority to a private firm — including determining which specific contracts, proposals, negotiations, and client relationships require recusal, and maintaining that recusal boundary in practice even in the absence of formal cooling-off period provisions in the employment contract.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a senior public agency role with contracting authority to a private AE firm to recuse themselves from any involvement — direct or indirect — in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of proposals or contracts between their new private employer and their former public agency employer, for a period sufficient to eliminate the appearance and reality of improper advantage derived from their prior public authority.
Post-Refusal Qualified Expert Identification and Referral Capability
An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has declined an out-of-competence assignment to take constructive follow-through action by escalating the matter to appropriate supervisory channels and actively assisting in identifying and referring to qualified experts or specialists who possess the domain competence required to perform the declined assignment — thereby fulfilling professional obligations beyond mere refusal and ensuring that the underlying institutional need is addressed through competent means.
Post-Regulatory-Approval Escalation Proportionality Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer has fulfilled all formal reporting obligations — including reporting to the client, providing written documentation, and escalating to the relevant state regulatory authority — and the regulatory authority has nonetheless approved the project with a deferred safety measure, establishing that the engineer's continuing obligation to escalate further is bounded by proportionality to the residual risk and the availability of higher authorities with jurisdiction, prohibiting both passive abandonment of concern when residual public safety risk remains material and disproportionate escalation that exceeds what the gravity of the remaining risk warrants, and requiring the engineer to assess whether the regulatory approval with deferred implementation adequately addresses the risk before determining whether further escalation is ethically required.
Post-Regulatory-Approval Residual Safety Concern Escalation Obligation
Several months later, Engineer B read in the local newspaper that the professional engineer in charge of the water supply division of the State Department of the Environment had approved the change of water source, with a five-year implementation plan to provide updated water treatment.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public health and safety risk to a state regulatory authority, and who subsequently learns that the regulatory authority has approved a course of action the engineer believes remains unsafe, to evaluate whether further escalation — to higher regulatory bodies, elected officials, or the public — is warranted, and to take such escalation steps when the residual risk to public welfare is sufficiently serious, notwithstanding the regulatory approval.
Post-Remediation Inspection Obligation for Safety-Critical Infrastructure
Domain-specific principle requiring that any structural remediation of safety-critical public infrastructure — particularly infrastructure previously condemned due to structural failure — must be followed by a formal, licensed engineering inspection to verify the adequacy of the remediation before the infrastructure is opened to public use, and that the absence of such follow-up inspection constitutes an independent ethical violation separate from any deficiency in the remediation itself.
[Case 137] Domain-specific principle requiring that any structural remediation of safety-critical public infrastructure — particularly infrastructure previously condemned due to structural failure — must be followed by a formal, licensed engineering inspection to verify the adequacy of the remediation before the infrastructure is opened to public use.
Post-Remediation Licensed Engineering Inspection Prerequisite Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency must ensure that a formal licensed engineering inspection is conducted after any structural remediation work — such as crutch pile installation — and before infrastructure is reopened to public traffic, prohibiting reopening based solely on the judgment of unlicensed inspectors or non-engineer officials and establishing that the absence of a post-remediation licensed inspection is itself a safety-critical procedural deficiency that the engineer must formally resist and document.
Post-Remediation Licensed Engineering Inspection Prerequisite Enforcement Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize that after a structural remediation measure has been installed on safety-critical infrastructure — such as crutch piles placed under a condemned bridge — a formal licensed engineering inspection must be conducted and its findings documented before the infrastructure is reopened to public use, and to enforce that prerequisite by refusing to authorize reopening and escalating to supervisory and governing authorities if the inspection is bypassed.
Post-Remediation Licensed Engineering Inspection Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a structural remediation has been performed on safety-critical infrastructure — such as crutch piles installed on a condemned bridge — without any subsequent licensed engineering inspection, to require that a formal, licensed engineering inspection be conducted before the infrastructure is reopened to public use, and to escalate to appropriate authorities if such inspection is not performed.
Post-Reporting Advocacy as Personal Choice
Professional principle recognizing that once an engineer has fulfilled formal ethical obligations by reporting public health and safety risks to appropriate authorities, any further advocacy — including communication with higher political bodies, media, or the public — constitutes a personal rather than professional choice, and must be undertaken with employer knowledge and concurrence, consideration of stakeholder interests, and awareness of the engineer's continuing ethical obligations
Post-Review Conflict of Interest Avoidance in Design-Build Procurement
In Case 18-10, the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
Relational principle requiring engineers who have conducted independent external reviews of agency-prepared projects to avoid participating in subsequent design-build procurement for the same project in ways that exploit insider knowledge or create unfair competitive advantage, subject to agency approval and compliance with applicable conflict-of-interest statutes and regulations
Post-Review Design-Build Conflict Assessment Capability
In BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
Capability to assess whether a firm that previously conducted an independent external review of a project may ethically participate in a subsequent design-build procurement for that same project — including evaluating whether agency approval has been obtained, whether applicable state conflict-of-interest laws are satisfied, and whether the prior review role creates an unfair competitive advantage or compromises the integrity of the subsequent procurement process.
Post-Review Design-Build Participation Conditional Ethics Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or firm that has conducted an independent external review of an agency-prepared project to refrain from participating in a subsequent design-build procurement for that same project unless and until the agency has approved such participation and the participation complies with all applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, recognizing that prior review access creates informational advantages that must be managed through explicit agency approval and legal compliance.
Post-Review Design-Build Participation Conflict Clearance Constraint
Post-Review Design-Build Participation Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has completed an independent external peer review of a public agency's project design to disclose to the agency — before accepting an invitation to participate in a subsequent design-build procurement for that same project — the prior peer review role, the privileged access to construction plans and specifications obtained during that review, and any potential conflict of interest arising from the sequential roles, so that the agency can make an informed determination about whether such participation is appropriate and compliant with applicable law.
Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation Constraint
Engineer A learns of the extension and is concerned that the structure may be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who originally designed a structure retains a continuing duty to act on public safety concerns arising from that structure even after selling the property — prohibiting the engineer from treating the property sale as an extinguishment of all professional responsibility, and requiring that upon learning of structural modifications that may create collapse risk, the engineer must notify the current owner and relevant authorities regardless of the absence of any current client relationship or contractual obligation.
Post-Sale Original Designer Continuing Safety Obligation State
Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property. Four years later, Engineer A sold the property
State in which a professional engineer who originally designed a structure has sold or transferred the property containing that structure and subsequently learns that the new owner has made modifications that may compromise structural integrity — creating a continuing ethical obligation to notify the new owner and relevant authorities despite having no current contractual relationship, client engagement, or formal responsibility for the structure.
Engineer A had designed and built a barn with horse stalls on his property
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who originally designed a structure, after selling the property, learns of potentially unsafe modifications and bears obligations to notify both the new owner in writing and the relevant municipal authority, to document all communications, and to escalate to county or state building officials if no corrective action is taken within a reasonable period.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who originally designed a structure subsequently learns, after selling or transferring the property, that the structure has been modified by new owners in ways that may create structural collapse risk, bearing obligations to notify the new owner in writing and to contact the relevant municipal authority with jurisdiction, even absent any ongoing contractual relationship with the property or its current owners.
Post-Service Client Regulatory Violation Discovery State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having completed services for a client, subsequently and incidentally discovers — through observation rather than active investigation — that the client has taken actions on the project site that constitute substantial violations of federal and/or state environmental laws and regulations, triggering obligations that extend beyond the concluded contractual relationship to the protection of public welfare and regulatory compliance.
Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment Concealment State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having suffered a medical event (such as a stroke) that materially impairs their cognitive or professional capacity, continues to operate their firm and affix their seal to engineering documents without disclosing the impairment to clients, regulators, or the public, while delegating substantive design work to unqualified or insufficiently experienced subordinates — creating direct tension between financial self-preservation, personal privacy, and the professional obligation to ensure competent and responsible engineering practice.
Post-Stroke Impaired Engineer Private Confrontation Insufficiency Constraint
As a professional courtesy, and because he considered Engineer B a personal friend, Engineer A met privately with Engineer B and confronted him with the faulty design, including Engineer R's report.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who discovers a peer's impaired practice and resulting harm may not discharge their reporting obligation through private confrontation alone — even when motivated by genuine friendship and compassion — when the impaired engineer's conduct has caused actual harm and ongoing public safety risk remains, prohibiting the substitution of private professional courtesy for the mandatory formal reporting obligation to the State Board.
Post-Stroke Responsible Charge Prohibition Constraint
Engineer B violated Section II. 2. of the code because he affixed his signature and seal to documents prepared without his direction or control.
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has suffered a medical event — such as a stroke — that materially impairs their ability to actively direct, review, and control engineering work from affixing their professional signature and seal to engineering documents, establishing that reviewing drawings after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge, and that continued sealing under such conditions constitutes both an ethical violation and a violation of state licensure law.
Post-Structural-Modification Certificate of Occupancy Compliance Gap Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural deficiencies in a building that was previously issued a certificate of occupancy following structural modifications to recognize that the certificate of occupancy may have been issued without adequate structural review, that the issuing authority may be unaware of the current structural deficiency, and that the professional obligation to notify the issuing authority arises independently of any contractual scope limitation — including the ability to identify the certificate of occupancy authority as the specific regulatory party requiring notification.
Post-Submission Error Correction and Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A discovers that the data upon which Engineer A based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if the more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Engineer A's conclusions would be different
Professional principle requiring engineers who discover, after submitting a professional report or opinion, that the data underlying their conclusions was inaccurate or erroneous to promptly disclose that discovery and correct the record — including notifying the retaining attorney, client, or other relying parties — rather than allowing the inaccurate report to stand and potentially influence settlement negotiations, judicial proceedings, or other consequential decisions, on the grounds that the engineer's ongoing duty of truthfulness and professional integrity is not discharged by submission of the report but continues for as long as the report remains operative and relied upon.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who discover errors, inaccuracies, or deficiencies in their own prior professional work — whether through their own review, third-party analysis, or real-world outcomes — to affirmatively acknowledge those errors to their client and relevant parties, and to take steps toward correction, rather than suppressing, minimizing, or rationalizing the deficiency
Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has submitted a forensic report to a retaining attorney and subsequently discovers that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate — such that accurate data would produce materially different conclusions — must immediately advise the attorney of the discovered inaccuracy and take corrective action, prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about the error on the grounds that settlement negotiations are ongoing, that the attorney is relying on the report, or that correction may disadvantage the retaining party's litigation position.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who receives credible independent evidence — such as third-party modeling or post-construction performance data — demonstrating that previously approved and constructed engineering work contains material calculation errors or fails to meet applicable regulatory standards, must acknowledge those errors, revise affected calculations and conclusions, and take affirmative corrective action, prohibiting continued defense of erroneous work product in the face of contradicting technical evidence, as established by NSPE Code Section III.1.a and BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5.
Post-Submission Forensic Report Data Inaccuracy Correction Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has submitted a forensic report to a retaining attorney in connection with pending litigation, and who subsequently discovers that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate and that accurate data would yield materially different conclusions, to promptly disclose the discovered inaccuracy and the corrected conclusions to the retaining attorney — notwithstanding the adversarial context of the litigation, the active status of settlement negotiations, and any implicit or explicit expectation that the report will support the attorney's litigation position — recognizing that the engineer's professional obligations of truthfulness, intellectual honesty, and objectivity are not suspended by the adversarial context and that failure to correct a known material inaccuracy constitutes a continuing misrepresentation.
Post-Submission Report Data Inaccuracy Discovery Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has submitted a forensic report to a retaining attorney to recognize, upon subsequent discovery, that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate — including the ability to identify the specific data error, assess how the corrected data would alter the conclusions, and correctly classify the discovery as triggering an affirmative obligation to notify the retaining attorney regardless of the adversarial or settlement context in which the report was submitted.
Post-Submission Report Error Discovery State
State in which a professional engineer, having completed and submitted a forensic or technical report to a retaining attorney or client, subsequently discovers that the data underlying the report's conclusions was inaccurate — and that use of accurate data would materially alter those conclusions — while the retaining attorney is actively engaged in settlement negotiations or other adversarial proceedings that rely on the submitted report, creating direct tension between the engineer's obligation of truthfulness and accuracy, the attorney's litigation strategy and settlement posture, and the duty to correct the record before consequential decisions are made on the basis of flawed findings.
Post-Superior-Override Public Safety Whistleblowing Permissibility Obligation
Duty of the engineering profession and ethics bodies to recognize that a licensed professional engineer who has discharged mandatory obligations — by refusing to issue a non-compliant permit and formally submitting findings to a superior — retains the ethical right, as a matter of personal conscience, to engage in further public advocacy, media engagement, or external reporting after the department overrides the refusal and issues the permit, and that such post-override whistleblowing is ethically permissible and not constrained by employer loyalty or faithful agent obligations, even though it is not itself a mandatory professional duty at that stage.
Post-Termination Adversarial Retention Motivation Awareness Non-Exculpation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who accepts retention by an opposing party in an adversarial proceeding — after having been terminated by the original retaining party — cannot invoke naivety about the opposing party's motivations as an exculpatory defense, establishing that the sequence of events (original retention, access to confidential information, termination, and subsequent opposing retention) creates constructive awareness of the motivational basis for the new retention, and prohibiting the engineer from treating subjective unawareness of the opposing attorney's strategic purpose as a sufficient basis for ethical permissibility of the switching-sides engagement, as established by BER Case No. 85-4.
Post-Termination Brochure Continued Use State
State in which a professional firm continues to distribute promotional materials listing a former employee as a current or key member of the firm after that employee's actual departure, creating an active misrepresentation of the firm's personnel composition to prospective clients who may rely on that individual's availability for future work.
Post-Termination Contractor Replacement Self-Offer Ethical Prohibition Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public evaluative or oversight role to recognize that evaluating a contractor's performance and then offering their own firm to replace the terminated contractor — particularly when the engineer's evaluation contributed to the termination decision — creates an impermissible appearance of self-dealing and conflict of interest, regardless of whether the performance evaluation was objectively accurate.
Post-Termination Contradicted Testimony Reporting Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to evaluate a public health or environmental risk, reached a professional conclusion that minimum standards will not be met, and whose contract was subsequently terminated with instructions not to report — must nonetheless report their findings to the applicable regulatory authority when another engineer, unaware of the terminated engineer's findings, presents contradictory testimony at a public hearing that the standards will be met, prohibiting the terminated engineer from remaining silent when uninformed public testimony creates a false impression of safety compliance that the terminated engineer's professional findings directly contradict, as established by BER Case 76-4.
Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to evaluate an environmental or public health risk, reached a conclusion adverse to the client, had their contract terminated, and been asked not to report, to nonetheless report their findings to the applicable regulatory authority when another engineer subsequently presents contradictory or incomplete information at a public hearing — recognizing that the termination of the client relationship does not extinguish the engineer's obligation to protect public welfare by ensuring that regulatory decision-makers have accurate and complete technical information.
Post-Termination Notice Brochure Personnel Disclosure Obligation
Duty of an engineering firm principal who distributes promotional materials listing a named engineer as a key employee — during the period after that engineer has received termination notice but before actual departure — to affirmatively apprise prospective clients during negotiations of the engineer's pending termination, so that clients are not misled into believing the listed engineer will be available for future project work. This obligation applies specifically during the notice period: distribution of previously printed brochures is not per se unethical during this window, but only if accompanied by contemporaneous oral or written disclosure of the pending departure to each prospective client during active negotiations.
Post-Unresponsive-Authority Escalation Persistence Constraint
Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation was warranted after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from treating an unanswered phone call or non-response from a regulatory official as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation — requiring instead that the engineer continue pursuing resolution by contacting the supervisor of the unresponsive official, alternative agencies with jurisdiction (such as the fire marshal), and any other authority capable of investigating the safety concern, establishing that regulatory non-response triggers an affirmative duty to escalate rather than a permission to cease pursuit.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to an authority that fails to respond — such as a county building official who does not return a phone call — must continue pursuing resolution by contacting supervisory officials, alternative agencies with jurisdiction, or other appropriate authorities, prohibiting passive acceptance of non-response as a discharge of the safety reporting obligation.
Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to a regulatory official — such as a county building official — and received no response must escalate the concern to the supervisor of the unresponsive official, alternative agencies with jurisdiction (such as the fire marshal), and any other authority capable of investigating the safety concern, prohibiting passive acceptance of non-response as a complete discharge of the safety reporting obligation, as established by the present BER case analysis and BER Case 07-10.
Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to a regulatory official (such as a county building official) who fails to respond, to escalate the matter beyond that official to the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction — including agencies that issued certificates of occupancy following construction modifications — rather than treating the unanswered initial contact as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to a regulatory official (such as a county building official) who fails to respond, to escalate the matter beyond that official to the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation is warranted — particularly where a certificate of occupancy was issued following construction modifications that may have created the safety deficiency — rather than treating the unanswered initial contact as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
Post-Unresponsive-Official Multi-Agency Escalation Pathway Navigation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has attempted to notify a specific regulatory or governmental official of a public safety concern — and received no response — to identify and navigate the appropriate multi-agency escalation pathway, including contacting the supervisor of the unresponsive official, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction, in order to ensure that the safety concern receives authoritative attention and that the engineer's professional obligation to pursue corrective action is fulfilled beyond the initial unanswered contact.
Post-Unresponsive-Official Supervisor and Fire Marshal Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a structural or public safety concern to a regulatory official — such as a county building official — and received no response, to identify and contact the supervisor of the unresponsive official, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction, in order to ensure that the safety concern receives authoritative attention and that the engineer's professional obligation to pursue corrective action is fulfilled beyond the initial unanswered contact.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has attempted to notify a specific regulatory or governmental official of a public safety concern — and received no response — to identify and navigate the appropriate multi-agency escalation pathway, including contacting the supervisor of the unresponsive official, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction, in order to ensure that the safety concern receives authoritative attention and that the engineer's professional obligation to pursue corrective action is fulfilled beyond the initial unanswered contact.
Post-Unresponsive-Official Supervisor and Multi-Agency Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to a regulatory official (such as a county building official) who fails to respond, to escalate the matter beyond that official to the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction to determine whether an investigation is warranted — particularly where a certificate of occupancy was issued following construction modifications that may have created the safety deficiency — rather than treating the unanswered initial contact as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
Post-Unresponsive-Official Written Follow-Up and Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally reported a structural safety concern to a public official (such as a county building official) who fails to respond, to follow up that verbal contact with written documentation of the concern and to escalate the matter to the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, or other agencies having jurisdiction, rather than treating the unanswered phone call as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
Post-Verbal-Notification Corrective Action Monitoring Conditional External Escalation Constraint
At the same time, the Board is of the opinion that Engineer A has an obligation to follow through to see that correct follow-up action is taken by the public agency.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has verbally reported a speculative safety observation through the client chain — and whose observation has been received by the responsible public agency — has a continuing obligation to monitor whether the public agency takes appropriate corrective action, and must consider external escalation alternatives only if the public agency fails to take corrective action; prohibiting the engineer from treating the initial verbal notification as a complete and permanent discharge of the public safety obligation, while simultaneously prohibiting premature external escalation before the public agency has had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the reported concern.
Post-Verbal-Notification Written Confirmation and Monitoring Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally notified a public official of a structural safety concern to follow up that verbal communication with written confirmation restating the concern, to make a written record of all communications with both the property owner and the public official, and to continue monitoring the situation — and, if appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period, to again contact the authority in writing with a specific deadline and notice that failure to act will require escalation to higher authorities.
Post-Verbal-Notification Written Structural Safety Confirmation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally notified a county building official of a structural safety concern — and whose call was not returned — to follow up that verbal communication with written confirmation restating the concern, to make a written record of all communications with both the property owner and the public official, and to continue monitoring the situation, with escalation to higher authorities if appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally notified a public official of a structural safety concern to follow up that verbal communication with written confirmation restating the concern, to make a written record of all communications with both the property owner and the public official, and to continue monitoring the situation — and, if appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable period, to again contact the authority in writing with a specific deadline and notice that failure to act will require escalation to higher authorities.
Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm State
The direct risks are the inoperability of the sprinkler system and property damage from flooding resulting from frozen pipes
State in which a licensed professional engineer has identified a condition that poses a potential — but not yet confirmed or imminent — risk to public health, safety, or welfare, where the primary direct risks are property damage or system inoperability rather than immediate bodily harm, creating a secondary question about whether the duty to report arises from the public safety paramount obligation, from faithful agent duties, or from both — and whether the engineer's obligation extends to investigation and mitigation recommendation or only to written notification.
Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who observes a condition posing a potential — but not yet confirmed imminent — risk to public health, safety, or welfare must advise the client or owner in writing of the identified risk, while simultaneously establishing that this notification obligation does not extend to a duty to investigate the risk further or to recommend specific mitigation alternatives, as established by NSPE Code Sections I.4 and III.1.b and the present BER case analysis.
[Case 132] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who observes a condition posing a potential — but not yet confirmed imminent — risk to public health, safety, or welfare must advise the client or owner in writing of the identified risk, while simultaneously establishing that this notification obligation does not extend to a duty to investigate the risk further or to recommend specific mitigation alternatives, as established by NSPE Code Sections I.4 and III.1.b.
Power Plant Construction Permit Applicant
construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility
A manufacturing facility or industrial entity stakeholder role that seeks a construction permit from a state environmental regulatory agency for a power plant, whose proposed technical plans are the subject of regulatory review and engineer objection regarding compliance with air pollution standards under applicable law (e.g., the Clean Air Act).
Practice Continuity Alternative Identification Capability
Working together, the parties might cooperatively identify a practice alternative consistent with ethical and legal engineering consulting work, say, hiring a qualified temporary engineer – possibly Engineer R – until Engineer B was able to return to full duty.
Capability to identify and propose viable practice continuity alternatives when a licensed professional engineer is unable to fulfill responsible charge obligations due to medical impairment or other incapacity — including alternatives such as hiring a qualified temporary licensed engineer, engaging a peer reviewer as interim responsible charge engineer, or restructuring the firm's practice to ensure adequate licensed supervision — in a manner that maintains ethical and legal compliance while preserving the firm's ability to serve clients.
Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Capability
Capability to conduct an honest, rigorous, and domain-informed self-assessment of one's own firm's technical competencies before accepting a professional engineering contract, including identifying gaps between the firm's established expertise and the technical requirements of the solicited work, and making an informed judgment about whether the firm is genuinely qualified to perform the services adequately.
Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of their firm's technical competence in the specific domain of a proposed contract before accepting that contract, and to decline the engagement if the firm lacks the requisite expertise — regardless of economic pressures, staff retention concerns, or competitive opportunity — so that clients receive services from engineers genuinely qualified to perform them.
Pre-Award Prospective Client Competitive Solicitation State
some former clients of Firm A which had projects under discussion with Firm A, but for which specific selection or negotiation had not taken place
State in which a prospective client has had preliminary discussions with an engineering firm about a potential project but no formal selection process, contract negotiation, or award has occurred — leaving the client relationship in a pre-contractual, open-competition phase. In this state, the ethical permissibility of competing firms soliciting the same prospective client is governed by free-competition norms rather than anti-supplanting rules, because no formal professional relationship has been established that could be 'supplanted.' The state is ethically significant because it defines the boundary between legitimate competitive outreach and improper displacement of an established professional relationship.
Pre-Award Prospective Client Supplanting Rule Non-Application Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the professional rule against supplanting — which prohibits an engineer from improperly attempting to displace another engineer from an engagement — does not apply to solicitation of prospective clients for whom no active contract exists and no specific selection or negotiation is underway, prohibiting the application of the supplanting rule to pre-award competitive solicitation where the prospective client has not yet formally committed to any engineer, as established by NSPE BER Case 76-5 and the two-part test requiring either an existing contract or active negotiation as a predicate for a supplanting violation.
Pre-Award Qualification Assessment Non-Bypass Procurement Constraint
By promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
Ethical and legal constraint prohibiting a public official with engineering procurement authority from promising or committing to award a future public engineering contract to a specific firm before conducting any assessment of qualifications, experience, and other relevant selection factors — establishing that pre-award commitments made without qualification review are inconsistent with both the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics and applicable procurement law, regardless of the meritorious prior services rendered by the firm receiving the promise.
Pre-Bid As-Built Drawing Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a public agency engineer who serves as custodian of existing as-built drawings material to the accurate and safe performance of bid work to include reference to those drawings in bid documents and to make them available to all prospective bidders on equal terms before bids are submitted, so that all bidders can prepare accurate, informed bids and no contractor gains an informational advantage through prior relationships with agency personnel.
A contractor stakeholder role in which a sprinkler or fire protection contractor seeks access to existing as-built drawings from a public agency engineer before bid submission, having learned from prior post-award access that such documents exist and are obtainable, thereby creating procurement equity concerns when information is shared selectively or informally outside formal bid document channels.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A contractor stakeholder role in which a sprinkler or fire protection contractor seeks access to existing as-built drawings from a public agency engineer, either after contract award to support compliant installation work or, over time, before bid submission to gain informational advantage in competitive procurement.
Pre-Bid Clarification Request Capability
In addition, Engineer C could have requested further clarification from the owner or Engineer A in order to better understand the engineering drawings.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer acting as a construction contractor to recognize, upon reviewing bid documents that appear incomplete, ambiguous, or inadequate, that the appropriate professional response includes requesting further clarification from the owner or design engineer before submitting a bid — in order to better understand the engineering drawings, confirm the scope of work, and make an informed decision about whether and how to bid on the project — rather than proceeding with a bid based on incomplete understanding of the design requirements.
Pre-Bid Constructability Consultation Conflict State
Engineer A would like to also discuss constructability issues with a local contractor, Contractor B, with whom Engineer A has worked and who may potentially also bid on the water treatment facility construction contract
State in which a design engineer wishes to consult with a contractor for legitimate constructability improvement purposes during the design phase, where that contractor is also a potential bidder on the construction contract, creating direct tension between the professional benefit of the consultation and the obligation to ensure equitable access and fair competition in the subsequent public bidding process.
Pre-Bid Constructability Information Seeker
if information is shared selectively with contractors before bids are opened; will D's actions influence the award of a contract
A contractor stakeholder role in which a contractor seeks access to existing project documentation or constructability information from a public agency engineer prior to bid submission, generating engineer obligations to ensure any such information is shared equitably with all potential bidders through formal procurement channels rather than selectively.
Pre-Bid Material Information Equal Disclosure Constraint
Ethical, regulatory, and legal constraint requiring that a public agency engineer who possesses existing technical documents — such as as-built drawings — that are material to accurate and competitive bid preparation must ensure those documents are made available to all prospective bidders on equal terms before bid submission, prohibiting selective or informal disclosure to only those contractors who happen to request the documents through prior project relationships, and requiring that bid documents formally reference the existence and availability of such materials so that all bidders have equal opportunity to incorporate them into their bids.
Pre-Bid Selective Information Sharing Prohibition Awareness Capability
if information is shared selectively with contractors before bids are opened; will D's actions influence the award of a contract?
Capability of a public agency engineer to recognize that sharing material technical information — such as as-built drawings — selectively with some contractors before bids are opened, while withholding that information from others, constitutes an impermissible competitive advantage that undermines procurement integrity, regardless of the engineer's intent, and to correctly identify this conduct as unethical and potentially influencing contract award outcomes.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a public agency engineer who serves as custodian of existing as-built drawings to recognize when selective or informal disclosure of those drawings to some bidders but not others creates an unfair competitive advantage, and to proactively formalize disclosure procedures that ensure all prospective bidders receive equal access to material technical information on equal terms and at the same time, consistent with competitive procurement fairness obligations and faithful agent duties to the public agency.
Pre-Bid Selective Information Sharing Prohibition Obligation
It would be unethical for D to share as-builts with selected contractors pre-bid.
Duty of a public agency engineer who possesses technical information material to bid preparation — such as as-built drawings of existing systems — to refrain from sharing that information selectively with some contractors but not others before bids are opened, recognizing that selective pre-bid disclosure gives favored contractors an unfair informational advantage, compromises the integrity of the competitive procurement process, and constitutes unethical conduct regardless of the engineer's benign intent.
Pre-Code-Addition Precedent Inapplicability to Post-Addition Obligations Constraint
It should be noted that these cases were decided prior to the addition of the language contained in NSPE Code Section III.2.d. quoted above.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that BER case precedents decided prior to the addition of NSPE Code Section III.2.d. (sustainable development provision) in January 2006 — including BER Cases 89-7, 97-13, and 04-8 — cannot be applied without modification to cases arising after the code addition, because the addition of the sustainable development provision imposes additional professional responsibilities on engineers for environmental protection that were not present at the time those precedents were decided; prohibiting the mechanical application of pre-code-addition precedents as complete authority for post-addition cases involving environmental findings, and requiring that the additional responsibilities imposed by Section III.2.d. be integrated into the analysis of post-addition cases even when the encouraged language of the provision does not create mandatory task-refusal authority.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint arising from the increasing priority of sustainability principles in professional engineering ethics — as reflected in the 2007 addition of NSPE Code Section III.2.d and subsequent BER case evolution — requiring that licensed professional engineers and engineer interns interpret their professional obligations in light of the expanding scope and weight of sustainability considerations, prohibiting reliance on pre-2007 BER precedent or pre-sustainability-provision professional norms as sufficient authority for dismissing sustainability concerns as outside the scope of professional ethical obligation.
Pre-Code-Addition Precedent Non-Controlling Post-Addition Obligations Constraint
Interpretive constraint establishing that prior BER decisions and precedents decided under the former Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct — which did not contain an explicit conflict-of-interest provision equivalent to the subsequently added NSPE Code Section 8(b) — are not controlling authority for determining the ethical obligations of engineers under the new Code, and that the addition of Section 8(b) represents a definitive resolution of previously reserved or ambiguously decided questions, superseding the prior cases and establishing a stricter standard that cannot be avoided by reliance on the older precedents.
Pre-Construction Scaffolding Design Safety Hazard Resolution Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing temporary inspection and construction scaffolding on a restricted roadway — where the engineer has identified a foreseeable safety hazard from illegally operating prohibited vehicles — to ensure that appropriate corrective action addressing the identified hazard has been considered and implemented before finalizing the scaffolding design and commencing construction, recognizing that proceeding with design and assembly without addressing the identified hazard exposes construction workers and the public to foreseeable preventable harm.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed structural design engineer, when selecting among feasible design approaches for structural modifications, to consider foreseeable construction safety risks to workers — including the ergonomic and physical hazards posed by constrained-access connection details — and to explore alternative design concepts that would reduce those risks to an acceptable level, even when the engineer lacks formal training in construction safety, provided that the safety risk is reasonably foreseeable from the design documents themselves.
Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
A licensed professional engineer who, upon receiving notice of termination from an employer, solicits the employer's existing clients for future business with a new competing firm while still actively employed during the notice period, bearing obligations of loyalty and honest dealing to the employer, avoidance of misuse of client relationships developed during employment, and fair competition that does not exploit the employment relationship still in effect.
Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer Solicitation Permissibility Principle
Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who has received a termination notice from an employer — rather than voluntarily initiating departure — occupies a distinct ethical position with respect to soliciting the employer's clients: because the termination is employer-initiated, the engineer's solicitation of those clients for future work at a new firm does not constitute the same degree of disloyalty as voluntary pre-departure solicitation, provided the engineer does not actively supplant clients under existing contracts, does not exploit confidential project-specific knowledge, and conducts solicitation in a manner consistent with free and open competition.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle establishing that the freedom of an employed engineer to depart from an employer and move to a competing firm or establish independent practice is the reciprocal counterpart of the employer's general right to terminate an engineer's employment at will — recognizing that just as an employer may discontinue an engineer's services without cause (with few exceptions), an engineer may similarly depart without cause, and that the disruption and cost this causes to the employer and clients is the price a free society pays for a fair employment market; this principle constrains the ethical condemnation of departure itself while leaving intact obligations governing the manner of departure
Pre-Departure Client Interest Non-Disclosure State
State in which a departing engineer, aware that a client has expressed interest in retaining the engineer's independent services, does not disclose that client interest to the current employer prior to resignation — contrasting with cases where disclosure was made before departure. This state creates an ethical question about the adequacy of the departure process, though it may be mitigated by factors such as the independence of the departure decision from the client interest and the absence of any formal agreement with the client.
Pre-Departure Competitive Solicitation Employer Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while still actively employed, engages in any competitive solicitation of the employer's clients for a new or competing firm to disclose that solicitation activity to the employer before or contemporaneously with the solicitation, recognizing that: (1) the faithful agent and trustee duty under NSPE Code Section I.4 requires good faith and disclosure as essential components; (2) an engineer cannot simultaneously serve as a faithful agent and covertly compete against the employer's client relationships; and (3) the failure to disclose competitive solicitation activity — independent of the solicitation itself — constitutes a separate violation of the disclosure component of the faithful agent duty. This obligation applies regardless of whether the engineer has received a termination notice, and is not excused by the at-will employment symmetry principle, which governs post-departure conduct rather than conduct during active employment.
Pre-Departure Internal Planning Without Overt Action Non-Violation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who, while still employed, engages in internal planning and discussion about forming a competing firm and soliciting former clients — without taking overt promotional action or soliciting clients during the employment period — does not thereby violate the faithful agent duty or any other ethics code provision, prohibiting the imposition of ethical liability for pre-departure planning that does not cross into active solicitation, client diversion, or misappropriation of employer resources during the employment relationship.
Pre-Departure Internal Solicitation Discussion Non-Violation Recognition Capability
We may assume that the four engineers possibly discussed among themselves the idea of soliciting work of former clients of A while still in his employ, but under a literal reading of that part of §7(a) that degree of activity would not constitute a violation of the code.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics adjudicators, to recognize that internal discussions among employees — while still employed — about the possibility of soliciting former clients after departure do not constitute a violation of the professional code prohibition on promotional efforts or negotiations for work while in the employ of another, distinguishing between mere internal deliberation (permissible) and actual promotional efforts or negotiations with clients (prohibited), and applying this distinction accurately to avoid over-broad application of the faithful agent rule to pre-departure planning conversations.
Pre-Departure Internal Solicitation Discussion Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics adjudicators, to recognize that internal discussions among employees — while still employed — about the possibility of soliciting a former employer's clients after departure do not constitute a violation of the prohibition on promotional efforts or negotiations for work while employed, under a literal reading of the applicable code provision; the prohibition attaches to actual promotional efforts or negotiations, not to preliminary internal deliberations about future competitive activity, and engineers must not be found in violation solely on the basis of pre-departure internal discussions that did not result in actual client contact or negotiation.
Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition With Literal Boundary
As we understand the facts, however, the four engineers did not undertake the promotional efforts with the former clients of A while in his employ, nor did they engage in negotiations for work while in the employ of A.
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who is still employed must not enter into promotional efforts or negotiations for work on behalf of a competing practice while still in that employment — but that the prohibition applies only to actual promotional efforts and negotiations, not to internal discussions or conceptual planning among prospective co-founders; the principle draws a literal boundary between actionable solicitation (prohibited) and mere ideation or discussion (permissible), requiring that the employed engineer's competitive activities remain dormant until after departure
Pre-Employment PE Exam Attempt History Disclosure Obligation
Duty of an engineering candidate who has previously attempted and failed the PE examination to proactively disclose the number of prior failed attempts to a prospective employer when the employer's advertised position explicitly requires PE licensure within a defined post-hire period, recognizing that prior failures are material to the employer's assessment of whether the candidate can satisfy the licensure condition within the stated timeframe, and that omitting this information — even without an explicit question — constitutes a misleading representation of the candidate's licensure trajectory.
Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
Professional virtue principle requiring engineering candidates to proactively disclose, during pre-employment representations, any material facts about their licensure status or trajectory — including prior examination failures and associated regulatory restrictions — when those facts are directly relevant to a position's stated licensing requirements, even if the employer does not specifically ask, because the candidate's superior knowledge of their own qualification history creates an asymmetric information condition that undermines the employer's ability to make an informed hiring decision
Pre-Engagement Client Confidentiality Instruction Rationale Inquiry Capability
we are troubled by the fact that Engineer B took this project without first exploring the reason why the client wanted Engineer B not to disclose his relationship with the client. We believe this issue should first be clarified.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who receives a client instruction that restricts or modifies the engineer's professional ethics obligations — particularly an instruction to maintain confidentiality about a peer review engagement from the engineer being reviewed — to recognize the obligation to seek clarification of the rationale for that instruction before accepting the engagement and acting on the instruction, in order to assess whether the instruction reflects a legitimate client interest or an improper purpose, and to make an informed judgment about whether the engagement can be accepted consistent with professional ethics.
Pre-Engagement Client Instruction Clarification Obligation
Relational principle requiring an engineer, before accepting a client instruction that restricts or modifies the engineer's normal professional obligations (such as an instruction to maintain confidentiality of the engagement from a third-party engineer), to first explore and clarify the client's reasons for the instruction — so that the engineer can make an informed judgment about whether compliance with the instruction is ethically permissible, whether the instruction reflects a legitimate business purpose, and whether the engagement can be accepted in good conscience
Pre-Engagement Client Instruction Rationale Clarification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who receives a client instruction that restricts or modifies the engineer's professional obligations toward a third-party engineer — such as an instruction not to disclose a review engagement to the engineer whose work is being reviewed — to explore and clarify the client's reasons for that instruction before accepting the engagement and acting upon the instruction, recognizing that understanding the rationale for a potentially ethics-constraining client directive is a prerequisite to informed professional judgment about whether the instruction can be ethically followed, and that proceeding without such clarification constitutes a failure of professional diligence.
Pre-Engagement Jurisdiction Statute Verification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is contacted by an attorney or other party to provide forensic evaluation, expert opinion, or expert testimony services in a specific jurisdiction to proactively verify the applicable licensing statutes and professional conduct rules of that jurisdiction — including any jurisdiction-specific requirements for expert witnesses — before agreeing to the engagement, so that the engineer does not inadvertently commit to services that would constitute unlicensed practice or violate jurisdiction-specific professional conduct rules.
Pre-Selection Process Openness and Responsiveness Permissibility Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that a firm competing in a qualifications-based selection process acts ethically when it openly discloses changes to its proposed team or approach to the procuring authority before final selection, rather than concealing such changes, and when it proactively requests formal authorization for any amendment — recognizing that transparency and disclosure to the authority, rather than unilateral action, is the ethically appropriate response to identified deficiencies during an ongoing selection process
Pre-Selection Qualification Consideration Non-Bypass Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer in a public procurement authority role to refrain from promising or committing to select any engineering firm for a future public contract before conducting a proper evaluation of qualifications, experience, and other relevant factors for all competing firms — recognizing that advance selection commitments made without such evaluation bypass the substantive merit-based assessment that procurement processes are designed to ensure, and are ethically impermissible regardless of the prior relationship between the parties or the perceived merit of the pre-selected firm.
Pre-Standardization Culpability Threshold Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer cannot be found to have committed an ethical violation for failure to apply design methods or parameters that existed in professional technical literature but had not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards at the time of design, unless the reviewing authority first establishes that: (a) the literature had achieved sufficient professional consensus to define the applicable standard of care, (b) a reasonably diligent engineer in the same domain would have encountered and applied the literature, and (c) a demonstrable causal nexus exists between the non-adoption and the resulting harm; prohibiting ethics boards and reviewing authorities from imposing culpability based solely on post-accident determination that application of the pre-standardization literature would have prevented the harm.
Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer practicing in a domain with known hazard sensitivity — such as severe weather structural design — to actively monitor and incorporate newly published technical literature containing improved design methods and parameters, even when that literature has not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards, prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of formal standardization as a complete justification for non-adoption when the literature is reasonably accessible and the engineer generally attempts to maintain professional currency; while simultaneously recognizing that failure to adopt pre-standardization literature does not automatically constitute an ethical violation absent evidence that the literature had achieved sufficient professional consensus to define the applicable standard of care at the time of design.
Pre-Termination Ethical Dilemma Disclosure to Original Client Capability
Engineer A determines that he cannot provide an engineering and safety analysis report favorable to the plaintiff because the results of the report would have to suggest that the plaintiff and not the defendant was at fault in the case.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has reached an adverse professional conclusion during a forensic engagement — and who anticipates or faces termination — to proactively and fully discuss the ethical dilemma with the original retaining client before allowing the engagement to be terminated, including the ability to recognize that silent termination forecloses the client's opportunity to address the conflict, to communicate the nature of the dilemma clearly, and to ensure the original client has the information needed to protect their interests before the engineer's relationship with them ends.
Pre-Termination Ethical Dilemma Disclosure to Original Client Constraint
At a bare minimum, Engineer A should have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who faces an ethical dilemma arising from a potential conflict of interest — including a situation in which the engineer's engagement may be terminated in a manner that would enable or facilitate subsequent retention by an opposing party in the same matter — must fully discuss the ethical dilemma with the original client or retaining attorney before allowing the engagement to be terminated, establishing that the failure to have this discussion before termination constitutes an independent ethical deficiency that compounds the subsequent conflict-of-interest violation, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and the principle that engineers must proactively manage conflict-of-interest situations rather than allowing them to develop through passive acquiescence.
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant prior ethical case precedents to analyze novel professional ethics dilemmas, drawing analogical reasoning from established BER decisions and code interpretations to reach justified conclusions in current cases
[proethica-intermediate] Capability to identify relevant precedents and apply case-based reasoning (McLaren 2003, SIROCCO system)
Precedent-Based Public Safety Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has addressed question surrounding an engineer's duty to report risk to the public health, safety, and welfare on several occasions.
Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents — specifically BER Cases 76-4, 90-5, and 17-3 — to recognize when a current situation triggers a clear duty to report risks to public health, safety, and welfare, drawing analogical reasoning from established Board decisions to correctly classify whether observed conditions create a mandatory reporting obligation that pre-empts client confidentiality, contract termination, or other competing duties.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents — specifically BER Cases 93-3 and 01-1 — to analyze professional ethics obligations arising when an engineer is solicited to critique a competitor's work in a competitive procurement context, drawing analogical reasoning from established Board decisions to correctly classify whether the engineer's conduct constitutes an ethical violation under NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7.
Precedent-Based Report Completeness Standard Application Capability
BER Case 95-5 addressed integrity and completeness in preparing reports.
Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply BER case precedents — specifically BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8 — establishing the professional standard for completeness and integrity in preparing engineering reports and advisory analyses, including understanding that intentional disregard of contrary information, selective use of data, and failure to investigate constitute violations of the objective and truthful reporting standard, and applying this precedent to evaluate whether a given report or advisory communication meets professional completeness requirements.
Precedent-Distinguishable Safety Reporting Obligation State
In the present case, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 76-4, Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing
State in which a professional engineer's safety reporting obligation must be calibrated against a prior ethical precedent case that appears superficially similar but is materially distinguishable on key facts — specifically: the engineer in the current case lacks direct personal involvement in the engineering decision-making process, lacks domain-specific expertise in the product area, is not facing an imminent public hearing at which false or misleading data will be presented, and cannot point to a confirmed regulatory standard violation — such that the precedent's conclusion (mandatory external reporting) does not automatically transfer, and a more graduated, internally-focused response is ethically required.
Precedent-Grounded Safety Reporting Duty Recognition Obligation
The role of the professional engineer in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is fundamental to the practice of engineering and is the overriding charge in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer facing a public health or safety situation to recognize and apply established precedent from prior professional ethics board decisions — including the duty to report safety violations to appropriate public authorities notwithstanding confidentiality agreements, and the duty to pursue resolution through all appropriate channels including supervisory officials and agencies with jurisdiction — as authoritative guidance on the scope of the professional obligation to protect the public, rather than treating each situation as novel.
Precedent-Informed Competence Standard Application Capability
In BER Case 02-5, the Board studied a situation in which a structural engineer, competent in severe weather structural engineering, designed a building that had a structural failure from a severe weather condition.
Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents — including BER Cases 98-8, 94-8, and 02-5 — to analyze and resolve novel professional competence determinations, drawing analogical reasoning from established Board decisions to correctly classify whether an engineer's conduct in accepting or performing out-of-competence work constitutes an ethical violation, and to distinguish cases where competence was adequate from cases where it was not.
Precedent-Informed Environmental Reporting Obligation Recognition Capability
BER Case 76-4 addressed the duty to report likely environmental damage to appropriate regulatory authorities.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional obligations to report environmental or public health risks to regulatory authorities persist after contract termination and client instructions to the contrary — drawing on established BER precedent (BER Case 76-4) — including understanding that a subsequent engineer's uninformed public testimony creates an independent obligation for the originally retained engineer to report their contrary findings to the applicable regulatory authority, regardless of the terminated client relationship.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been discharged from a project — including being instructed not to write a report — to recognize that the discharge and client instruction do not extinguish the professional obligation to report identified public health and safety risks to appropriate regulatory authorities, and to act on that recognition by reporting to the applicable regulatory authority despite the termination of the client relationship and any client instructions to the contrary.
Precedent-Informed Proportional Safety Response Calibration Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer confronting a public safety situation to explicitly calibrate the required response — including the scope of escalation, the number of authorities to notify, and the urgency of action — against the facts and circumstances of prior professional ethics board decisions addressing analogous situations, recognizing that prior cases establish a spectrum of required responses calibrated to the imminence, breadth, and employment context of the identified risk, and that neither the minimum nor the maximum response from prior cases is automatically applicable to the present situation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer confronting a public health, safety, or welfare situation to recognize and apply the accumulated body of professional ethics precedent — including prior Board of Ethical Review decisions addressing analogous situations such as failing bridge structures reopened under public pressure, post-construction modifications creating structural failure risk, adjacent property safety violations, and road repair dangers — as authoritative guidance on the scope and nature of the professional obligation to protect the public, and to calibrate the required affirmative actions, reporting targets, and honesty obligations accordingly, rather than treating the current situation as novel or unprecedented.
Precedent-Triangulated Construction Safety Design Ethics Reasoning Capability
BER Case 97-13 introduces Engineer A, a civil engineer, who serves as a subconsultant to perform bridge inspection services... the key finding from Case 97-13 is that the public welfare was best served by Engineer A exercising restraint in reporting.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to identify, retrieve, and triangulate among multiple BER precedent cases with partially overlapping fact patterns involving construction safety, design standard of care, and public welfare obligations — specifically distinguishing which precedent governs when a design engineer has followed accepted practice but a construction accident occurs, identifying the critical factual distinctions between cases requiring restraint in reporting (BER 97-13), cases requiring proactive reporting (BER 21-2), and cases establishing that standard-of-care compliance is ethically sufficient (BER 02-5) — and applying the most apposite precedent while acknowledging nuanced differences.
Precedent Case Reconciliation Acknowledgment and Principled Distinction Obligation
Duty of a professional ethics review body — and of engineers reasoning from prior ethics decisions — to explicitly acknowledge when prior precedent cases are difficult to reconcile despite being based on identical code language, to articulate the principled distinctions that justify different outcomes, and to apply those distinctions consistently in subsequent cases, recognizing that unexplained inconsistency in ethics adjudication undermines the integrity and predictability of the professional ethics framework and the ability of engineers to conform their conduct to established standards.
Precedent Factual Distinguishability Non-Automatic Application Constraint
Ethical and analytical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from mechanically applying a prior BER case precedent to a current situation without first conducting a rigorous factual comparison — establishing that where the prior precedent involved a scheduled public hearing, personal involvement in the engineering decision, domain expertise, and confirmed findings, while the current situation involves none of those triggering factors, the precedent's escalation mandate does not automatically apply, and the engineer must calibrate obligations to the actual facts rather than the precedent's conclusion.
Precedent Reconciliation Difficulty Acknowledged State
State in which a professional ethics board explicitly acknowledges that two or more of its prior precedent decisions are difficult to reconcile with each other, despite being based on substantially identical code language, creating interpretive uncertainty about which precedent governs the current case and requiring the board to articulate a principled basis for its current determination.
Precedent Reconciliation Obligation in Ethics Board Reasoning
Meta-ethical principle of professional ethics adjudication establishing that when a board or ethics body has issued prior decisions that are difficult to reconcile with one another — particularly where the same or similar code language was applied to reach different outcomes — the board has an obligation to acknowledge the tension explicitly, explain the material factual distinctions that justify the different outcomes, and articulate a coherent framework for future application, rather than silently applying one precedent while ignoring the other
Precedent Triangulation for Personal Disclosure Obligation Calibration Capability
Previous Board of Ethical Review cases provide some background for considering this case.
Capability of a professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to synthesize multiple BER precedents — including cases involving pending complaints (BER 97-11), personal misconduct (BER 75-5), and non-engineering license revocation (BER 03-6) — to correctly calibrate the disclosure obligations applicable to a novel personal disclosure situation, identifying the key distinctions between precedents (allegation vs. adjudication; conduct vs. condition; engineering vs. non-engineering license) and applying those distinctions to reach a principled conclusion about the present case.
Predecessor Engineer Seal Retained on Substantially Altered Plans State
State in which a successor engineer has made substantial design changes to plans bearing a predecessor engineer's signature and seal, without removing or superseding that seal, without noting the changes made, and without signing the altered sheets — resulting in documents that falsely attribute the revised design to the predecessor engineer and expose the predecessor to professional liability for work they did not perform or approve.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer's signed and sealed reports have been covertly altered by a non-engineer supervisor or principal after the engineer refused to make the requested changes — such that the reports submitted to the client no longer reflect the engineer's professional findings, yet bear the engineer's seal and signature, creating a fraudulent misrepresentation of the engineer's professional conclusions and exposing third parties (property owners) to direct harm from decisions made on the basis of the falsified documents.
Predictive Competitor Incapacity Disparagement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer competing for clients to recognize that making predictive representations about a competitor firm's future inability to perform — particularly when those predictions are based on anticipated staff departures or other speculative future conditions — constitutes impermissible disparagement of a competitor's professional reputation, and to refrain from such predictive disparagement even when the underlying factual premise (e.g., a staff departure) may have some basis in fact.
Preferred AE Firm with Incumbent Advantage
A private architectural-engineering firm that has established a pattern of successful contract awards with a public municipal client during a period when a senior municipal engineer maintained contracting authority, and which subsequently hires that engineer upon their departure from public service while continuing to pursue contracts with the same municipality, creating stakeholder interests implicated in revolving-door ethical concerns.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A private engineering firm that has been awarded public engineering contracts, including contracts awarded outside of required competitive procurement processes, creating a stakeholder interest in the continuation of existing contracting arrangements.
City D has awarded consultant contracts exclusively to two firms: Firm X and Firm Z
A private engineering firm that has been awarded public engineering contracts, including contracts awarded outside of required competitive procurement processes, creating a stakeholder interest in the continuation of existing contracting arrangements.
Preliminary Design Insider Advantage Competitive Fairness Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who gained personal and intimate knowledge of a project through preliminary design work — including technical project parameters and personal acquaintance with the project owner's representatives — to assess whether that insider knowledge creates distinct competitive advantages over other firms, to evaluate whether those advantages are being used fairly or unfairly in a subsequent competitive procurement, and to structure competitive engagement so that the advantages of insider knowledge are not converted into unfair competitive instruments.
Preliminary Design Insider Competing Engineer
the personal and intimate knowledge of the project which the employees gained from their work on the preliminary design of the project
A licensed professional engineering role in which engineers who performed preliminary design work on a project — gaining intimate technical knowledge of the project and personal acquaintance with the owner's representatives — subsequently depart their employer and use that insider knowledge and those relationships to compete for and secure the full design contract, generating obligations to avoid unfair competitive advantage through misrepresentation, information withholding from competitors, or artificially low fee proposals, and to protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a material risk to public welfare based on preliminary professional judgment — rather than completed quantitative analysis — to disclose that risk to the client and relevant parties while clearly qualifying the basis and limitations of the judgment, so that recipients understand the preliminary nature of the assessment and can make informed decisions about whether to authorize further analysis, without the engineer either suppressing the preliminary finding or overstating its certainty.
Preliminary Professional Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint
Constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer's assessment of a material risk to public welfare is based on preliminary professional judgment — grounded in conference procedures or analogous technical guidance rather than completed specialized analysis — establishing that the engineer must disclose the risk but must simultaneously qualify that disclosure as preliminary and unconfirmed, prohibiting both silence about the identified risk and overstatement of the risk's certainty, and requiring that the engineer communicate the basis and limitations of the preliminary judgment alongside the risk disclosure.
Preliminary Professional Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to disclose a material risk to public welfare that is based on preliminary professional judgment — rather than confirmed quantitative analysis — in a manner that accurately qualifies the preliminary nature of the finding, communicates the basis and confidence level of the judgment, identifies the additional analysis needed to confirm or refute the risk, and ensures that the disclosure is neither overstated nor understated, consistent with professional obligations to be objective and truthful while avoiding misrepresentation of uncertain findings.
Preliminary Structural Assessment Disclosure With Epistemic Qualification Constraint
Engineer A performs a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, concludes that there were recent structural changes made to the building that may have caused the roof to sag and the walls to lean outward due to insufficient lateral restraint.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has conducted only a preliminary — rather than comprehensive — structural investigation must disclose the identified safety risk to the client and relevant authorities while explicitly qualifying the disclosure as based on preliminary professional judgment, prohibiting both silence about the observed risk and overstatement of the findings as definitive conclusions, and establishing that the preliminary nature of the assessment does not excuse non-disclosure but does require epistemic qualification to avoid misleading recipients about the certainty of the findings.
Preliminary Structural Instability Assessment Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to conduct a preliminary field assessment of structural instability — including identifying signs of roof sagging, outward wall lean, insufficient lateral restraint, and other indicators of structural compromise — sufficient to form a professional judgment about collapse risk and the need for immediate protective action, without requiring a full structural engineering investigation.
Premature External Authority Escalation Reputation Harm Prohibition Constraint
Finally, for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from reporting a speculative, unconfirmed safety observation directly to a public authority before determining whether the responsible public agency has taken or will take corrective action — establishing that such premature external escalation constitutes an overreaction that risks jeopardizing the professional reputations of the client and the public agency without factual basis, and that the engineer's obligation to protect public safety does not authorize bypassing the graduated escalation process when the safety concern is speculative, the engineer lacks domain expertise, and the responsible public agency has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Premature External Authority Reporting Overreaction Recognition Capability
for Engineer A to have reported this information to a public authority under the circumstances as outlined in the facts, before determining whether corrective action is taken, would have been an overreaction and could easily have risked jeopardizing the professional reputations of his client and the public agency.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that reporting a speculative, out-of-scope safety observation directly to a public authority — before determining whether the client chain has taken corrective action — constitutes an overreaction that could jeopardize the professional reputations of the client and the public agency without adequate technical basis, and to correctly sequence the professional response by first reporting through the client chain and monitoring for corrective action before considering external escalation.
Premature External Escalation Reputational Harm Avoidance Principle
Professional principle establishing that an engineer who has identified a speculative or unconfirmed safety concern and has reported it through appropriate internal channels must refrain from escalating directly to external public authorities before determining whether the internal chain has taken or will take corrective action — because premature external escalation based on unverified speculation risks unjustifiably damaging the professional reputations of the client and prime consultant, constitutes an overreaction disproportionate to the epistemic basis of the concern, and undermines the trust relationships essential to effective professional collaboration.
Premature External Reporting Threat Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety concern in an employer's product or process to refrain from threatening external regulatory reporting to the employer as a coercive tactic before exhausting internal escalation channels — recognizing that issuing such a threat prematurely, before internal mechanisms have been genuinely explored, is ethically impermissible even when the underlying safety concern is legitimate, because it bypasses the collaborative internal resolution process that the ethics code requires as a prerequisite to external action.
Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing at which he believed he had an obligation to correctly report information
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, acting in good faith but without direct involvement in the engineering decision-making process and without specialized expertise in the technical area, identifies a potential public safety risk and threatens to report the matter to governmental authorities before exhausting available internal escalation mechanisms within the organization, bearing an obligation to first pursue internal remedies, gather sufficient information, and exercise balanced professional judgment before resorting to external reporting.
Premature Operational Change with Deferred Safety Infrastructure State
State in which a governing authority has decided to implement a major operational change (e.g., switching a water supply source) simultaneously with — rather than after completion of — the safety infrastructure improvements that professional engineers have identified as prerequisites for safe operation, creating an active period during which the public is exposed to foreseeable health risks (e.g., lead leaching above drinking water standards) that the deferred improvements were designed to prevent.
Present-vs-Precedent Factual Distinction Escalation Scope Calibration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to systematically compare the facts of a present case against a controlling BER precedent case — identifying material distinguishing factors such as imminence of danger, breadth of affected population, and the engineer's specific institutional responsibility — and to correctly calibrate the required scope and intensity of safety escalation based on those distinctions, recognizing that a less imminent and less widespread risk warrants a proportionate graduated response rather than the full-bore multi-authority campaign required by the precedent case.
Pressure-Yielding Abrogation of Fundamental Engineering Responsibility Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who believes great dangers to public health and safety are present to refrain from bowing to public pressure or employment situations that would cause the engineer to abandon or subordinate that professional safety determination, recognizing that yielding a fundamental safety judgment to such pressures constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility and obligation under the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Pressure Resistance in Sealed Document Modification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to resist organizational, managerial, time, financial, and other pressures that would cause the engineer to modify, alter, or release sealed engineering documents in a manner inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics — including resisting pressure to make changes to another engineer's sealed work without that engineer's knowledge and consent, and resisting pressure to alter one's own sealed findings without factual or technical basis — recognizing that the frequent pressures engineers experience due to time, financial, and other constraints do not justify ethically impermissible modifications to sealed documents.
Pretext-Aware Competitive Critique Self-Restraint Constraint
Ethical constraint arising specifically when a licensed professional engineer who has been informally solicited to critique a competitor's work is subjectively aware — at the time of responding — that providing critical answers would function as a pretext for competitive advantage, establishing that this self-awareness of pretextual purpose independently and additionally constrains the engineer from proceeding with substantive critique beyond the general prohibition on competitor disparagement, and prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of explicit deceptive intent as sufficient to render the critique ethically permissible when the pretextual competitive purpose is consciously recognized.
Previously Reserved Ethical Question Definitively Resolved State
We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice
State in which a professional ethics body has, in prior cases, explicitly reserved judgment on a specific ethical question — declining to rule on it because the facts of those cases did not require resolution — and is now confronted with a case that directly raises the previously reserved question, requiring a definitive ruling. This state is characterized by the existence of explicit prior reservations in the ethics body's own precedents, the arrival of a case that cannot be decided without resolving the reserved question, and the obligation to provide clear doctrinal guidance rather than again deferring the issue.
Previously Reserved Ethics Jurisdiction Question Definitive Resolution Non-Reopening Constraint
The case before us directly raises the issue previously reserved in the earlier cases.
Procedural constraint establishing that when a professional ethics reviewing body has explicitly reserved a specific jurisdictional or doctrinal question in prior cases — declining to resolve it — and subsequently resolves that question definitively in a later case, the prior reservation of judgment cannot be invoked to resist or reopen the now-settled standard in future cases presenting the same question, prohibiting the treatment of a previously reserved question as perpetually open once the ethics body has issued a definitive ruling, and establishing that the definitive resolution is binding precedent for all future cases presenting the same jurisdictional question.
Previously Reserved Ethics Question Definitive Resolution Binding Precedent Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that when a professional ethics body has previously reserved judgment on a specific ethical question — explicitly declining to resolve it in prior cases — and subsequently resolves that question definitively in a later case, the definitive resolution is binding on all future cases presenting the same question, and the prior reservation of judgment cannot be invoked to resist application of the now-settled standard — prohibiting the treatment of a previously reserved question as perpetually open once the ethics body has issued a definitive ruling, as established by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review's resolution in BER Case 75-5 of the question previously reserved in BER Cases 62-14 and 68-7.
Prime Consultant Bridge Overhaul Engineer
VWX Architects and Engineers retained the services of Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its subconsultant
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineering firm serves as the prime consultant retained by a public agency to perform a major scheduled overhaul of public infrastructure (e.g., a bridge), bearing overall project responsibility, authority to direct sub-consultants, and obligations to receive and act upon safety-relevant information reported by sub-consultants — including out-of-scope observations — and to ensure appropriate corrective action is taken by the public agency within a reasonable period.
Prime Consultant Contextual Superiority Deference Principle
the prime consultant, which has overall responsibility for the project, is in a far better position than Engineer A to understand the interrelationships between various elements of the projects, including the history of previous work performed on the bridge, prior consultants, contractors, etc., in order to make an informed evaluation
Relational principle establishing that in a multi-party engineering project where a sub-consultant has identified an incidental safety observation outside their contracted scope, the sub-consultant's initial ethical obligation is to report the observation verbally to the prime consultant — who bears overall project responsibility and possesses superior contextual knowledge of the project's history, prior work, interrelationships, and stakeholder dynamics — and to defer to the prime consultant's informed evaluation before independently escalating to external authorities, recognizing that the prime consultant is better positioned to assess the significance of the observation within the full project context.
Prime Consultant Interrelationship Assessment Deference Obligation
Clearly the prime consultant, who has overall responsibility for the project, was in a far better position than Engineer A to understand the interrelationships between various elements of the projects, including the history of previous work performed on the bridge, prior consultants, contractors, etc., in order to make an informed evaluation.
Duty of a sub-consultant licensed professional engineer who has made an out-of-scope observation to recognize and defer to the prime consultant's superior position to assess the interrelationships between various project elements — including the history of previous work, prior consultants, and contractors — when determining the appropriate response to the observation, while still fulfilling the sub-consultant's own obligation to communicate the observation verbally through the client chain and preserve it in field notes.
Prime Consultant Superior Contextual Knowledge Escalation Deference Constraint
Clearly the prime consultant, which has overall responsibility for the project, is in a far better position than Engineer A to understand the interrelationships between various elements of the projects, including the history of previous work performed on the bridge, prior consultants, contractors, etc., in order to make an informed evaluation.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving as a subconsultant who has made a speculative, out-of-scope safety observation must defer initial escalation evaluation to the prime consultant — who holds overall project responsibility and superior contextual knowledge of the interrelationships between project elements, prior work history, prior consultants, and prior contractors — prohibiting the subconsultant from bypassing the prime consultant to escalate directly to external authorities when the prime consultant is in a materially better position to evaluate whether the speculative observation warrants further investigation or action, and establishing that this deference obligation is conditioned on the prime consultant's superior contextual knowledge and overall project responsibility rather than on any general hierarchy of authority.
Prime Consultant Superior Contextual Knowledge State
State in which a subconsultant engineer has identified a potential safety concern but the prime consultant — who holds overall project responsibility and possesses superior contextual knowledge of the project's history, prior work, and interrelationships among project elements — is in a materially better position to evaluate the concern and determine appropriate action, such that the subconsultant's ethical obligation is to report to the prime consultant rather than to independently escalate to public authorities, at least as a first step.
Prime Consultant Superior Position Deference in Multi-Party Project Capability
Capability of a sub-consultant licensed professional engineer who has made an out-of-scope observation to recognize that the prime consultant — who has overall responsibility for the project and superior knowledge of project history, prior consultants, contractors, and interrelationships among project elements — is in a far better position to make an informed evaluation of the observation's significance, and to defer to the prime consultant's judgment about how to handle the observation rather than independently escalating to public authorities, while still fulfilling the obligation to report the observation through the client chain.
Prime Contractor Specialist-Retention Provision Substantive-Contribution Contextual Reading Capability
The second clause of Section 6 recognizes the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interest of the project.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators — to read the code provision permitting a prime professional to retain experts and specialists (Section 6, second clause) in the full context of the complete Section 6 competence requirement, correctly concluding that the specialist-retention provision presupposes that the prime professional is performing substantial services on the project, and does not authorize a firm to accept a prime contract when its only substantive service would be to arrange for the specialist's services; including the ability to distinguish the permissible scenario (prime performs substantial work and retains specialist for additional expertise) from the impermissible scenario (prime contributes nothing substantive and merely brokers the specialist).
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve BER Case 71-2 and Code Section 6 — which recognize the propriety and value of a prime professional retaining experts and specialists in the interest of the project — and correctly apply the principle that the ethical obligation to engage specialists when the client's interests are best served is identical whether the legal entity is a single prime firm or a joint venture in which all firms are jointly responsible, thereby recognizing that joint venture partners bear the same specialist engagement duties as a prime firm.
Prime Engineer Substantiality Threshold Determination State
Section 6 contemplates that a prime professional engineer will be expected to retain or recommend the retention of experts and specialists in situations in which the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services of a project
State in which the ethical permissibility of a prime engineering firm's engagement depends on whether the firm will contribute a 'substantial' portion of the project work through its own capabilities — as opposed to serving merely as a broker or administrative intermediary while delegating all technical work to a subconsultant. The state requires evaluation of what constitutes substantiality in context, including factors such as geographic proximity, local conditions familiarity, administrative value, and the proportion of technical versus coordination services provided.
Prime Professional Responsibility Standard
The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work
Professional norms governing the ethical obligations of a firm or engineer designated as the prime professional in a contract, including the requirement that the prime make a substantial and genuine contribution to the work rather than serving as a nominal pass-through for a subcontractor who performs all substantive services.
Prime Professional Specialist-Retention Clause Contextual Substantiality Reading Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that the specialist-retention clause of NSPE Code Section 6 (former) — which recognizes the propriety of a prime professional retaining experts and specialists in the interest of the project — be read in the context of the full Section 6 competence requirement, establishing that the specialist-retention provision presupposes that the prime professional engineer is performing substantial services on the project and cannot be invoked to justify a prime role in which the firm's only substantive service is to arrange for the specialist's services; prohibiting firms from using the specialist-retention clause as a standalone authorization to serve as a nominal broker-prime while contributing nothing of technical substance, and establishing that the clause is a supplement to, not a substitute for, the prime's own substantive technical contribution.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and interpretive constraint establishing that NSPE Code Section II.2.c — which permits a professional engineer to retain or recommend retention of specialists and experts — cannot be invoked as an independent ethical pathway to justify a licensed engineer's acceptance of a public employment position whose core duties fall entirely outside the engineer's competence, because Section II.2.c must be read in the context of the preceding competence provisions (II.2.a and II.2.b) and because the structural flexibility of consulting practice that makes specialist retention a viable competence remedy is absent in fixed public employment roles, prohibiting engineers from treating the specialist-retention provision as a blanket authorization to accept out-of-competence employment positions on the assumption that qualified subordinates will perform the substantive work.
Prime Substantiality Geographic and Local Factor Calibration Constraint
In defining the word 'substantial,' consideration should be given to benefits to the client due to geographic locations, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors.
Ethical constraint establishing that when assessing whether a prime professional engineering firm's proposed contribution to a project meets the substantiality threshold required under NSPE Code Section 6 (former), the definition of 'substantial' must be calibrated to include benefits to the client arising from the firm's geographic location, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors specific to the project context — establishing that geographic proximity, local regulatory knowledge, community relationships, and site-specific familiarity can constitute substantive contributions that count toward the substantiality threshold, and that such factors must be affirmatively considered before concluding that a firm's contribution is merely nominal or brokerage-only.
Printed Marketing Material Proactive Accuracy Assurance Obligation
we do believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
Duty of engineering firms that use printed promotional materials as part of their marketing efforts to take reasonable proactive steps — beyond reactive correction — to ensure that such written matter is as accurate and up-to-date as possible at the time of distribution. This obligation requires firms to anticipate foreseeable inaccuracies (such as personnel departures) and to implement processes for timely review and updating of printed materials, rather than waiting until a misunderstanding has already occurred. The obligation is grounded in the recognition that printed materials have a longer distribution lifecycle than electronic communications and therefore carry heightened risk of becoming outdated.
Prior-Connected-Work Engineer Public Route Critique Self-Interest Non-Weaponization Obligation
A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the by-pass would connect
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose firm has performed prior engineering work on a portion of a public infrastructure system to refrain from using that prior-work knowledge and credibility as a vehicle to publicly injure the professional reputation of government engineers who prepared competing route proposals and cost estimates, when the engineer's critique is motivated — or appears motivated — by the financial self-interest of potentially obtaining future work on the connected infrastructure, recognizing that while honest technical disagreement is permissible, critique tinged with self-interest that injures a peer's professional reputation crosses the ethical boundary.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in competitive solicitation to refrain from offering adverse comments on the capability or qualifications of a competing engineer or firm to prospective clients when such comments are motivated by — or tinged with — personal self-interest in securing the engagement, recognizing that while engineers are not absolutely foreclosed from offering objective adverse comments on another engineer's capacity in proper circumstances, any such adverse comment that is motivated by the intent to injure the competitor's prospects for personal benefit crosses the ethical boundary established by the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation, prospects, or practice — regardless of whether the comments are technically accurate.
Prior-Connected-Work Public Route Critique Self-Interest Non-Weaponization Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer whose firm has performed prior engineering work on a portion of a public infrastructure system to recognize, when publicly criticizing the official route proposal for a connected portion of that system, that the prior work relationship creates a potential financial interest in the outcome — specifically that a different route selection could generate additional work for the firm — and to ensure that public criticism of the official proposal and advocacy for an alternative route reflects independent professional judgment rather than self-interested positioning, and to refrain from weaponizing professional credentials and prior work experience to advance financially motivated route preferences under the guise of objective engineering analysis.
Prior-Employer Project Attribution Completeness Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer and their employing firm, when listing projects completed under prior employment in qualification proposals or marketing materials, include attribution to the prior employer and the engineer's specific role consistently throughout all project descriptions — not merely in a prefatory notice at the beginning of an individual qualification section — prohibiting presentation formats that create a misleading impression of unconditional firm ownership of prior-employer work through selective or incomplete attribution placement, as established by NSPE Code Section II.5.a and state licensing board rules prohibiting misrepresentation of facts in solicitation materials.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that engineers provide appropriate attribution and citation when AI tools substantially contribute to professional work product, arising from the professional obligation to give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and prohibiting submission of AI-generated content without acknowledgment of the AI's substantive role in shaping the work product.
Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Calibration Capability
Engineer B's projects completed while in previous employment did not involve proprietary design concepts, and the capabilities of project team members on those projects were within Engineer B's areas of expertise
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who changes firms to correctly calibrate the permissible scope of credit claimed for projects completed under a prior employer — including distinguishing between credit that may be claimed for personal professional experience versus credit that implies firm-level accomplishment, understanding the conditions under which unconditional credit is impermissible, and ensuring that claimed credit accurately reflects the engineer's specific role and involvement rather than the prior firm's organizational achievement.
Prior-Employer Project Credit Scope Limitation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who changes firms to limit claims of credit for projects completed under prior employment to the engineer's specific personal contributions, roles, and areas of expertise on those projects — refraining from claiming unconditional or undifferentiated credit for the full project as if it were the engineer's independent work — and to ensure that any such claims are accompanied by clear disclosure of the prior employer's role and the engineer's specific involvement, consistent with the principle of intellectual integrity in authorship.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who changes firms includes projects completed under a prior employer in marketing proposals or qualification statements, bearing obligations to clearly and specifically attribute each listed project to the prior firm by name, accurately describe their individual role on each project, and comply with the specific attribution requirements of each state licensing jurisdiction in which the proposal is submitted, so as to avoid misrepresentation of qualifications or past accomplishments.
Prior-Work-Credentialed Public Route Alternative Proposing Engineer
A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the by-pass would connect, issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press, discussing the alternative routes.
A licensed professional engineering role in which a consulting firm principal, whose firm has prior relevant work on a connected infrastructure project, publicly proposes an alternative route to one favored by a state highway department, disputes official cost estimates, and advocates for the alternative through published letters, bearing obligations of technical accuracy, honest professional judgment, disclosure of prior involvement, and public welfare, while navigating potential conflicts between public advocacy and prior client relationships.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer — typically a principal of a consulting firm with relevant domain experience — publicly criticizes proposed public infrastructure route decisions made by a government agency, proposes alternative solutions, and engages in open public debate through published letters or statements, bearing obligations of technical accuracy, honest professional judgment, and public welfare even when acting outside a formal client engagement.
Prior-Work Connection Public Advocacy Conflict Disclosure Constraint
A principal of a consulting engineering firm, which had performed the engineering work on a portion of the interstate highway to which the by-pass would connect, issued a public letter
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who publicly advocates for or against a public infrastructure decision — including proposing an alternative route or criticizing government agency cost estimates — must disclose any prior engineering work performed by the engineer's firm on a directly connected portion of the same infrastructure system, prohibiting the engineer from presenting public advocacy as purely independent civic opinion when a prior financial relationship with the connected project exists, and establishing that the disclosure obligation applies even when the prior work does not create an actual conflict of interest, because the appearance of self-interest arising from the prior connection is material information that the public and decision-makers are entitled to evaluate.
Prior-Work Financial Interest Disclosure in Public Infrastructure Advocacy
Professional principle requiring engineers who publicly advocate for or against specific public infrastructure routing, design, or policy decisions — through open letters, press statements, or public testimony — to disclose any prior or prospective financial interest their firm holds in the outcome, including prior work on connected infrastructure segments that could position the firm for future contract awards, so that the public and decision-makers can assess the objectivity of the engineer's advocacy.
Prior-Work Financial Interest Public Advocacy Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who publicly advocates — through open letters, press statements, or other public communications — for or against a specific public infrastructure routing or design decision, to recognize that prior engineering work performed by the engineer's firm on a connected or related portion of the same infrastructure creates a financial interest that must be affirmatively disclosed in the public communication, so that readers, public officials, and decision-makers can appropriately assess the objectivity and independence of the advocacy and weigh the engineer's professional judgment accordingly.
Prior-Work Financial Interest Public Advocacy Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly advocates for or against a specific public infrastructure routing or design option — through open letters, press statements, or public testimony — to disclose that the engineer's firm has performed prior engineering work on a connected or related portion of the same infrastructure system, when that prior work creates a financial interest or competitive advantage in the outcome of the routing decision, so that the public, government agencies, and other stakeholders can appropriately weigh the engineer's advocacy in light of the potential self-interest.
Prior BER Case Business-Decision Safety-Hazard Factual Distinction Application Capability
In Case 61-10, we held that engineers assigned to the redesign of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but had an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve a prior BER case holding that engineers should not question a company's legitimate business decision (such as redesigning a product to lower quality) but must point out safety hazards in the new design — and to correctly distinguish that prior holding from a current case where the issue is not merely a business decision about product quality but a genuine public health and safety endangerment, recognizing that the prior case's limiting condition (no public health or safety risk) is absent in the current case and therefore the prior holding does not govern the engineer's obligation to refuse participation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to retrieve two BER precedent cases with contrasting fact patterns — one involving a genuine public health or safety concern (Case 65-12: unsafe product) and one involving a purely business/commercial dispute without safety implications (Case 61-10: commercial product redesign) — correctly identify the critical factual distinction between them (presence or absence of public health or safety endangerment), and apply that distinction to determine whether the present case falls within the mandatory ethical duty zone or the personal conscience zone, recognizing that the safety/non-safety boundary is the operative normative threshold.
Prior BER Consulting-Context Precedent Employment-Context Inapplicability Discrimination Capability
While the facts of the two aforementioned cases are quite dissimilar with the instant case, those two cases do relate to the same Code provisions, and do have some bearing upon our understanding of those provisions.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics adjudicators to recognize that BER precedent cases decided in the consulting-practice context — where firms have organizational flexibility to structure their workforce, engage subconsultants, and form joint ventures — do not automatically govern ethical analysis in the employment context, where such structural flexibility is unavailable; including the ability to identify the consulting-context factual basis of prior precedents (e.g., BER Cases 71-2 and 78-5), articulate the critical distinction between consulting and employment contexts, acknowledge that prior precedents 'have some bearing' without being controlling, and apply the correct context-sensitive normative framework to the employment scenario.
Prior Case Precedent Contextual Transposition Obligation
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an ethics board applies prior case precedents to a factually distinct current case, it must explicitly identify the relevant similarities and differences between the precedent context and the current context, assess whether the underlying code provisions operate differently across those contexts, and calibrate the precedent's authority accordingly — rather than mechanically applying precedent conclusions without accounting for contextual differences that may alter the ethical analysis. The principle requires both transparency about the limits of precedent applicability and intellectual honesty about when prior decisions provide only partial guidance.
the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C
A former or concurrent client stakeholder role borne by a party who has filed a formal ethics complaint with a state board of professional engineers against an engineer who previously rendered services to them, alleging professional incompetence or misconduct. This role triggers regulatory proceedings and creates disclosure obligations for the complained-against engineer toward other current clients.
Prior Client Relationship Leveraged in Post-Departure Competition State
In some instances one or more of the four engineers had been involved with the former clients of Engineer A while in his employ
State in which one or more departing engineers, having formed a competing firm, are soliciting former clients with whom they had direct personal professional relationships during their prior employment — leveraging those personal relationships as a competitive advantage. This state raises ethical questions about whether the personal relationship was developed in the course of employment (and thus belongs to the employer) or is a legitimate personal professional connection that the engineer may carry into independent practice, and whether using such relationships to solicit business constitutes improper use of employer-developed goodwill.
Prior Consulting-Context Precedent Employment-Context Inapplicability Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators — to recognize that prior ethics board decisions interpreting NSPE Code provisions in the context of consulting practice do not automatically govern the application of those same provisions in the context of a statutory employment relationship, because the structural differences between consulting practice (dynamic workforce flexibility, subconsultant engagement, joint ventures) and statutory public employment (fixed position, non-delegable duties, personal oversight obligation) may produce different ethical outcomes under the same Code language; and therefore to conduct an independent analysis of the Code provisions as applied to the employment context rather than mechanically transposing consulting-practice precedents.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a professional ethics review body — and of engineers reasoning from prior ethics decisions — to explicitly acknowledge when prior precedent cases are difficult to reconcile despite being based on identical code language, to articulate the principled distinctions that justify different outcomes, and to apply those distinctions consistently in subsequent cases, recognizing that unexplained inconsistency in ethics adjudication undermines the integrity and predictability of the professional ethics framework and the ability of engineers to conform their conduct to established standards.
Prior Contractor Relationship Procurement Appearance of Favoritism Constraint
a local contractor, Contractor B, with whom Engineer A has worked and who may potentially also bid on the water treatment facility construction contract following the design phase
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer has a prior working relationship with a contractor who may bid on a public construction contract that the engineer is designing — establishing that this prior relationship creates a potential conflict of interest or appearance of favoritism that constrains the engineer from engaging in any informal bilateral consultation, selective information sharing, or preferential access arrangement with that contractor during the design phase, and requiring that the engineer disclose the prior relationship to the client and ensure that all design-phase contractor interactions are conducted through formally equitable, publicly accessible mechanisms that eliminate the appearance of preferential treatment.
Prior Design Engineer with Post-Sale Safety Awareness
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who originally designed a structure subsequently learns, after selling or transferring the property, that the structure has been modified by new owners in ways that may create structural collapse risk, bearing obligations to notify the new owner in writing and to contact the relevant municipal authority with jurisdiction, even absent any ongoing contractual relationship with the property or its current owners.
Prior Design Error Peer Review Facilitation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose prior work has been found to contain significant design errors must not obstruct, refuse, or withhold cooperation from a legitimately commissioned peer review of subsequent related work — particularly work that is a mirror image or continuation of the defective prior work — establishing that the existence of confirmed prior errors creates a heightened professional accountability obligation that constrains the engineer's ability to assert consent-based objections to peer review of successor work.
Prior Employment Approval Conflict State
State in which a public official who holds authority to approve or reject engineering plans submitted by a private firm was formerly a principal or senior employee of that same firm, creating an appearance of impropriety and a potential conflict of interest in the exercise of that approval authority, regardless of whether actual bias influenced the decision.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a former public official or senior employee, who held procurement or contract authority over private firms, accepts employment with one of those firms shortly after leaving public service, creating an appearance of impropriety and potential conflict between prior public duties and current private interests, even in the absence of a formal revolving-door contractual prohibition.
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public official or reviewing engineer who previously held a principal or ownership role at a private firm must recuse themselves from administrative review, approval, or oversight of work submitted by that former firm, prohibiting the exercise of official authority over former employers regardless of the elapsed time since departure, when the prior relationship creates an appearance of compromised impartiality that cannot be adequately mitigated.
Prior Engineer Connection Terminated Enabling Successor Review State
it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
State in which a reviewing engineer's engagement to assess a prior engineer's work is ethically unencumbered by professional courtesy notification requirements because the original engineer's connection with the project was formally terminated some years earlier — removing the condition that would otherwise require the reviewing engineer to notify the predecessor before conducting a review. The termination of the prior connection eliminates the rationale for 12(a)-type notification obligations, since the original engineer no longer has an active stake in the project that would be prejudiced by an undisclosed review.
Prior Favorable Relationship Procurement Recusal or Disclosure Constraint
Firm B had also performed well on several other engineering design projects for the city
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public agency engineer who serves as a point of contact or evaluator in a competitive procurement process and who has a documented prior favorable professional relationship with one of the competing firms must either recuse from evaluation decisions affecting that firm or make full disclosure of the relationship to procurement supervisors — prohibiting the engineer from exercising unilateral discretion over procedural decisions (such as whether to accept a late submission) that could benefit the firm with which the prior relationship exists, and establishing that the structural conflict of interest created by the prior relationship requires institutional management rather than individual self-assessment.
Prior Favorable Relationship with Competing Firm State
State in which a public agency engineer serving on a procurement evaluation team has a documented history of positive professional experience with one of the competing firms — including prior successful project delivery — creating a structural risk that the engineer's evaluation of that firm's submission, or procedural decisions affecting that firm's eligibility, may be consciously or unconsciously influenced by that prior relationship, thereby compromising the objectivity and impartiality required in a QBS or competitive selection process.
Prior Government Access Disclosure to Private Employer Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer transitioning from a government agency role to private employment to proactively disclose to the prospective or new private employer the nature, scope, and competitive implications of confidential and proprietary information accessed during government service — including identifying which companies' information was accessed, the competitive relevance of that information to the new employer's business, and the resulting constraints on the engineer's permissible activities — so that the new employer can make an informed hiring decision and implement appropriate safeguards.
Prior Performance Non-Consideration in Procurement Compliance Determinations
Domain-specific principle prohibiting public agency engineers administering competitive procurement processes from allowing a competing firm's prior satisfactory performance on other contracts to influence determinations of whether that firm's current submittal complies with published procurement requirements — including deadline and location requirements — because procurement compliance determinations must be made on the basis of the current submittal's conformity with published requirements, not on the basis of the firm's relationship history with the agency
Prior Performance Non-Consideration in QBS Compliance Determination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer administering a public QBS procurement process to refrain from allowing a competing firm's prior satisfactory performance on other contracts to influence the determination of whether that firm's current submittal complies with published procurement requirements — including deadline and location requirements — recognizing that prior performance is irrelevant to the procedural compliance determination and that allowing it to influence the determination undermines equal treatment of all competing firms.
Prior Project Connection Advocacy Self-Interest Ambiguity State
State in which a consulting engineer who has previously performed engineering work on a project directly connected to a proposed new infrastructure decision publicly advocates for a specific alternative to the government's preferred option — where the engineer's prior involvement creates an ambiguous self-interest condition (potential future work, institutional familiarity, or reputational stake) that may or may not contaminate the objectivity of the public advocacy, and where the engineer has not disclosed the prior connection or any financial interest in the outcome. The state requires ethical evaluation of whether the advocacy constitutes legitimate professional public service or impermissible self-interested criticism of a government agency's technical conclusions.
Prior Relationship Non-Favoritism in QBS Evaluation Capability
Capability of a public agency QBS review team point of contact to recognize when a competing firm has a favorable prior performance history with the agency — including having performed well on prior engineering design projects — and to correctly identify that such prior relationship does not justify deviation from published procurement requirements, including deadline requirements, and to apply procurement rules consistently regardless of the firm's prior relationship with the agency.
Prior Report Clarity Self-Assessment Constraint
Engineer B should carefully assess whether verbal and written reports to the Water Commission and the written report to the water supply division of the Department of the Environment were sufficiently clear so that there was no misunderstanding of the technical documentation.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public health and safety risk to appropriate authorities — and who is assessing whether further action is warranted — must first critically self-assess whether prior verbal and written communications were sufficiently clear and complete to preclude misunderstanding, and must consider whether the identified risk could reasonably be interpreted differently by another qualified engineer, before concluding that the regulatory authority's inaction constitutes a failure to act rather than a legitimate exercise of professional judgment on ambiguous evidence.
Prior Report Sufficiency Self-Assessment Capability
Capability to critically self-assess whether prior verbal and written reports to clients and regulatory authorities were sufficiently clear, complete, and technically documented to constitute adequate discharge of professional public safety reporting obligations — including assessing whether the reports could reasonably be misunderstood, whether technical documentation was unambiguous, and whether a reasonable engineer could interpret the health and safety risk differently — before concluding that professional obligations have been fulfilled.
Prior Review Participation Conflict State
State in which a professional engineer who previously conducted an independent external review of a project is subsequently invited to participate in a competitive procurement (such as a design-build RFP) for that same project, creating a potential conflict of interest arising from insider knowledge and prior evaluative access to the project's technical details, requiring assessment of whether participation is ethically permissible under applicable conflict of interest standards and state law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional possesses personal, intimate, or privileged knowledge of a project, client, or procurement process acquired through prior employment or official capacity, giving them a material competitive advantage over other firms or professionals, and raising ethical questions about whether that advantage is being used fairly.
Prior Safety Report Sufficiency Self-Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public health and safety risk to appropriate authorities to critically and honestly self-assess whether those reports were sufficiently clear, complete, and technically unambiguous — including evaluating whether the risk could reasonably be interpreted differently by another engineer — before concluding that professional obligations have been fully discharged, so that any deficiency in prior communication can be remediated before the engineer relies on those reports as satisfying the ethical reporting duty.
Prior Specialized Knowledge Participation Bar State
State in which a professional engineer is prohibited from participating in or representing an adversarial interest in a specific proceeding because the engineer gained particular specialized knowledge about that project or matter on behalf of a former client or employer, and has not obtained the consent of all interested parties to participate. The prohibition is knowledge-based rather than purely employment-based: it persists regardless of the engineer's current employer and applies even when the engineer would otherwise be competent and available to assist.
Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who was arranged as a sub-consultant by one or more competing firms in a procurement, and who is subsequently directly solicited by the procuring agency for independent prime engagement, to carefully review and consider whether accepting the contract independently would violate any arrangement, commitment, or agreement made with the firms that originally arranged the sub-consultant relationship — including any express or implied obligations arising from those arrangements — before accepting the direct engagement, and to resolve any such conflicts before proceeding.
Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Contract Acceptance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering specialist who was arranged as a sub-consultant by one or more competing firms in a procurement to carefully consider, before accepting a direct prime contract from the client, whether accepting that contract would violate any arrangement, commitment, or understanding made with the arranging firms — including reviewing the terms and nature of any sub-consultant arrangements, assessing whether those arrangements created binding obligations, and making an informed judgment about whether independent acceptance is ethically and contractually permissible.
Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer's recognized right to personal privacy and non-disclosure of potentially damaging personal or professional information is bounded by the prohibition against omitting material facts in professional representations — requiring that the engineer assess whether the withheld information crosses the threshold from legitimately private to materially outcome-determinative, and prohibiting the invocation of privacy rights to justify omissions that would render professional statements, applications, or representations materially false or misleading, as established by the interplay of BER Cases 19-1, 97-11, and 03-6.
Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact'
State in which a professional's recognized right to personal privacy and non-disclosure of potentially damaging information — such as medical conditions, pending complaints, or prior failures — is in active tension with the professional's ethical duty to be objective and truthful and to avoid omitting material facts from professional representations, requiring a case-by-case weighing of whether the undisclosed information rises to the level of a material fact whose omission constitutes deception.
Privacy Right vs Material Omission Obligation Balancing Capability
Capability of a professional engineer to correctly balance a legitimate personal privacy interest in non-disclosure of personal or professional information against the countervailing professional obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid omitting material facts — recognizing that privacy rights are not absolute, that they yield when non-disclosure would constitute a material omission in a context where the information is decision-relevant to the recipient, and that the balance tips differently depending on whether the undisclosed information is a mere allegation, an adjudicated finding, or a personal characteristic unrelated to professional competence.
Private-Client-Absence Conflict Negation Scope Boundary Constraint
This view is reinforced by the fact that WXY does not perform any private work within City H and would not be reviewing the work it performed for private clients
Ethical constraint establishing that a private engineering firm's absence of private (non-municipal) client work within a municipality negates the specific conflict-of-interest concern arising from the firm serving simultaneously as city engineer and as a municipal contractor — because the firm would not be reviewing work it performed for private clients — but that this negation is limited in scope to the private-client review conflict and does not eliminate the residual structural conflict arising from the firm's self-oversight of its own municipal contracts, requiring the firm and municipality to separately assess and manage the residual conflict, as established by BER Case 94-7.
Private-Client Absence Partial Mitigation Recognition and Residual Conflict Assessment Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm being considered for a public city engineer role — and of the municipal client evaluating the appointment — to recognize that the firm's absence of private-client work within the municipality (e.g., no private developer clients) partially mitigates but does not eliminate the structural conflict of interest arising from the firm's active public contracts with the city, and to conduct a residual conflict assessment that accounts for the remaining self-oversight risk on those active public contracts even in the absence of private-client review conflicts.
Private-Client Absence Partial Mitigation Residual Conflict Assessment Capability
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm being considered for a public city engineer role — and of the municipal client — to recognize that the firm's absence of private developer or private-party work within the municipality partially mitigates but does not eliminate the conflict of interest arising from the firm's existing public contracts with that municipality, and to correctly assess the residual conflict (self-oversight of own publicly-contracted work) that persists even without private-client review concerns.
Private-Client Absence as Partial Conflict Mitigation Principle
Domain-specific principle recognizing that a consulting engineering firm's absence of private-client work within a municipality partially mitigates — but does not fully cure — the structural conflict of interest arising from simultaneously holding active municipal contracts and serving as the municipality's city engineer, because while the firm would not be reviewing its own private-client work, it would still be overseeing and advising on its own municipal contracts, and the structural independence required of the city engineer role is not fully restored by the absence of private work alone
Private-to-Public Adversarial Proceeding Participation Boundary Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a private firm to a public agency that is an adversarial party in an ongoing proceeding to correctly identify the boundary between permissible support of prior stamped work and impermissible active participation in the adversarial proceeding on behalf of either the former private client or the current public employer — including recognizing that isolation arrangements imposed by the current employer define the operative boundary and must be respected.
Private-to-Public Employment Transition Conflict Obligation
Relational principle requiring engineers who transition from private practice to public agency employment to recognize, disclose, and appropriately manage conflicts of interest arising from prior private work that is now adversarially positioned against their new public employer — including recusing from agency proceedings involving that prior work and refraining from using confidential knowledge of either party's position to benefit the other, while preserving the right to stand behind the technical integrity of prior stamped work in appropriate forums
Private-to-Public Transition Adversarial Proceeding Non-Participation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has transitioned from a private firm to a public agency that is an adversarial party in a legal or regulatory proceeding involving the engineer's prior private work to refrain from actively participating — on either side — in that proceeding, recognizing that participation on behalf of the former private client would conflict with current employer loyalty, while participation on behalf of the current public employer would violate residual loyalty and confidentiality obligations to the former client, and that the appropriate resolution is complete non-participation enforced through formal isolation or recusal.
Private-to-Public Transitioning Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer transitions from private employment to a public agency position where the agency is an adversarial party to matters the engineer worked on in private practice, generating ongoing obligations of confidentiality and loyalty to the former private employer and client, and requiring isolation from related public agency proceedings.
Private Company Legislative Hearing Witness Engineer
Another professional engineer, representing a private power company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam
A licensed professional engineer retained by a private company who testifies before a legislative committee on technical and economic matters relevant to proposed legislation, bearing obligations to disclose the retaining party's identity and financial relationship, provide accurate engineering analysis, avoid misrepresenting independence or neutrality, and engage honestly with competing technical positions.
A private entity that contracts engineering services for development projects, bearing financial decision-making authority over project scope and safeguards, and subject to environmental compliance obligations.
Private Firm Complicity Prohibition in Insider-Advantage Joint Ventures
Relational principle establishing that private consulting engineering firms must not knowingly enter into joint ventures, cooperative arrangements, or partnerships with former public agency engineers when the purpose or foreseeable effect of the arrangement is to exploit the insider knowledge, relationships, or work product those engineers gained in their public capacity to obtain competitive advantage in procurement — recognizing that the private firm's participation makes it complicit in the ethical violation and independently violates the principle of fair and open competition.
Private Firm Improper Recruitment Prohibition Constraint
Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announces Engineer D as a newly hired associate
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a private AE firm from recruiting or inducing a public official or engineer to join the firm as a means of improperly influencing future contract awards, procurement decisions, or competitive positioning with the public agency over which that official held authority, arising from NSPE Code Section II.5.b, and establishing that the firm's recruitment conduct — not merely the individual engineer's acceptance — constitutes an independent ethical violation when the recruitment is structured to exploit the official's prior contracting authority.
Private Firm Insider-Advantage Joint Venture Non-Participation Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm to refrain from knowingly entering into a joint venture, cooperative arrangement, or partnership with former government engineers who gained insider knowledge, personal relationships with the project owner, and access to publicly-funded preliminary design work product — all while still employed by the public agency — where the firm knows or reasonably should know that the joint venture's competitive positioning is structurally dependent on that insider advantage rather than on merit-based qualifications, recognizing that: (1) the private firm's participation in such an arrangement makes it complicit in the exploitation of public trust and public resources for private gain; (2) the arrangement injures other competing firms who lack equivalent insider access; and (3) the private firm's ethical obligations extend to ensuring that its competitive conduct does not exploit or perpetuate structural procurement unfairness created by the revolving-door transition of its joint venture partners.
Private Industry Safety Whistleblower Engineer
the engineer was employed by a large industrial company and after reviewing plans for materials supplied by a subcontractor, determined that they were inadequate
A professional engineering role in which an engineer employed by a private industrial company identifies safety or design deficiencies in materials, products, or processes, reports concerns to superiors whose recommendations are rejected, faces employment sanctions (probation, termination threats) for persisting with safety recommendations, and bears an ethical right — but not an absolute obligation — to report concerns to proper external authorities as a matter of personal conscience, with the decision to 'blow the whistle' understood to carry the likely consequence of loss of employment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A professional engineering role in which an engineer employed by a defense industry firm documents and reports to their employer evidence of excessive costs, time delays, or improper contractor conduct, bearing an ethical right (but not an absolute duty) to escalate concerns to external authorities when the employer rejects internal reports, with the decision to escalate treated as a matter of personal conscience rather than a codified professional obligation.
Proactive AI Disclosure to Client Obligation
While Engineer A reviewed the content, the lack of disclosure raises concerns about transparency.
Duty of a licensed engineer to proactively disclose to a client, prior to or upon delivery of work product, when AI tools have substantially contributed to the generation of that work product, so that the client can appropriately evaluate the nature of the deliverable, make informed decisions about the work, and maintain trust in the professional relationship.
Proactive Client Trust Transparency Constraint
Given that Client W identified issues in the engineering design and questioned inconsistencies in the report, proactive disclosure could have prevented misunderstandings and strengthened trust.
Ethical constraint requiring that engineers proactively disclose to clients information about the tools, methods, and contributors that substantially shaped professional work product — including AI tools — when such disclosure would prevent misunderstandings, strengthen professional trust, and enable informed client evaluation of the work product, even in the absence of universal mandatory disclosure guidelines.
Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer responsible for structural design to proactively explore and evaluate multiple alternative design approaches — including more complex, costly, or time-consuming alternatives — before finalizing a design selection, particularly when the initially identified approach involves foreseeable constraints, hazards, or limitations that alternative approaches might mitigate, and to present those alternatives to clients for informed decision-making.
Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation for Public Safety
Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team, possibly including the contractor, early in the process
Professional principle requiring engineers — particularly when a selected design approach involves foreseeable heightened risks to construction workers or other affected parties — to identify and present alternative design approaches to clients and design team members, including discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of each option, so that informed decisions about public safety trade-offs can be made by all relevant parties rather than being resolved unilaterally by the design engineer through default selection
Proactive Formal Bid Document Improvement Initiation Constraint
Because as-builts are useful and can help improve designs, Engineer D should initiate a process to include as-built drawings, when available, on projects going forward.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a public agency engineer who recognizes that existing technical documents — such as as-built drawings — would materially improve bid quality and design outcomes must initiate a formal institutional process to include those documents in future bid packages, prohibiting passive continuation of a practice that omits useful information from bid documents when the engineer has both the knowledge and the institutional standing to advocate for systemic improvement through proper channels.
Proactive Formal Process Initiation for Recurring Information Gap Obligation
Duty of a public agency engineer who recognizes that existing as-built drawings or other technical documentation would materially improve bid quality and design outcomes — and who has been informally addressing contractor requests on a case-by-case basis — to initiate a formal institutional process to systematically include that documentation in future bid packages, rather than continuing to address requests informally, so that the information gap is remedied through proper channels that ensure equal access and procurement integrity.
Proactive Marketing Material Accuracy Assurance Obligation
we believe it is important for firms to take actions to expeditiously correct any false impressions which might exist.
Relational principle establishing that engineering firms using printed promotional materials as part of their marketing efforts bear an affirmative, ongoing obligation to take reasonable proactive steps to ensure that such materials are as accurate and up-to-date as possible — including employing errata sheets, cover letters, strike-outs, or reprints within a reasonable period when inaccuracies are discovered — and that firms failing to take such measures run the risk of breaching ethical behavior even in the absence of deliberate misrepresentation; the principle extends beyond the reactive obligation triggered by actual knowledge to encompass a forward-looking duty of accuracy stewardship over all public-facing marketing communications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle requiring engineers and engineering firms to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — so that information about qualifications, licensure status, and service capabilities remains accurate, truthful, and non-deceptive over time; the obligation is ongoing and is not discharged by accuracy at the time of initial publication
Proactive Regulatory Guidance Seeking Constraint
Engineer A, still concerned with his obligation to the public beyond just informing the insurance company, calls the State Board of Professional Engineers, apprises them of the situation, and asks what more could and should be done about the situation.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has fulfilled minimum reporting obligations but remains uncertain about the full scope of public safety obligations — particularly in novel or ambiguous situations — should proactively seek guidance from the relevant State Board of Professional Engineers or regulatory authority before concluding that no further action is required, prohibiting passive assumption that client notification alone discharges all professional obligations when systemic public safety risk remains.
Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source.
Professional principle requiring engineers to proactively communicate identified risks to relevant parties — including clients, affected communities, and regulatory authorities — without waiting for formal requests or harm to materialize, particularly when risks affect third-party welfare
[Case 140] Professional principle requiring engineers to proactively communicate identified risks to relevant parties — including clients, supervisors, affected communities, and regulatory authorities — without waiting for formal requests or harm to materialize, particularly when risks affect third-party welfare
[Case 73] Professional principle requiring engineers to proactively communicate identified risks to relevant parties — including clients, affected communities, and regulatory authorities — without waiting for formal requests or harm to materialize, particularly when risks affect third-party welfare.
[Case 78] Professional principle requiring engineers to proactively communicate identified risks to relevant parties — including clients, affected communities, and regulatory authorities — without waiting for formal requests or harm to materialize, particularly when risks affect third-party welfare.
Proactive Systemic Remedy Obligation for Recurring Information Gaps
Professional principle requiring engineers who identify a recurring gap in public procurement processes — such as the systematic unavailability of as-built drawings in bid documents — to initiate institutional or procedural remedies that address the gap systematically, rather than addressing it through ad hoc informal workarounds that create fairness and propriety risks
Probation-Threat Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Professional Position Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that placement on probation, threat of termination, or other adverse employment actions do not constitute an ethical justification for abandoning or reversing a professionally grounded position on specification compliance or engineering standards, and to maintain that position despite such pressure — understanding that yielding a professional position solely due to disciplinary threat constitutes an abrogation of professional responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that employment pressures — including the risk of job loss, demotion, or adverse employment consequences — do not constitute an ethical justification for subordinating a professional safety determination, and to maintain the integrity of that determination despite such pressures, understanding that bowing to employment situations when the engineer believes great dangers are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
Probation Threat Professional Position Non-Abandonment Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who faces formal disciplinary action — including placement on probation with threatened termination — as a consequence of raising documented technical and specification compliance concerns through proper internal channels must not abandon a professionally grounded technical position solely due to the employment threat, prohibiting the engineer from treating the probation or termination threat as a sufficient reason to withdraw or recant a technically supported professional judgment, and establishing that employment self-preservation does not override the engineer's duty to maintain the integrity of professional technical assessments; however, where the underlying concern does not rise to the level of public health or safety endangerment, the engineer's continued insistence is a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory ethical duty.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute ethical constraint establishing that an explicit employment termination threat issued by a non-engineer administrative superior in response to a licensed professional engineer's safety escalation activities does not constitute a legitimate constraint on the engineer's obligation to continue escalating imminent public safety hazards — prohibiting the engineer from treating the termination threat as a sufficient reason to cease safety advocacy, and establishing that the paramount duty to public safety supersedes employment self-preservation when imminent danger is present.
Probationary Employment Aggravated Misconduct Ethics Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is under court-supervised probation for a prior criminal offense to recognize that committing additional dishonest acts — such as fraudulent check-writing — while employed as an engineer during probation constitutes an aggravated ethics violation, compounding the original offense with a second layer of professional misconduct, and to understand that the employment context transforms personal dishonesty into a direct threat to the profession's integrity and public trust.
Probationary Employment Context Fraud Aggravated Ethics Violation Recognition Obligation
Obligation of a professional engineer who is employed as an engineer while under court-supervised probation for a prior criminal conviction to recognize that committing additional acts of dishonesty or fraud during that probationary employment period constitutes an aggravated ethics violation — both because it compounds the original misconduct and because it exploits the professional trust and employment opportunity extended by the engineering firm during a period of supervised rehabilitation, thereby representing a heightened breach of the honesty and integrity standards required of professional engineers.
Probationary Employment Exploitation Aggravated Misconduct Principle
He was sentenced to a short jail term and five years of supervised probation and to make restitution.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that an engineer who commits further acts of dishonesty or fraud while under court-supervised probation for a prior criminal offense — particularly when the employment context itself is exploited to facilitate the new misconduct — commits an aggravated form of professional ethics violation, because the exploitation of professional employment to perpetuate a pattern of dishonest conduct demonstrates a character fundamentally incompatible with the trust obligations of professional engineering practice
A professional engineering role in which an engineer who has been convicted of a criminal offense and placed under court-supervised probation continues to be employed in engineering practice, bearing heightened obligations of professional integrity, lawful conduct, and transparency, given that any further misconduct during the probationary period compounds both legal and professional ethical violations.
Probationary Status Employment Honest Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer who is under court-supervised probation resulting from a criminal conviction must honestly disclose that probationary status to any engineering firm that employs or is considering employing them — prohibiting the concealment of probationary status from an employer on the grounds that such concealment undermines the trust foundation of the employment relationship and constitutes a form of deception incompatible with the engineer's professional integrity obligations, as established by the facts of Engineer A's case in BER Case 75-5.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that a professional engineer disclose material adjudicated misconduct or professional disciplinary history to a prospective employer at the outset of the employment relationship — before or at the time of hiring — rather than deferring disclosure or relying on the employer's failure to discover the information; establishing that the failure to disclose material integrity-relevant information at the inception of the employment relationship retroactively undermines the trust foundation of that relationship, and that the engineer's obligation to establish an honest basis for the employer-employee relationship is not discharged by subsequent satisfactory performance.
Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Minimum Floor Constraint
we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding
Ethical constraint establishing that, regardless of the indeterminate upper bound of post-engagement duty of trust and loyalty to a former client, a licensed professional engineer's duty of trust and loyalty to a former client persists at minimum for the full duration of the specific legal proceeding in which the confidential information was obtained — prohibiting the engineer from treating the formal termination of the professional relationship as a discharge of loyalty obligations while the same proceeding remains active, and establishing that the proceeding's active status constitutes the non-negotiable minimum temporal floor below which the duty cannot be extinguished, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and NSPE Code Section III.4.b.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty of trust and loyalty to a former client — including the obligation to protect confidential information and facts obtained during the professional relationship — persists after formal termination of the professional relationship for an indeterminate period, the precise duration of which the Board declines to specify, prohibiting the engineer from treating the mere passage of time or the formal end of the contractual relationship as a complete discharge of the residual duty of trust and loyalty, and establishing that the engineer must assess the continuing vitality of that duty in light of the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence Obligation
we must recognize that while Engineer A may not currently have a professional relationship with a former client, he still has an ethical obligation to that client to protect certain confidential information and facts, as well as a certain duty of trust and loyalty.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has terminated a professional relationship with a client in the context of adversarial litigation to maintain a duty of trust and loyalty to that former client for at least the full duration of the legal proceeding in which the engineer was engaged — recognizing that while the engineer's absolute duty of loyalty does not persist indefinitely after the relationship ends, it persists at minimum through the conclusion of the specific proceeding in which the engineer gained access to the former client's confidential information, documents, and strategic case materials.
Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence Self-Application Capability
How long that duty of trust and loyalty must be maintained we are not prepared to state at this time. However, we are certainly willing to state that such a duty exists for the duration of one legal proceeding.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that duties of trust and loyalty to a former client persist for at least the full duration of the legal proceeding in which the prior engagement occurred — including the ability to identify that while the precise outer temporal boundary of former client loyalty obligations is not categorically fixed, a conservative minimum standard requires that such obligations endure throughout the proceeding, to apply this minimum standard when evaluating whether post-termination adverse engagement is permissible, and to refrain from accepting retention adverse to a former client while the same proceeding remains active, consistent with BER Case 85-4.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that professional duties of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality to a former client persist after termination of the professional relationship — including the ability to assess how long those duties endure, to recognize that the duration question is fact-specific and not categorically resolved, and to apply a conservative standard that treats residual loyalty obligations as ongoing until clearly extinguished, consistent with BER Case 85-4 and the principle that termination of a relationship does not automatically terminate all ethical obligations arising from it.
Proceeding-Duration Loyalty Persistence Principle
Relational principle establishing that while an engineer's duty of absolute loyalty to a former client does not persist indefinitely after the professional relationship ends, the duty of trust, confidentiality, and loyalty does persist for at least the full duration of the specific legal or adversarial proceeding in which the engineer was retained — such that termination of the formal engagement does not extinguish the relational obligations for the life of that proceeding
Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X
A private engineering firm that receives or accepts an advance verbal promise of contract selection from a public procurement authority outside of lawful, open, and competitive procurement procedures, thereby participating in the subversion of public procurement policies regardless of whether the firm actively solicited the improper commitment.
Procurement-Influencing Authority Informal Peer Solicitation State
The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract.
State in which a client authority who holds significant influence over an upcoming professional services procurement informally solicits technical opinions from a competing firm about the incumbent professional's work decisions — outside of any formal procurement or peer review process — creating a structurally compromised evaluation context that conflates contract selection influence with technical assessment, and potentially prejudicing the incumbent professional's competitive position without due process.
Procurement Competition Honorable Conduct Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer competing for a public or private contract conduct all competitive activities honorably, responsibly, and fairly — prohibiting the use of informal client relationships, unsolicited critique of competitors, or exploitation of procurement-influencing authority contacts to gain competitive advantage through means other than demonstrated merit, qualifications, and legitimate competitive conduct, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.5, III.6, and III.7 and the principle that engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers or by improper or questionable methods.
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for ensuring that engineering service contracts and consultant selections comply with applicable federal, state, and local procurement laws, including Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) requirements, with obligations to investigate potential violations, report unlawful practices, and act as a faithful agent to the public entity.
Procurement Fairness Appearance Management Capability
Capability of a public agency engineer to recognize when their actions — even when well-intentioned and technically beneficial — create an appearance of favoritism, impropriety, or unfair competitive advantage in a public procurement context, and to manage that appearance by ensuring that all procurement-related conduct is structured to withstand scrutiny for fairness, including recognizing that the appearance of impropriety can be as ethically problematic as actual impropriety.
Procurement Information Asymmetry Recognition Capability
Capability of a public agency engineer to recognize when an information asymmetry has developed in a competitive procurement process — specifically when some prospective bidders have obtained access to material technical information (such as as-built drawings) through informal channels while others have not — and to identify that this asymmetry undermines competitive fairness, violates equal access principles, and requires immediate corrective action to level the informational playing field for all prospective bidders.
Procurement Integrity Balance Judgment Capability
it is the Board's view, consistent with BER Case 10-8, that a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
Capability of a licensed professional engineer administering a public QBS or procurement process to recognize and correctly resolve the tension between selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to relevant public procurement rules and policies — including understanding that while past performance and apparent harmlessness of procedural errors may be sympathetically considered, the integrity of the procurement process requires strict rule enforcement to avoid opening the process to challenge, creating a climate of non-adherence, or undermining public confidence in the profession.
Procurement Integrity Non-Waiver for Harmless Error Constraint
any effort on the part of Engineer A to fail to follow the strict rules and policies of the public procurement process could call the integrity of the process into question
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a public agency engineer from waiving or excusing a competing firm's failure to comply with published procurement rules — including deadline and delivery location requirements — on the grounds that the non-compliance appears to be a harmless error, was unintentional, or was caused by innocent mistake, establishing that the absence of nefarious intent does not cure a procedural defect and that tolerating non-adherence to procurement rules opens the process to challenge and creates a climate in which non-compliance is normalized, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that procurement integrity requires uniform rule enforcement regardless of the apparent harmlessness of individual violations.
Procurement Integrity Over Qualification Merit Balancing Principle
a balance needs to be struck between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to the relevant public procurement rules and policies
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that in public engineering procurement, the procedural integrity of the selection process is not subordinate to the substantive goal of selecting the most qualified firm — both values must be pursued simultaneously, and procedural integrity cannot be sacrificed in the name of merit-based selection, because a merit-based outcome achieved through procedurally compromised means undermines public confidence in the entire procurement system
Procurement Integrity in Public Engineering
City D is in a jurisdiction with strong qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws at the state and local levels codified within the state's professional engineering licensure laws.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers in public agency roles to ensure that engineering service contracts are awarded through lawful, competitive, qualification-based selection processes as required by applicable statutes and regulations, thereby protecting fair market access, taxpayer resources, and public trust in government engineering functions
[Case 12] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers in public agency roles and engineers seeking public contracts to ensure that engineering service procurement processes are fair, lawful, and qualification-based, protecting fair market access, taxpayer resources, and public trust in government engineering functions
[Case 58] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers in public agency roles to ensure that engineering and infrastructure decisions are made through lawful, policy-compliant processes, prohibiting manipulation of technical design decisions to circumvent mandatory cost-allocation or procurement rules, thereby protecting fair use of public resources and public trust in government engineering functions
Procurement Investigation Objectivity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer tasked with investigating potential procurement violations to conduct the investigation objectively and thoroughly, to report findings accurately and completely regardless of whether those findings are adverse to the employer or to established contractor relationships, and to base recommendations solely on factual findings and applicable legal requirements rather than on organizational convenience or relational considerations.
Procurement Irregularity Investigation Capability
Capability to conduct a systematic, objective, and thorough investigation of suspected public procurement violations, including reviewing contract records, comparing awarded contracts against applicable RFQ and authorization requirements, documenting findings accurately, and distinguishing compliant from non-compliant contracting practices.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role to ensure that engineering service contracts are awarded in compliance with applicable qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws, including conducting required RFQ processes and obtaining required Council authorization before awarding contracts that exceed statutory thresholds, and to refrain from approving or ratifying contracts that circumvent these legal requirements.
This case focuses on the engineer's ethical obligation to comply with local and state procurement laws, including state registration board rules of professional conduct, that require consultant selection through a competitive QBS process.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — whether in a public agency role or as a contractor — to conform with applicable state and local procurement laws governing the selection of engineering consultants, including qualification-based selection (QBS) requirements, as an extension of the ethical obligation under NSPE Code III.8.a to conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
Capability to understand, interpret, and apply public procurement laws, qualification-based selection (QBS) statutes, and competitive contracting requirements applicable to public engineering service contracts, including knowledge of dollar thresholds, authorization requirements, and RFQ process mandates codified in professional engineering licensure laws.
Procurement Law Primacy Over Antitrust-Modified Code Constraint
among one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect
Legal constraint establishing that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services remain in full force and effect notwithstanding antitrust actions and First Amendment rulings that constrained professional society codes of ethics — prohibiting any interpretation that antitrust-driven removal of code provisions also diminishes or displaces the binding authority of applicable procurement statutes and regulations, and requiring that public procurement of engineering services be conducted in compliance with those laws regardless of the reduced scope of professional code guidance.
the two most recent contracts were awarded solely on the approval of the City Engineer without an RFQ process, even though their dollar amounts exceeded the threshold requiring City D's Council authorization and an RFQ process
State in which a public entity has awarded professional services contracts without following legally mandated procurement procedures (such as RFQ or QBS processes), where the contracts exceed thresholds requiring competitive selection and governing body authorization, and where the responsible official has been informed of the non-compliance but has declined to take corrective action.
Procurement Objector Protest Proportionality and Spirit-Intent Calibration Capability
Subsequently, some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal, alleging that in doing so it violated the intent of the governing procurement law, and that Firm A had acted unethically in making its request.
Capability of members of the public or elected officials who object to a specific procedural decision in a public engineering procurement process to calibrate their protest to the actual spirit and intent of the governing procurement law — recognizing that a procedural accommodation that was legally cleared, extended equally to all competitors, and conditioned on equal treatment does not violate the fundamental purpose of the procurement law — and to avoid overstating the ethical or legal significance of procedural accommodations that preserve rather than undermine competitive fairness.
Procurement Policy Subversion Recognition Capability
Engineer C's action in verbally agreeing to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X would constitute a subversion or a misuse of the existing procurement policies and procedures in place in City X.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer holding public procurement authority to recognize that informal verbal commitments to select a specific firm for a future contract — made outside the formal procurement process and prior to any qualification review — constitute a subversion or misuse of existing procurement policies and procedures, regardless of the benevolent motivation behind such commitments, and to refrain from such conduct.
Procurement Precedent Application Capability
BER Case 08-8 provides helpful precedent.
Capability to identify, retrieve, and apply relevant BER case precedents and legal rulings — including antitrust decisions, Supreme Court rulings, and prior BER opinions — to analyze novel public procurement ethics dilemmas, drawing analogical reasoning from established case law and code interpretations to reach justified conclusions about procurement compliance and engineer obligations.
Procurement Process Challenge Vulnerability Assessment Capability
the Board is concerned that allowing Firm B's submittal to be considered would open the procurement to challenge or at the very least create a climate in which non-adherence to public procurement rules and policies are tolerated
Capability of a licensed professional engineer administering a public procurement process to assess whether a proposed deviation from published procurement rules — such as accepting a late or misdirected submittal — would expose the procurement to legal challenge, create a climate of non-adherence, or reflect negatively on the procuring agency and the engineering profession, and to use that vulnerability assessment as a basis for enforcing strict compliance regardless of the apparent harmlessness of the deviation.
Procurement Process Integrity Preservation Capability
Capability of a municipal client or administrative authority to recognize when procurement process actions — including soliciting competitor opinions about an incumbent engineer's work — compromise the integrity, fairness, and objectivity of a consulting engineering contract renewal process, and to refrain from such actions, ensuring that the selection process is conducted on the basis of qualifications and merit rather than through improper competitive intelligence gathering or incumbent disadvantagement.
Procurement Process Spirit and Intent Compliance Obligation
promising Engineer A in advance that Engineer A would be selected for a future contract without considering the qualifications, experience, and other factors is not consistent with either the spirit or the intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics
Professional principle requiring that engineering procurement conduct — particularly by public officials and firms participating in public contracting — conform not merely to the literal text of applicable procurement rules but to the spirit and intent of those rules, such that arrangements that technically avoid explicit prohibition but undermine the fundamental purpose of competitive, qualification-based, publicly announced selection are ethically impermissible
Procurement Protest Ethical Boundary Constraint
BER Case 80-1 examined a state agency's selection method... Firms B and C publicly protested the award to Firm A because they believed a low-cost bid ($70,000-$80,000 less than Firm B and C) was unsafe and could lead to an inadequate design. The BER held that lodging such a protest was not an unfair competitive act under the Code.
Ethical constraint establishing that while licensed professional engineers are permitted — and sometimes obligated — to formally protest non-compliant or unsafe procurement awards, such protests must be grounded in legitimate public interest concerns rather than competitive self-interest, and engineers must exercise caution when making public statements about competitor fees or likelihood of project success, as such statements approach the boundary of unfair competitive conduct.
Procurement Rationalization Resistance Capability
Some might assert that because Engineer A's employment contract with the City did not include a revolving door prohibition, nothing more needs to be said. But the BER does not hold this perspective.
Capability to recognize and resist rationalization of procurement law violations — including arguments based on convenience, longstanding relationships, administrative inertia, or the absence of explicit contractual prohibitions — and to maintain ethical and legal standards in the face of institutional pressure, consistent with the principle that engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code.
Procurement Rule Strict Adherence Over Equitable Discretion
Domain-specific principle establishing that public agency engineers administering competitive procurement processes must adhere strictly to published procedural rules — including deadline, location, and submission requirements — even when deviation appears harmless, well-intentioned, or consistent with a firm's prior satisfactory performance, because the integrity of the competitive process depends on uniform rule application and any toleration of non-compliance opens the procurement to challenge and erodes public confidence in the process
Procurement Rule Strict Adherence vs. Harmless Error Tension State
State in which a procurement official or evaluating engineer must decide whether to strictly enforce a procedural rule — such as a submission deadline or designated delivery location — against a competing firm whose non-compliance appears to have been inadvertent and without nefarious cause, where strict enforcement serves procurement integrity and equitable treatment but may exclude an otherwise qualified firm, and where any deviation from strict enforcement risks creating a precedent of tolerated non-adherence that undermines the integrity of the public procurement process.
Procurement Violation Corrective Action Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer in a supervisory or managerial public agency role, upon discovering or being informed of credible evidence of procurement law violations in contracts under their authority, to take affirmative corrective action to remedy the violation — including initiating retroactive compliance measures, escalating to appropriate authorities, or suspending non-compliant contracting practices — rather than ratifying or ignoring the violation on grounds of convenience or established relationships.
Product Quality Engineering Deficiency Public Communication Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to communicate to public audiences, newspapers, and legislative bodies — in an objective and truthful manner — the professional engineering assessment that a trend toward inferior commercial products is attributable in significant part to inadequate engineering effort, and that increased engineering investment could produce products of greater durability and efficiency, without naming specific employers or companies and while maintaining the objectivity and truthfulness required by professional ethics codes.
Product Quality Public Welfare Civic Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Acceptance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who engages in good-faith civic advocacy for minimum product quality standards or public welfare legislation — as a matter of both personal conscience and professional public welfare obligation — must accept the potential loss of employment as a foreseeable consequence of that advocacy when the employer objects, prohibiting the engineer from treating the prospect of employment loss as a sufficient reason to abandon civic advocacy that is grounded in genuine public welfare concern and conducted without employer identification; distinguishing this from mandatory safety whistleblowing (where employment loss acceptance is a mandatory cost) by recognizing that product quality advocacy without demonstrable safety violation is a matter of personal conscience elevated to professional duty by the Code's civic service provisions.
Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way. They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and self-assess that organizing or participating in a citizens committee or similar civic body to advocate before legislative bodies for minimum quality standards for commercial products — grounded in the engineer's professional knowledge that inadequate engineering contributes to inferior products — is ethically permissible conduct consistent with the engineer's public welfare obligations, and does not constitute improper conduct even when the engineer is employed by a product manufacturer in the relevant industry.
Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Public Welfare Permissibility Obligation
Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company, which produces and sells a variety of commercial home-use products, became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public
Duty of the engineering profession and ethics bodies to recognize that a licensed professional engineer who, based on specialized engineering knowledge, identifies a systemic trend toward inferior commercial products attributable to inadequate engineering effort, and who organizes or participates in civic advocacy — including public statements, media communications, and legislative testimony — in support of minimum product quality standards, is exercising a legitimate and ethically permissible expression of public welfare concern; and that such advocacy constitutes an elevation of civic duty to professional ethical conduct when grounded in honest technical assessment and conducted without disclosure of confidential employer information or false attribution to specific companies.
Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate Engineer
Engineer A joins a group of other engineers...who feel the same way
A professional engineering role in which an engineer, employed by a product manufacturer, organizes or participates in a multi-engineer citizens advocacy group to promote legislative minimum quality and durability standards for commercial products, bearing obligations to balance employer loyalty against public interest advocacy, to avoid directly disparaging the employer's specific products, and to exercise free expression on matters of public concern through legitimate civic channels such as public statements, media, and legislative testimony.
Product Safety Minimum Standards Legislative Advocacy as Engineering Public Welfare Obligation
Domain-specific principle establishing that engineers who identify a systemic trend toward inferior, unsafe, or inadequate commercial products — attributable to insufficient engineering effort — bear a professional obligation to advocate for minimum quality and safety standards through appropriate public and legislative channels, treating such advocacy as an expression of the engineering profession's paramount duty to public welfare rather than as a merely personal or political preference.
a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe
A professional engineering role in which an engineer, believing a product to be unsafe, exercises the ethical right to refuse participation in the processing or production of that product, accepting potential employment consequences rather than compromising public safety obligations.
Product Welfare Advocacy Employment Loss Acceptance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who engages in good-faith civic advocacy for product quality standards or public welfare improvements — as a matter of personal conscience and professional right rather than mandatory safety duty — to recognize and accept that such advocacy may result in employment consequences including discharge, and that the ethical right to engage in such advocacy does not immunize the engineer from those consequences; while simultaneously recognizing that the employer's threat of discharge for legitimate civic advocacy, grounded solely in embarrassment rather than any professional misconduct, is itself ethically impermissible.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of professional ethics bodies and individual engineers to acknowledge that when an engineer chooses to blow the whistle on defense or public expenditure improprieties — even when doing so is a matter of personal conscience rather than mandatory professional duty — the engineer may be required to pay the price of loss of employment, and that this sobering reality does not extinguish the ethical right to blow the whistle but must be weighed carefully before undertaking such action.
Production-Phase Participation Prohibition in Unsafe Design Operations
So long as the engineers of Company 'B' hold to their opinion that the machinery as originally designed and specified would be unsafe to the public they should refuse to participate in its processing or production under the mandate of Section 2(c).
Domain-specific principle establishing that an engineer employed in a production or manufacturing role who has identified safety deficiencies in plans and specifications prepared by a designing firm is ethically prohibited from participating in the production or processing of those plans — even though the engineer did not prepare, sign, or seal the plans — because participation in any phase of engineering operations that endanger public health and safety is equivalent in ethical weight to authoring the unsafe design itself.
Production Employer Safety Override Non-Acquiescence Capability
The officials of Company 'B' instructed its engineers to proceed with the work.
Capability of engineers employed by a production or manufacturing firm to recognize that their employer's instruction to proceed with production — issued after the employer accepted a designing firm's self-serving safety dismissal — does not discharge the engineers' independent professional obligation to protect public safety, and to refuse to acquiesce in that instruction when the engineers' own professional judgment identifies the plans and specifications as creating a genuine life-safety risk to persons in proximity to the equipment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer whose recommendation for additional safety testing has been rejected by an employer solely on cost and schedule grounds — when the engineer believes the product raises unique safety concerns — to recognize that the rejection does not discharge the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to assess and pursue appropriate escalation pathways including internal escalation, documentation of the rejection, and post-employment reporting to regulatory authorities.
Production Employer Safety Override Non-Acquiescence Obligation
Duty of engineers employed by a production or manufacturing firm whose employer, after relaying safety concerns to the designing client and accepting the client's self-serving dismissal, instructs the engineers to proceed with production of potentially life-endangering equipment, to refuse to acquiesce in that instruction and to treat the employer's override as insufficient resolution of the safety concern — recognizing that a production employer has no authority to override engineers' professional safety judgment by accepting a designing client's unilateral assurance of adequacy without independent technical review, and that proceeding under such circumstances constitutes an independent ethical violation.
Production Employer Safety Override Non-Authority Principle
Professional principle establishing that an employer in a production or manufacturing role who instructs its engineers to proceed with work despite unresolved, engineer-identified safety concerns — having merely relayed those concerns to the designing firm and accepted the designing firm's self-serving dismissal — does not thereby discharge the engineers' professional safety obligations, because the employer's business authority does not extend to overriding the engineers' professional judgment on matters of public safety endangerment.
Production Participation Code Provision Purposive Extension Self-Application Capability
In this situation the engineers of Company 'B' have not been requested, or required, to 'sign, or seal plans and/or specifications' at all. This has been done by the engineers of Company 'A'.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in a production or manufacturing role — who has not been asked to sign, seal, or complete plans and specifications — to recognize that a literal reading of an ethics code provision limited to 'completing, signing, or sealing plans and specifications' would permit participation in production under unsafe plans, and to reject that literal reading in favor of a purposive interpretation under which the provision's underlying mandate (not to participate in any engineering operations that endanger public health and safety) applies equally to production participation as to plan preparation — understanding that the purpose and force of the code provision extends to all forms of engineering participation in operations known to be unsafe.
Production Participation Prohibition in Unsafe Design Operations Obligation
we think that this is too narrow a reading of the Code and that the purpose and force of Section 2(c) is that the engineer will not participate in any way in engineering operations which endanger the public health and safety
Duty of engineers employed in a production or manufacturing role who hold a sincere, sustained professional judgment that the plans and specifications they have been directed to execute contain miscalculations and technical deficiencies endangering public health and safety, to refuse to participate in any way in the production or processing operations under those plans and specifications — recognizing that the ethics code's prohibition on completing, signing, or sealing unsafe plans extends purposively to all forms of engineering participation in operations that endanger the public, not merely to the act of sealing documents, and that a literal reading permitting production participation while prohibiting only document-sealing is too narrow to satisfy the code's protective purpose.
Profession-Wide Licensure Integrity Erosion by Title Misuse State
Although the industry and governmental agencies sometimes use the term indiscriminently [sic], we in the profession must not.
State in which the systematic and widespread use of engineering-implying titles by unqualified individuals — particularly within government agencies and private firms — has become sufficiently entrenched to create public confusion about who is a licensed professional engineer, undermine public confidence in the profession, and erode the protective intent of licensure requirements, thereby creating a collective professional obligation to resist and correct such misuse at both the individual and institutional level.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which the systematic use of engineering-implying titles by unqualified individuals — particularly within government agencies and industry — has become sufficiently widespread to create public confusion about the qualifications of those exercising engineering authority, thereby undermining public confidence in the profession and the protective intent of licensure requirements.
Profession-Wide Title Integrity Erosion State
State in which the systematic use of engineering-implying titles by unqualified individuals — particularly within government agencies and industry — has become sufficiently widespread to create public confusion about the qualifications of those exercising engineering authority, thereby undermining public confidence in the profession and the protective intent of licensure requirements.
Profession Honor Preservation Through Licensure Integrity Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and professional bodies actively resist the erosion of licensure integrity caused by unlicensed individuals holding engineering titles without the associated ethical, legal, and competence obligations — prohibiting passive acquiescence in practices that allow unqualified individuals to hold themselves out as engineers without the accountability structures that licensure imposes, on the grounds that such acquiescence diminishes the profession, undermines public confidence, and endangers public health and safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from bidding on, accepting, or performing engineering contracts in domains where the firm lacks adequate competence, on the grounds that such conduct degrades the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession — as established by NSPE Code I.6 — establishing that the obligation to preserve professional honor operates as a constraint on competitive and commercial conduct, not merely on technical performance.
Profession Honor and Dignity Preservation Personal Conduct Obligation
the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . . .'
Obligation of every licensed professional engineer to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the engineering profession through their personal conduct — not merely through their professional engineering activities — recognizing that the NSPE Code's preamble enjoins engineers to preserve the profession's honor and dignity, and that personal misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude is incompatible with this obligation because it brings disrepute to the entire profession through the acts of individual members, undermining public confidence in all engineers.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of every licensed professional engineer to recognize that permitting professional obligations and duties to be compromised to the point of endangering public safety and health causes grave damage to the image and interests of all engineers collectively, and therefore to fulfill public safety obligations not only for the immediate benefit of the public but also to preserve the integrity and public trust upon which the engineering profession depends; recognizing that individual ethical failures in public safety matters have profession-wide reputational consequences.
Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Provision Grounding Capability
It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate that the foundational concept of a profession — as distinct from a mere occupation or trade — entails that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, and to ground this recognition in specific ethics code provisions (such as Section 2 and Section 2(a) establishing public welfare paramountcy, and Section 2(b) requiring constructive service in civic affairs), thereby understanding that civic advocacy for public welfare is not merely permitted but is mandated by the professional character of engineering itself, and applying this grounding to evaluate whether specific civic activities are consistent with professional obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate the foundational principle that professional ethics codes serve to elevate to a mandatory professional duty the conduct that all public-spirited and civic-minded citizens would engage in voluntarily — understanding that professional obligations are not merely aspirational civic virtues but binding duties that exceed the minimum conduct expected of ordinary citizens, and applying this principle when assessing whether a particular action (such as reporting a competitor's potentially dangerous fee proposal) is a permissible option or a mandatory professional obligation.
Professional-Sub-Professional Work Category Segregation Obligation State
State in which a professional engineer or engineering firm simultaneously engages in both professional engineering services and sub-professional or non-professional (business/commercial) activities, triggering an affirmative obligation to clearly distinguish between the two categories of work in all communications with clients and the public — through separate organizational structures, distinct firm names, contractual references, or correspondence — so that the professional status and ethical obligations attaching to engineering work are not conflated with unregulated commercial activities.
Professional-Sub-Professional Work Category Segregation and Client Transparency Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that operates in both professional engineering and sub-professional or non-professional (business or commercial) domains to be scrupulously careful to make clear to clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work — including, where the sub-professional work constitutes a large part of the firm's activities, operating through a separate organizational form with a distinct name, or where that is not practicable, adopting other means such as contractual references or correspondence to segregate the types of work — so that no client or member of the public is misled about which category of service is being rendered.
Professional-Sub-Professional Work Segregation and Transparency Obligation Principle
Although the Canons do not apply to sub-professional and nonprofessional (business or commercial) activities, it becomes incumbent upon the engineer involved to be scrupulously careful to make clear to his clients and the public the distinction between the two categories of work.
Relational principle requiring that when a professional engineering firm or licensed engineer operates in both professional engineering and sub-professional or non-professional (commercial) domains, the engineer must take affirmative steps to clearly distinguish and segregate the two categories of work for clients and the public — ideally through separate organizational structures with distinct names, or alternatively through contractual references, correspondence notations, or other means of clear demarcation — so that clients and the public are never misled about which category of service they are receiving
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to take responsibility for their professional decisions and actions, including acknowledging non-compliance and taking corrective action rather than rationalizing violations through convenience or longstanding practice
[Case 116] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to take responsibility for their professional decisions and actions, including acknowledging non-compliance and taking corrective action rather than rationalizing violations through convenience or longstanding practice.
[Case 12] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to take responsibility for their professional decisions and actions, including acknowledging non-compliance, errors, and limitations rather than concealing them, and taking corrective action rather than rationalizing failures through convenience or economic pressure
[Case 175] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to take responsibility for their professional decisions and actions, including accepting the professional and employment consequences of refusing to comply with directives they believe would violate professional ethics.
Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work Obligation
professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who directed the preparation of engineering work product — including design documents prepared by subordinates under the engineer's direction — to accept full professional accountability for the quality, accuracy, and regulatory compliance of that work product, recognizing that delegation of preparation tasks does not diminish the directing engineer's professional responsibility for the outcome.
Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation Personal Advantage Threshold Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a professional society chapter to refrain from using that membership affiliation to secure personal advantage — such as enhanced standing, prestige, or business benefit — when soliciting the chapter's endorsement of a position the engineer has been retained to advocate; with the critical threshold being whether the engineer holds a position of special influence within the chapter (e.g., office, committee membership) beyond ordinary membership, or has exerted improper influence on officers or members, rather than merely presenting findings and requesting peer evaluation through normal chapter processes.
Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation for Personal Advantage Principle
Relational principle establishing that engineers must not use their membership or standing in professional organizations, societies, or affiliations as an instrument to secure personal advantage — whether financial, reputational, or competitive — at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession; the principle distinguishes between the legitimate exercise of membership rights (presenting findings, seeking peer input, voicing professional views) and the impermissible exploitation of organizational access or influence to advance private interests; the prohibition is activated when the engineer holds special positional influence within the organization (e.g., office, committee membership) or exerts undue pressure on members, but mere membership status combined with transparent disclosure of the engagement does not per se constitute exploitation
Professional Affiliation Personal Advantage Prohibition Standard
He will not use his professional affiliations or public office to secure personal advantage and will avoid any act tending to promote his own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.
An ethical standard derived from professional codes prohibiting engineers from using their professional affiliations or public office to secure personal advantage, and requiring avoidance of acts that promote self-interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.
Professional Affiliation Personal Advantage Threshold Determination State
State in which an engineer who is a member of a professional society chapter seeks that chapter's endorsement of a technical position the engineer has been retained by a private client to advance — where the question is whether seeking such endorsement constitutes using professional affiliation to secure personal advantage in violation of ethics codes, and where the determination turns on whether the engineer holds special influence within the chapter (e.g., office, committee membership, or exerted undue influence) beyond ordinary membership, and whether any personal advantage gained (such as enhanced prestige or standing) rises to the level of an impermissible benefit.
Professional Affiliation Personal Advantage Threshold Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of a professional society chapter to correctly assess whether presenting technical findings to that chapter and soliciting its endorsement — while being retained by a private client with a stake in the outcome — crosses the threshold from legitimate transparent advocacy into impermissible use of professional affiliation to secure personal advantage, including the ability to distinguish between: (1) the ordinary advantage of having peer views validated, which does not constitute prohibited personal advantage, and (2) the impermissible advantage of leveraging a position of special influence (such as holding office or committee membership) to predetermine or unduly influence the chapter's endorsement decision.
Professional Affiliation Special Influence Position Disqualification Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who holds a position of special influence within a professional society chapter — such as an officer position or membership on a committee directly involved in the question at issue — is disqualified from using that chapter as a vehicle to seek endorsement of a position that serves the engineer's retained client's interest, distinguishing this heightened prohibition from the more permissible baseline case of ordinary membership, and establishing that the combination of special institutional influence and client-interested advocacy creates an irresolvable conflict that ordinary disclosure cannot cure.
Professional Association Disengagement Obligation for Fraudulent Enterprise
Professional principle requiring engineers to refrain from permitting the use of their name or associating in business ventures with any person or firm that the engineer believes is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise — and, when an ongoing association reveals fraudulent or dishonest conduct, to take affirmative steps to disassociate or compel correction rather than passively continuing the association
Professional Association Disengagement from Report-Altering Fraudulent Firm Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their employing firm — through the actions of a non-engineer principal or supervisor — has altered the engineer's signed and sealed professional reports without factual or technical basis and transmitted those altered reports to clients in a manner that harms third parties, to disengage from professional association with that firm, recognizing that continued employment constitutes association with a fraudulent enterprise in violation of the NSPE Code's prohibition on association with dishonest or fraudulent business ventures.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from permitting the use of their name or associating in business ventures with any person or firm that the engineer believes is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise, including refusing to continue professional association when a subcontractor or partner has produced materially false or misleading reports.
Professional Certification as Guarantee Obligation and Limitation Principle
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer 'certifies' a statement of compliance or fact, the act of certification constitutes a professional guarantee — not merely an opinion or review — that the certified statement is correct. Because certification carries the weight of a guarantee, engineers are ethically prohibited from certifying matters they cannot independently verify through adequate inspection, analysis, and domain-specific knowledge. The certification act is not a ministerial or administrative function but a substantive professional attestation requiring the certifying engineer to possess both the technical competence to evaluate the subject matter and the practical ability to conduct the inspection or analysis necessary to support the guarantee.
Professional Chapter Independent Judgment Presumption Active State
it would be highly destructive of a major function of the chapter if the Code were construed to prevent the local membership from expressing an opinion on a matter of local concern of an engineering nature because one or more members were involved on behalf of a particular interest group.
State in which a professional engineering society chapter is called upon to evaluate and potentially endorse a technical position where one or more of its own members are retained advocates for that position — and where the ethical analysis presumes that chapter members will exercise independent professional judgment based on the merits rather than being unduly swayed by collegial membership ties, such that the chapter's endorsement function is not ethically foreclosed merely because member-advocates are present, provided the retainer relationship has been disclosed.
Principle requiring engineers to practice only within their areas of competence and to ensure that all work bearing their seal reflects genuine professional judgment and technical adequacy
[Case 146] Principle requiring engineers to perform services only in areas of their competence and to maintain and develop their professional knowledge and skills
[Case 150] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to practice only within their areas of competence, to recognize the limits of their expertise, and to ensure that safety-critical matters receive appropriately qualified professional review.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the requirement that engineers practice only within their areas of demonstrated competence, and the duty to disclose limitations before undertaking work outside their expertise
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
Engineer L has many years of experience in stormwater control design.
Principle requiring engineers to apply their specialized technical competence to identify, assess, and quantify risks within their domain of expertise, and to act on those assessments even when preliminary or qualitative, rather than deferring action pending perfect information
[Case 78] Principle requiring engineers to apply their specialized technical competence to identify, assess, and quantify risks within their domain of expertise, and to act on those assessments even when preliminary or qualitative, rather than deferring action pending perfect information.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to conduct themselves in ways that respect the dignity and professional standing of other engineers, and to refrain from conduct that demeans, undermines, or unjustly damages the professional reputation of colleagues
[Case 169] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to conduct themselves in ways that respect the dignity and professional standing of other engineers, and to refrain from conduct that demeans, undermines, or unjustly damages the professional reputation of colleagues.
Professional Dignity Non-Formal-Code Voluntary Preservation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaging in sub-professional or non-professional (business or commercial) activities to voluntarily preserve the dignity and honor of the engineering profession even when formal ethics code provisions do not technically apply to those activities — recognizing that the absence of formal code applicability does not eliminate the professional's responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the honor and dignity of the profession, and that professional identity persists across all activities regardless of their classification.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a member of NSPE to recognize that voluntary membership in and commitment to the NSPE Code of Ethics imposes a higher standard of professional conduct than the minimum required by state engineering registration board rules of professional conduct — and to correctly apply that higher standard to professional decisions, understanding that the Code was developed precisely because engineers desire and commit to 'go the extra mile' beyond legal minimums in protecting public health and safety.
Professional Dignity Preservation in Sub-Professional and Non-Professional Activities Obligation
Sections 2 and 19 of the Canons limit the engineers' personal conduct in a general frame of reference to his professional work.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who engages in sub-professional or non-professional (business or commercial) activities — even where the formal ethics code canons do not directly apply to those activities — to avoid conduct likely to discredit or do injury to the dignity and honor of the engineering profession, and to endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding, recognizing that the engineer's professional identity persists across all activities and that conduct in commercial domains can still reflect on the profession as a whole.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Obligation of every licensed professional engineer to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the engineering profession through their personal conduct — not merely through their professional engineering activities — recognizing that the NSPE Code's preamble enjoins engineers to preserve the profession's honor and dignity, and that personal misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude is incompatible with this obligation because it brings disrepute to the entire profession through the acts of individual members, undermining public confidence in all engineers.
Professional Dignity and Honor Preservation in Dual-Mode Practice Principle
Professional virtue principle requiring that when a licensed engineer or engineering firm engages in sub-professional or non-professional commercial activities alongside professional engineering practice, the engineer must conduct all activities — including commercial ones — in a manner that does not discredit, injure, or bring dishonor to the engineering profession, even though the specific canons governing professional conduct do not formally apply to the sub-professional activities; the engineer's professional identity and the profession's collective reputation remain at stake in all public-facing conduct
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to conduct themselves in ways that respect the dignity and professional standing of other engineers, and to refrain from conduct that demeans, undermines, or unjustly damages the professional reputation of colleagues
Professional Disassociation Decision State
Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City
State in which a licensed professional engineer must decide whether to continue association with a project or firm after internal escalation efforts have failed to resolve ethical violations, where continued association risks implicating the engineer in fraudulent or dishonest conduct, and where disassociation or external reporting becomes an active ethical obligation.
Professional Engineering Code Scope Limitation to Professional Practice Constraint
Inviolable ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct governing licensed professional engineers are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice — and not to business, commercial, or sub-professional activities in which a professional engineer may engage, either as a sole activity or in conjunction with engineering practice; prohibiting the extension of professional code provisions to non-professional commercial activities while simultaneously affirming that baseline honesty and dignity obligations persist in all contexts; grounded in the textual scope of Canons Sections 2 and 19 which limit engineers' personal conduct obligations to their professional work frame of reference.
Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Constraint
Foundational ethical constraint establishing that the purpose of professional engineering ethics codes is to elevate to a mandatory professional duty the conduct that all public-spirited and civic-minded citizens would engage in — prohibiting engineers from treating their professional ethics obligations as merely aspirational or as less demanding than the conduct expected of engaged citizens, and establishing that when civic duty would call for reporting a deceptive or dangerous practice, professional ethics elevates that civic impulse to a binding professional obligation, as established by the BER's articulation that 'in a fundamental sense, the purpose of professional ethics is to elevate to a duty conduct of the type in which all public spirited and civic-minded citizens engage.'
Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and articulate the foundational principle that professional ethics codes serve to elevate to a mandatory professional duty the conduct that all public-spirited and civic-minded citizens would engage in voluntarily — understanding that professional obligations are not merely aspirational civic virtues but binding duties that exceed the minimum conduct expected of ordinary citizens, and applying this principle when assessing whether a particular action (such as reporting a competitor's potentially dangerous fee proposal) is a permissible option or a mandatory professional obligation.
Professional Ethics Obligation Persistence in Sub-Professional Practice Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that a licensed professional engineer's ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics do not lapse or diminish when the engineer or the engineer's firm performs work that is sub-professional in character; the full suite of honesty, transparency, and integrity obligations continues to govern the engineer's conduct even in commercial or sub-professional engagements
Professional Ethics Persistence in Sub-Professional Bid Conduct Obligation
Duty of a professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed PEs to recognize that its ethical obligations under the engineering code of ethics — including honesty, non-deception, fair competition, and avoidance of conduct injurious to the profession — persist in full force when the firm submits a competitive bid for sub-professional services, and that the sub-professional character of the work does not suspend, reduce, or exempt the firm from compliance with applicable ethics code provisions governing bid representations, competitive conduct, and professional integrity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Obligation of a professional ethics reviewing body and of licensed professional engineers to reject the narrow argument that a professional code of ethics applies only to conduct that directly prejudices or tends to prejudice the performance of professional services — and instead to interpret the ethics code expansively to encompass personal misconduct that undermines public confidence in the profession's integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior, recognizing that the foundational purpose of a professional ethics code is to regulate practitioners so that the public may have confidence in them, not merely to police technical engineering conduct.
Professional Honor Non-Degradation Through Incompetent Bidding Constraint
Finally, I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from bidding on, accepting, or performing engineering contracts in domains where the firm lacks adequate competence, on the grounds that such conduct degrades the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession — as established by NSPE Code I.6 — establishing that the obligation to preserve professional honor operates as a constraint on competitive and commercial conduct, not merely on technical performance.
Professional Honor Preservation in International Practice
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineers practicing internationally bear the same obligation to avoid conduct that brings dishonor upon themselves or other engineers as they do in domestic practice — the international arena does not create an exception to the profession's honor and dignity norms — and that maintaining professional honor in cross-border practice is essential to the global credibility and coherence of the engineering profession
Professional Honor and Dignity Preservation Obligation
the preamble enjoins the engineer '. . . to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the profession . . .'
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineers bear an affirmative obligation to uphold and advance the honor and dignity of the engineering profession through their conduct — both in professional practice and in personal behavior — such that conduct which brings disrepute to the profession through the acts of individual practitioners triggers the profession's legitimate interest in corrective action, because the profession's collective honor is diminished by the publicly identified misconduct of its members
Professional Honor and Reputation Preservation in Competence Decisions Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to conduct themselves in a manner that enhances the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the engineering profession when making decisions about whether to bid on and accept contracts, including the duty to refrain from bidding on or accepting contracts involving work for which the firm lacks adequate competence, recognizing that accepting out-of-competence work and delivering deficient results damages the profession's honor and public trust.
Professional Honor and Reputation Preservation in International Practice Capability
Richard Roe, P.E., is president and chief executive officer of an engineering firm which has done overseas assignments in various parts of the world
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in international practice to recognize that the manner in which the engineer conducts themselves in foreign procurement contexts reflects on and affects the honor and reputation of the engineering profession as a whole, and to conduct international practice in a manner that upholds rather than compromises that professional honor — including the ability to weigh reputational consequences of corrupt participation against short-term business gains and to prioritize professional integrity.
Professional Inaction Avoidance Upon Contradictory Public Hearing Data Obligation
Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who possesses completed technical findings that directly contradict data presented by a former client at a public regulatory hearing — where the contradictory data is being used to obtain a permit or regulatory approval that would harm public health or environmental welfare — to take affirmative action rather than remain passive, recognizing that inaction in the face of known contradictory public hearing testimony constitutes unprofessional conduct equivalent to active complicity in the client's misrepresentation, and that the engineer's paramount duty to protect public welfare requires coming forward to correct the record.
Professional Inaction as Unprofessional Conduct
We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
Professional principle establishing that where an engineer possesses confirmed technical findings demonstrating a threat to public safety, health, or welfare, and a client has suppressed the written report of those findings, the engineer's failure to take further affirmative action to protect the public interest — such as notifying proper authorities — itself constitutes unprofessional conduct under the ethics code, regardless of whether the engineer has already discharged the literal terms of the engagement
[Case 132] Professional accountability principle establishing that an engineer's failure to take required action in response to a known public safety risk constitutes unprofessional conduct equivalent to an affirmative ethical violation.
Professional Independence Asserting Forensic Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, having previously served one or more clients, accepts a forensic or expert engagement adverse to those former clients in an unrelated matter, asserting professional independence and individual judgment against claims of conflict of interest — particularly where an attorney or opposing party attempts to impose an advocacy-based loyalty model drawn from legal professional norms onto the engineering profession.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained as an expert witness or technical reviewer by multiple parties across separate, unrelated litigation matters over time — including parties with potentially adverse interests — bearing obligations of professional independence, objectivity, and disclosure of prior relationships, while retaining the right to exercise individual judgment about engagement acceptance without being bound by an absolute duty of perpetual loyalty to any former client.
Professional Judgment Abandonment Under Client Economic Pressure Prohibition
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer who has formed a professional judgment — grounded in education, expertise, and experience — that a particular safety measure is necessary may not abandon that judgment when the client objects on cost grounds, because the act of capitulation to economic pressure converts the engineer's primary obligation from public safety to client economic convenience, which is an independent ethical violation distinct from any failure to notify.
Professional Judgment Disclosure Threshold Determination State
the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information'
State in which a professional engineer must exercise independent professional judgment to determine whether specific technical information — such as traffic, noise, or air pollution impacts from a proposed development — crosses the threshold of being 'relevant and pertinent' to a public presentation or report, such that the engineer's ethical obligation to disclose is contingent on that professional judgment determination rather than being categorically mandated. The state arises when the relevance of collateral impacts is genuinely contestable and the engineer's good-faith professional assessment governs the disclosure obligation.
Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Final Arbiter Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to design or evaluate a project that involves unavoidable environmental trade-offs — where society's need for a facility must be balanced against some level of environmental degradation — to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between competing interests, recognizing that no finite answer exists to such trade-offs, that a growing body of law and regulation establishes governing criteria but does not eliminate the need for professional judgment, and that the engineer's honest and objective application of that judgment — even when it produces a controversial outcome — constitutes ethical conduct.
Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Finality Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer has designed a project that complies with applicable state and local environmental laws but presents residual environmental risks — such as methane gas migration or groundwater contamination — the engineer's professional judgment serves as the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs and unavoidable environmental degradation, prohibiting external actors from characterizing the engineer's compliance-based design decision as unethical solely because residual environmental risks remain, and establishing that the absence of a finite answer to environmental trade-offs does not render the engineer's judgment-based decision an ethical violation.
Professional Judgment Independence Under Client Pressure Capability
Capability to maintain independent professional judgment and fulfill disclosure and reporting obligations even when client preferences, institutional pressures, or project timeline considerations create pressure to minimize, omit, or downplay identified risks — including environmental justice risks, long-term lifecycle risks, and climate policy misalignment findings — and to resist the temptation to allow client preferences to shape the completeness or objectivity of professional reports and recommendations.
Professional Judgment Primacy in Relevance Determination for Public Disclosure
In the present case, the question is whether the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues are 'relevant and pertinent information.' If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer is called upon to decide whether specific technical information (such as traffic, noise, or air pollution impacts) is 'relevant and pertinent' to a public regulatory presentation, that determination itself is a matter of professional judgment — not a mechanical rule — and the engineer acts ethically when exercising that judgment in good faith, even if others would have reached a different conclusion about what to disclose.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle establishing that an engineer presenting at a public hearing is not ethically required to volunteer information about project impacts that, in the engineer's professional judgment, is not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter or the questions posed — while retaining the obligation to provide complete and truthful answers to all questions actually asked, and recognizing that other witnesses and participants in the public process may supply information the presenting engineer did not volunteer
Professional Judgment Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure Obligation
If they are 'relevant and pertinent,' the engineer has an obligation to disclose the information in any presentation made on the project.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a client to disclose information about a project's adverse impacts — including traffic, noise, and air pollution — if and only if the engineer's professional judgment determines that such information is 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter; recognizing that this obligation is conditional on the relevance determination, that the engineer is not required to volunteer information that professional judgment identifies as outside the scope of the hearing's inquiry, and that honest differences among qualified engineers about what constitutes 'relevant and pertinent' information are ethically permissible.
Professional Judgment Safety Determination Client Cost-Override Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has made a careful, experience-based professional judgment that a specific safety measure is necessary for a dangerous project phase is prohibited from abandoning that determination solely because the client raises cost objections — establishing that the engineer's primary obligation is to public safety, not to the client's economic concerns, and that cost pressure from a client does not constitute a legitimate basis for reversing a professionally grounded safety determination.
Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when engineers must balance society's need for essential public facilities against unavoidable environmental degradation — in the absence of definitive regulatory answers — professional engineering judgment serves as the final arbiter of the appropriate balance, and engineers who exercise that judgment in good faith and in compliance with applicable law act ethically even when their conclusions are publicly contested
Professional Liability Insurance Affordability Constraint State
We are mindful that the cost and scope of professional liability insurance continue to be prohibitive for some practitioners
State in which professional liability insurance is technically available on the market but remains cost-prohibitive or scope-limited for some practitioners, creating a partial resource constraint that does not fully justify broad client indemnification provisions but nonetheless limits the engineer's ability to obtain standard coverage.
[proethica-intermediate] Resource limitation affecting available actions
Professional Liability Insurance Market Cyclicality Awareness and Re-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the professional liability insurance market — including coverage for pollution-related and other specialized engineering services — is cyclical, fluid, and subject to significant change over time; to monitor market conditions periodically; to recognize when market normalization has occurred after a crisis period; and to re-assess whether contractual arrangements originally justified by market unavailability (such as client indemnification clauses) remain ethically defensible given current market conditions, adjusting professional practice accordingly.
Professional Liability Insurance Obtainment Obligation Active State
where such protection are reasonably available and affordable to the engineer to guard the interests of both the client and the engineer, barring special or additional circumstances, the engineer has an ethical obligation to obtain such protection
State in which professional liability insurance for the relevant service domain is reasonably available and affordable on the market, triggering an affirmative ethical obligation for the engineer to obtain such coverage to protect both the engineer's client and the engineer, and correspondingly prohibiting the engineer from seeking broad client indemnification for ordinary negligence in lieu of obtaining available insurance.
Professional Liability Insurance Procurement Ethical Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer providing professional services in a domain where professional liability insurance has become reasonably available and affordable to procure such insurance as the primary mechanism for managing professional liability risk, establishing that the availability of professional liability insurance eliminates the necessity-based justification for alternative risk-transfer mechanisms such as client indemnification clauses, and that failure to procure available insurance while simultaneously requiring clients to bear the engineer's liability risk constitutes an ethical violation of the faithful agent duty under NSPE Code Section III.9; subject to a soft exception where insurance remains genuinely cost-prohibitive for the individual practitioner.
Professional Liability Insurance Procurement Obligation When Reasonably Available
we are of the view that where such protection are reasonably available and affordable to the engineer to guard the interests of both the client and the engineer, barring special or additional circumstances, the engineer has an ethical obligation to obtain such protection and not seek indemnification from the client for ordinary negligence
Domain-specific principle establishing that where professional liability insurance (or equivalent protection) is reasonably available and affordable in the market, an engineer has an ethical obligation to obtain such protection for the benefit of both the client and the engineer, rather than seeking indemnification from the client for ordinary negligence — reflecting the view that the client-indemnification exception to personal professional responsibility was intended as a last resort when no market alternative existed, not as a routine contractual preference.
Professional Liability Responsibility-Accepting Engineer
engineers are also expected to be personally liable for their acts, errors or omissions in the performance of their professional services
A licensed professional engineering role in which the engineer bears the ethical obligation to accept personal responsibility for professional acts, errors, and omissions, and—where professional liability insurance is reasonably available and affordable—to obtain such coverage to protect client interests rather than seeking indemnification from clients for ordinary negligence. This role reflects NSPE Code Section III.9 as interpreted in a normalized professional liability insurance market.
Professional Licensure System Rationale Articulation Capability
Capability to understand, internalize, and articulate the public interest rationale underlying professional licensure requirements — including the purposes of competence demonstration, exclusion of unqualified individuals, protection of public health and safety, and maintenance of professional integrity — and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical significance of unlicensed practice and engineering title misrepresentation.
Professional Literature Currency Failure State
State in which a licensed engineer who generally attempts to maintain professional currency has nonetheless failed to become aware of recently published, materially relevant technical standards or design methods in their practice domain, such that their completed design work does not reflect the current state of professional knowledge, creating a gap between the engineer's applied methods and the published standard of care.
Professional Obligation Boundary Determination State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, having fulfilled all formally recognized professional reporting obligations, must determine whether additional actions — such as escalating to higher governmental bodies, communicating with political entities, or engaging the public — fall within their professional ethical duties or constitute personal citizen choices that are ethically permissible but not professionally mandated, and must evaluate those potential actions in light of employer obligations, legal liability, and stakeholder impacts.
Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
State in which two or more licensed professional engineers hold and publicly express conflicting technical opinions on the same engineering project at a regulatory or public hearing, where a public board is relying on that testimony to make a consequential decision, creating tension between professional deference, public safety obligations, and the ethical permissibility of criticizing a peer's work in a public forum.
Professional Opinion Versus Factual Disagreement Discrimination Capability
Is this a disagreement of professional opinions, or is it a misunderstanding of the facts or the technical considerations?
Capability to distinguish between situations where two engineers hold legitimately different professional opinions based on the same facts — representing a genuine disagreement of professional judgment — versus situations where a contradicting engineer is unaware of material facts or technical considerations that would change their assessment, thereby correctly calibrating the reporting and correction obligations that arise in each scenario and determining whether the discrepancy requires intervention to ensure the uninformed engineer and regulatory authorities have access to all material technical information.
Professional Peer Independent Judgment Norm
A professional norm embodying the expectation that members of the engineering profession will exercise independent judgment when evaluating technical positions presented by fellow members, without being unduly influenced by personal relationships, shared organizational membership, or collegial loyalty.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms and ethical principles affirming that engineers must maintain individual professional judgment, autonomy, and discretion in accepting or declining engagements, and are not bound by an absolute duty of perpetual loyalty to former clients that would compromise their independence — particularly when new engagements are unrelated to prior work for those clients.
Professional Peer Judgment Independence from Collegial Membership Deference Principle
We prefer to believe that the local chapter members would not be swayed by that fact alone or even influenced by that connection standing alone.
Professional virtue principle establishing that members of a professional society or peer body are expected — as a basic requirement of professional peer judgment — to exercise independent technical and ethical evaluation of positions presented to them by fellow members, without being unduly swayed by the mere fact of shared organizational membership or collegial relationship with the presenting engineer; the principle reflects the foundational assumption that professional peer judgment is valuable precisely because it is independent, and that collegial solidarity cannot substitute for objective assessment of the technical merits
Professional Reciprocity Golden Rule Collegial Restraint Obligation
At some point down the road of professional practice, Engineer A may find himself in a similar circumstance and one can only suspect that Engineer A would value and appreciate a professional colleague steering him in the right direction
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is considering reporting a professional colleague for a licensure violation or other professional infraction to consider, as part of the ethical deliberation, the professional reciprocity norm — recognizing that the engineer may one day find themselves in a similar circumstance and would value collegial guidance rather than immediate adverse reporting — and to allow this reciprocity consideration to inform the choice of a collegial, counseling-first approach over immediate punitive reporting, provided the violation does not pose an imminent public danger.
Professional Reciprocity Perspective-Taking Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is considering reporting a professional colleague for a licensure violation to engage in genuine perspective-taking by imagining themselves in the colleague's position — specifically asking whether they would value collegial counsel and an opportunity to cure the violation before formal reporting — and to allow this reciprocity reasoning to appropriately temper the timing and manner of any reporting response, consistent with the professional golden rule norm that engineers should treat colleagues as they themselves would wish to be treated in analogous circumstances.
Professional Reciprocity Reporting Deliberation Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is considering reporting a professional colleague for a licensure violation — particularly when the engineer has a competitive interest in the outcome — must deliberate on the professional reciprocity norm by considering how the engineer would wish to be treated if the roles were reversed, prohibiting reflexive or self-interested reporting without first applying the reciprocity standard as a check on the motivation and proportionality of the reporting decision, while not permitting the reciprocity norm to suppress reporting of genuine, unresolved violations.
Professional Reciprocity and Collegial Solidarity Principle
Relational principle grounding professional obligations toward colleagues — including competitors — in a norm of reciprocity: engineers should treat professional colleagues as they would wish to be treated in analogous circumstances, recognizing that any engineer may find themselves in a position of inadvertent non-compliance and would value collegial guidance over punitive reporting, and that this reciprocity norm generates affirmative obligations of collegial engagement that constrain purely adversarial or self-interested professional conduct
Firm DBA prepares a carefully-framed report, omitting details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of engineering reports and professional communications, prohibiting selective omission of material facts, misrepresentation of community input, and framing of findings in ways that mislead clients or the public
[proethica-intermediate] Distillations of collective experience that guide and justify actions
Professional Reputation Complaint Filing Engineer
Engineer A filed a complaint with the state registration board
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer whose original design work has been critiqued or found deficient by a subsequently retained reviewing engineer files a formal complaint with a state registration board or ethics authority, alleging that the reviewing engineer acted improperly, maliciously, or in violation of professional codes governing inter-engineer review, thereby invoking regulatory mechanisms to challenge the legitimacy of the peer review.
Professional Reputation and Honor Obligation
I.6 indicates that engineers shall conduct themselves in a way so to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to conduct themselves in ways that enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession, including by refraining from bidding on or accepting contracts for work that the engineer lacks the competence to perform adequately
Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to accept responsibility for their professional services, acknowledge errors in their work, and take corrective action when design deficiencies are discovered, including obligations to notify clients and relevant parties of inaccurate data or flawed conclusions
[Case 107] Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the duty of engineers to accept responsibility for their professional services, acknowledge errors in their work, and take corrective action when design deficiencies or inaccurate data are discovered, including obligations to notify clients and relevant parties of inaccurate data or flawed conclusions
Professional Scope and Interdisciplinary Boundary Respect
Relational principle requiring engineers to recognize the boundaries of their professional scope and the authority of other licensed design professionals — such as landscape architects — over specifications within those professionals' domains, while retaining the right and obligation to raise concerns when adjacent-discipline specifications create engineering, environmental, or public welfare implications within the engineer's own domain of responsibility
Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Activation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the existence of a mandatory professional safety obligation — as distinct from a permissible personal conscience response — is activated by the engineer's direct professional scope of responsibility for the affected condition, property, or party, and that the absence of a direct professional relationship with the affected party is the key factual determinant distinguishing cases where mandatory safety escalation is required from cases where only personal conscience discretion applies; prohibiting the conflation of cases involving in-scope safety hazards (which generate mandatory obligations) with cases involving out-of-scope adjacent property observations (which generate only permissible discretionary responses).
Professional Scope of Responsibility Safety Obligation Nexus Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing bodies to correctly identify whether an observed safety hazard falls within or outside the engineer's professional scope of responsibility — recognizing that this scope-of-responsibility determination is the key factual distinction that determines whether a mandatory safety disclosure obligation arises, as distinguished from mere scope-of-work contractual limitations — and to apply this determination to calibrate the nature and intensity of the professional response, including recognizing that hazards within the professional scope of responsibility generate mandatory obligations while hazards entirely outside that scope generate only permissible voluntary responses.
Professional Seal Affixation Competence Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from affixing their signature or professional seal to any plans, documents, or deliverables dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence — whether that competence is established by education or by experience in the specific technical field — and to decline to seal work product in domains outside their demonstrated expertise regardless of contractual or economic pressures.
Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Capability
Capability to verify, before affixing a professional signature and seal to plans or documents, that one possesses genuine domain-specific competence in the subject matter of those plans — including distinguishing between general engineering qualification and specific technical field competence — and to refrain from sealing documents in domains where competence is lacking, consistent with NSPE Code II.2.b.
Professional Seal Judgment and Discretion Ethical Certification Constraint
the conduct of the engineer in the preparation of the plans and drawings involves the professional judgment and discretion of the engineer-judgment and discretion which are shaped by a variety of ethical concerns.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that the act of affixing a professional seal to engineering plans and drawings is not merely a procedural or administrative act but constitutes a certification of the engineer's professional judgment and discretion — judgment and discretion shaped by a variety of ethical concerns — prohibiting engineers from treating the seal as a formality separable from substantive professional engagement with the work product, and establishing that the ethical dimensions of sealing extend beyond legal consequences to encompass the full range of professional responsibilities that the seal represents.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents — whether personally prepared or prepared by supervised personnel using CADD or other systems — assumes full professional responsibility for the entire work product upon sealing, and cannot subsequently disclaim, limit, or transfer that responsibility on the basis that the documents were produced by a technological system or by supervised subordinates; the act of sealing is an unconditional acceptance of professional accountability for the technical integrity, accuracy, and completeness of the sealed work.
Professional Society Chapter Endorsement Authority
appears before the local chapter of the state society of which he is a member
An institutional stakeholder role borne by a local chapter of a state professional engineering society that is asked to evaluate a technical engineering alternative and issue a public endorsement, bearing obligations to assess the request objectively, consider the technical merits, and weigh the appropriateness of institutional advocacy on specific infrastructure decisions.
Professional Society Chapter Endorsement Ethics Standard
Engineer B, a partner in the same firm as Engineer A, appears before the local chapter of the state society of which he is a member, explains the circumstances of the project, answers all questions asked of him and asks the chapter to publicly endorse route Y
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing whether and how engineers may appropriately solicit their professional society chapter to publicly endorse a technical position or infrastructure alternative that benefits a client who has employed the engineer, addressing the tension between legitimate professional advocacy and improper use of professional society channels for client interests.
Professional Society Chapter Endorsement Independence Preservation Constraint
Engineer B, a partner in the same firm as Engineer A, appears before the local chapter of the state society of which he is a member
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineering society chapter that is asked by a member-engineer to publicly endorse a specific technical position in a public policy dispute must exercise its endorsement judgment independently of the requesting member's advocacy — prohibiting the chapter from treating the member's presentation as determinative of the endorsement decision, requiring the chapter to independently evaluate the technical merits of the position, and establishing that the chapter's institutional credibility depends on its endorsement decisions reflecting genuine independent professional judgment rather than deference to member advocacy, particularly when the requesting member has a disclosed or apparent financial interest in the endorsed position.
Professional Society Chapter Function Preservation Through Non-Restrictive Code Interpretation Obligation
As to the second question, it would be highly destructive of a major function of the chapter if the Code were construed to prevent the local membership from expressing an opinion on a matter of local concern of an engineering nature because one or more members were involved on behalf of a particular interest group.
Duty of professional ethics bodies and engineers to interpret the professional code of ethics in a manner that preserves — rather than destroys — the institutional function of professional society chapters to express opinions on matters of local engineering concern, recognizing that an interpretation of the code that prevents a chapter from evaluating and endorsing engineering positions merely because one or more members are involved as retained advocates would be highly destructive of a major chapter function and is therefore an impermissible reading of the code.
Professional Society Chapter Independent Endorsement Evaluation Capability
Capability of a local professional society chapter — acting as a collective institutional body — to independently evaluate a technical recommendation presented by a member-engineer who is simultaneously a retained advocate for a private client, applying independent technical judgment rather than deferring to the presenter's conclusions, recognizing the presenter's dual role and potential bias, and reaching an endorsement decision (or declining to endorse) based on the chapter's own assessment of the technical merits rather than on the credibility or membership status of the presenting engineer.
Professional Society Chapter Independent Endorsement Judgment Obligation
Relational principle establishing that when a professional society chapter is asked by a member-engineer to publicly endorse a technical position or policy outcome, the chapter's membership bears an obligation to evaluate the request on the independent merits of the technical findings presented — exercising genuine peer judgment unclouded by collegial deference to the requesting member — and to decline endorsement where the technical case is not sufficiently established, where the chapter lacks the information needed to form an independent view, or where endorsement would compromise the chapter's institutional integrity as an objective professional body.
Professional Society Chapter Independent Technical Endorsement Judgment Obligation
Duty of a local professional society chapter that has been asked by a member-engineer to publicly endorse a specific engineering conclusion or route recommendation to evaluate the technical merits of the presented analysis independently — based on the engineering evidence, the completeness of the comparative analysis, and the chapter's own collective professional judgment — rather than deferring to the presenting engineer's conclusion solely on the basis of the engineer's membership status, retainer credentials, or persuasive advocacy; and to decline endorsement if the chapter's independent assessment does not support the technical conclusion presented.
Professional Society Chapter Institutional Function Preservation Code Interpretation Capability
Capability of professional ethics reviewing bodies and licensed professional engineers to interpret the professional code of ethics in a manner that preserves — rather than destroys — the institutional function of local professional society chapters to express opinions on matters of local engineering concern, recognizing that a code interpretation which prevents chapter members from endorsing technical positions merely because one or more members are involved on behalf of a particular interest group would be highly destructive of a major function of the chapter, and that such a restrictive interpretation is therefore unreasonable and inconsistent with the code's underlying purposes.
Professional Society Chapter Local Engineering Opinion Function Preservation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the professional code of ethics must not be construed to prevent a local professional society chapter from expressing an opinion on a matter of local engineering concern merely because one or more of its members are involved on behalf of a particular interest group — prohibiting interpretations of the code that would destroy the chapter's major institutional function of providing peer professional judgment on local engineering questions, and establishing that the chapter's ability to express independent opinions on local engineering matters is a protected institutional function that code interpretation must preserve.
Professional Society Criminal Conviction Disciplinary Jurisdiction Exercise Capability
Capability of a professional engineering society or state engineering registration board to correctly identify, assert, and exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over member engineers who have been convicted of criminal offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — including offenses not directly related to engineering practice — recognizing that such convictions implicate the character and integrity requirements of professional engineering licensure and membership, and that the society's or board's disciplinary authority extends to personal misconduct that undermines public confidence in the profession.
Professional Society Disciplinary Authority
professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services
An institutional role borne by a professional engineering society (e.g., NSPE) or state engineering registration board that exercises disciplinary jurisdiction over licensed engineers, including the authority to investigate, sanction, suspend, or revoke membership or licensure not only for misconduct in the practice of engineering but also for personal misconduct — such as criminal conviction or conduct involving moral turpitude — that reflects upon the honor and dignity of the profession and undermines public confidence.
Professional Society Disciplinary Jurisdiction Over Legally-Adjudicated Personal Misconduct State
the professional society may take note of such official findings and act accordingly to protect the good name of the profession
State in which a professional society possesses and is called upon to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over a member's personal misconduct that has been formally adjudicated by proper legal authority — such as criminal conviction — even though the misconduct is unrelated to the direct performance of professional services. This state is activated by the intersection of: (1) a legal adjudication establishing the misconduct's character, (2) the misconduct's capacity to bring disrepute to the profession, and (3) the professional society's charter obligation to protect public confidence in the profession. The state imposes a duty of judicious but active response, constrained by the prohibition on overreaching into purely personal matters not adjudicated by legal authority.
Professional Society Disciplinary Scope Limitation Principle
professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that while professional societies with disciplinary authority may act on personal misconduct that has been adjudicated by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of socially sanctioned conduct, they must exercise careful and judicious restraint and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct of individuals — the disciplinary jurisdiction over personal conduct is triggered only when legal authority has made an official finding, and does not extend to personal lifestyle choices or habits that have not been so adjudicated
Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility Principle
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who is a dues-paying member of a professional society chapter may ethically appear before that chapter to present technical findings developed in the course of a client engagement and to request the chapter's public endorsement of a position supported by those findings, provided the engineer fully discloses the circumstances of the engagement, answers all questions honestly, and does not misrepresent the technical basis or the nature of the client relationship — the dual status of retained professional and chapter member does not per se create an ethical violation, so long as the presentation is transparent and the chapter retains full autonomy to accept or reject the request.
Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is both a retained advocate for a private client and a member of a professional society chapter to correctly assess whether soliciting that chapter's public endorsement of a specific technical position — which aligns with the client's interest — is ethically permissible, including the ability to recognize the boundary between legitimate transparent advocacy through institutional channels and impermissible exploitation of membership status to obtain institutional credibility for a client-serving position, and to ensure that any endorsement solicitation is accompanied by full disclosure of the retention relationship.
Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation for Client-Preferred Position State
State in which an engineer who is a member of a professional society chapter, while employed by or partnered with a firm retained by a party with a direct interest in a technical outcome, appears before that society chapter to present technical findings and solicit a public endorsement of the position favored by the retaining client — where the engineer has disclosed the circumstances of the engagement, creating a condition in which the society's endorsement, if granted, would carry the weight of independent professional judgment but originates from a client-advocacy context.
Professional Society Endorsement Soliciting Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer — typically a partner or principal in a firm with a stake in a public infrastructure decision — appears before a professional society chapter, presents the technical and contextual circumstances of a project, answers member questions, and formally requests the chapter's public endorsement of a specific engineering alternative, bearing obligations of full disclosure, technical honesty, and transparency about the firm's client relationship.
Professional Society Personal Conduct Disciplinary Judiciousness Obligation
Needless to say, professional societies with disciplinary authority must be careful and judicious in dealing with personal activity unrelated to professional services and must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct or individuals.
Obligation of a professional engineering society or ethics body exercising disciplinary authority over personal misconduct to proceed carefully and judiciously — refraining from attempting to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct of individuals — and to limit its disciplinary action to conduct that has been officially determined by proper legal authority to be beyond the pale of activity sanctioned by society, acting on such official findings to protect the good name of the profession rather than substituting its own moral judgment for that of legal authorities on purely personal matters.
Professional Society Personal Conduct Disciplinary Scope Restraint Capability
Capability of a professional engineering society or ethics reviewing body to exercise careful and judicious restraint in the exercise of disciplinary authority over personal conduct unrelated to professional services — recognizing the boundary between actionable personal misconduct (legally adjudicated conduct beyond the pale of societal sanction) and non-actionable purely personal habits, preferences, or conduct — and to avoid overreach into the private lives of engineers in ways that would constitute undue control of personal behavior rather than protection of the profession's public standing.
Professional Society Personal Conduct Overreach Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that professional engineering societies exercising disciplinary authority must not undertake to control or decide purely personal habits or conduct of individual members — prohibiting the extension of professional society disciplinary jurisdiction to personal lifestyle choices, private behaviors, or personal conduct that has not been determined by proper legal authority to be beyond socially sanctioned behavior, and establishing that the boundary of professional society disciplinary authority over personal conduct is defined by the legal adjudication threshold rather than by the society's own moral preferences.
Professional Society Personal Misconduct Discipline Legal Adjudication Predicate Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineering society exercising disciplinary authority over a member's personal misconduct must ground that disciplinary action in a prior determination by proper legal authority that the conduct is beyond the pale of socially sanctioned behavior — prohibiting the professional society from independently adjudicating the moral character of purely personal conduct without the predicate of a legal adjudication, and establishing that the professional society's role is to take note of official legal findings and act accordingly, rather than to substitute its own moral judgment for that of the legal system in matters of personal conduct unrelated to engineering practice.
Professional Solicitation Misleading Language Avoidance Constraint
where the engineer is seeking professional engagements, the engineer must always take all reasonable steps to avoid misleading and deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment.
Ethical constraint establishing that when engineers or engineering firms make offers of professional services to clients or potential clients — or communicate with employers regarding qualifications — they are constrained to take all reasonable steps to ensure that such offers avoid misleading, deceptive, and untruthful language, grounding this obligation in the convergence of three foundational principles: the duty to practice only within areas of competence, the duty to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner, and the duty to avoid misleading and deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment.
Professional Title Industry Normalization Non-Adoption Obligation
Duty of engineering firms and licensed professional engineers to refrain from adopting or perpetuating the indiscriminate use of the title 'Engineer' for non-qualified personnel merely because industry actors, governmental agencies, or federal contracting authorities use the term loosely, recognizing that professional engineering ethics impose a higher standard of title accuracy than prevailing industry or governmental practice.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of engineering firms, government agencies, and licensed professional engineers to refrain from using or permitting the use of creative or variant engineering titles — including 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' 'Sanitation Engineer,' 'Transportation Engineer,' or similar formulations — for individuals who do not meet applicable state licensure and educational requirements, recognizing that such creative titles misrepresent qualifications and convey a false impression of professional competence to the public.
Professional Title Integrity and Anti-Misrepresentation Obligation
Professional virtue principle requiring that engineering firms, government agencies, and individual practitioners refrain from using the title 'Engineer' or engineering-related titles for individuals who do not hold the qualifications — licensure, degree, or both — that the title implies, and requiring licensed engineers who discover such misrepresentation to challenge it
Professional Title Usage Restriction Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting individuals who do not hold a professional engineering license or qualifying engineering degree from using the title 'Engineer' or engineering-implying titles — including 'Associate Engineer,' 'Transportation Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' or similar designations — in professional contexts, arising from state licensing statutes and professional norms establishing that such titles convey licensure, competence, and ethical accountability that unlicensed individuals do not possess, and prohibiting firms and agencies from assigning such titles to unqualified personnel regardless of industry custom.
Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
Capability to recognize when continued work on a project would constitute ethical acquiescence to a client's override of public safety requirements, and to act on that recognition by withdrawing from the project rather than proceeding under unsafe conditions
Professionally Compromising Regulatory Situation Disassociation Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a regulatory capacity who has discharged all mandatory professional obligations — including refusing to issue a non-compliant permit, formally submitting findings to superiors, and consulting the state licensing board — retains the ethical right to disassociate from further work on the project in order to avoid being placed in a professionally compromising situation, recognizing that such disassociation is permissible as a matter of professional self-protection once mandatory obligations have been fulfilled, while distinguishing this permissible disassociation from impermissible withdrawal that abandons mandatory safety obligations before they have been discharged.
Professionally Permissible Inter-Engineer Public Criticism State
Engineer C was acting within the intent of the code in raising his concern
State in which a qualified engineer publicly criticizes or offers opinions contrary to the design or technical conclusions of another engineer on a matter of public importance, where such criticism is grounded in engineering analysis rather than personal attack, offered with professional deportment, and directed at engineering conclusions or data rather than the individual's character or reputation. In this state, the criticism is ethically permissible — and may be professionally obligatory when public welfare is at stake — provided it meets the standards of honest differences of opinion among equally qualified professionals and avoids malicious, false, or indiscriminate attacks.
Professional vs. Sub-Professional Work Scope Distinction Framework
It is clear that the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to apply only to professional engineering practice, and not to business activities
An interpretive framework articulating the boundary between professional engineering services (governed by codes of ethics and prohibitions on competitive bidding) and sub-professional or non-professional (business/commercial) services (not governed by those codes, permitting competitive bidding), including guidance on organizational and contractual means of segregating the two categories to avoid public confusion.
Profit-Motivated Competence Boundary Violation State
State in which a professional accepts or solicits work outside their domain of competence primarily motivated by financial opportunity or business development pressure, where the justification for scope expansion is economic rather than grounded in any genuine competence development, creating a direct conflict between financial self-interest and the professional obligation to practice only within areas of competence.
Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Gate Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or firm principal to recognize when a profit or business-development motivation is driving consideration of expanding service offerings into new technical domains, and to apply a competence prerequisite gate — requiring verified domain-specific education, training, and experience — before accepting or marketing such expanded services, rather than allowing revenue opportunity to bypass the competence verification step.
Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Non-Subordination Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from expanding their firm's service offerings into new technical domains primarily or solely in response to financial opportunity framing — including solicitations emphasizing profit potential, competitive necessity, or revenue growth — when the engineer has not independently verified that they possess the requisite education, training, and experience in the target domain, establishing that profit motivation does not constitute a professional justification for competence boundary violations and that the commercial attractiveness of an opportunity is irrelevant to the engineer's ethical obligation to practice only within areas of genuine competence, as grounded in NSPE Code II.2.a, II.2.b, and BER Cases 71-2, 78-5, and 94-8.
Profit-Motivated Service Expansion Competence Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is considering expanding their firm's service offerings into new technical domains — motivated by revenue growth, competitive opportunity, or solicitation by third parties — to first establish genuine competence in those domains through education, training, mentorship, or hiring of qualified personnel before advertising or offering such services to clients, and to refrain from expanding service offerings solely on the basis of commercial opportunity or the availability of design tools that purport to eliminate the need for domain expertise.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from accepting engineering contracts in domains outside their competence solely or primarily due to economic pressures — including revenue shortfalls, risk of staff layoffs, or business downturn — recognizing that economic self-interest does not constitute a justification for undertaking work for which the engineer lacks the requisite technical qualifications, and that the harm to clients and the public from incompetent work outweighs the firm's economic interests.
Progressive Ethics Code Broadening Retroactive Non-Application Acknowledgment Obligation
In Case 72-11, we found that Doe could truthfully show some degree of competence in the managerial and administrative technical areas of the employment even though Doe strongly emphasized its extent and level.
Duty of a professional ethics adjudicator or engineer interpreting the NSPE Code of Ethics to recognize that when the Code has been progressively amended to broaden the scope of prohibited misrepresentations — moving from prohibiting 'exaggerated statements' to prohibiting 'misleading, deceptive or false statements' and then to the current Section II.5.a. formulation — the broader prohibition applies to conduct evaluated under the current code, and prior cases decided under narrower code language (such as Case 72-11 decided under old Section 3(e)) are not controlling precedent for conduct that would be prohibited under the current, more restrictive language.
Progressive Ethics Code Restriction Retroactive Inapplicability Principle
In concluding that the engineer was unethical in citing his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, we noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
Hermeneutic principle establishing that when an ethics code provision is amended to broaden or restrict the scope of prohibited conduct, prior case decisions rendered under the narrower provision are not automatically overruled but are distinguished on the basis of the code language applicable at the time; subsequent cases must be evaluated under the current, more restrictive code language, and the evolution of code provisions signals the profession's intent to hold engineers to progressively higher standards of qualification representation accuracy
Progressive Ethics Code Tightening Stricter Resume Standard Imposition Constraint
We noted that the earlier Case 72-11 had been decided under old Code provision 3(e) which had since been expanded to embrace 'misleading, deceptive or false statements regarding professional qualifications' rather than merely 'exaggerated statements of qualifications.'
Interpretive and ethical constraint establishing that each successive amendment to the NSPE Code of Ethics provision governing qualification misrepresentation — from the prohibition on 'exaggerated statements' under old Section 3(c), to the prohibition on 'misleading, deceptive or false statements' under Section 3(e), to the current affirmative prohibition on misrepresentation in Section II.5.a — imposes a progressively stricter standard on the representations engineers may make in resumes, brochures, and correspondence, such that conduct that was permissible under an earlier code iteration may constitute a violation under the current code; prohibiting engineers and ethics adjudicators from applying the more permissive standard of a superseded code provision to conduct occurring after the more restrictive amendment took effect, and requiring that the current, most restrictive code language govern the analysis of any resume or qualification representation made after its adoption.
Prohibition on Disguised Commercial Solicitation Through Free Services
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from providing free or donated professional services as a mechanism to gain competitive advantage or secure future work, recognizing that the extension of free services — particularly when combined with self-serving advisory content — constitutes an improper form of consideration offered to secure work, equivalent in ethical character to prohibited gifts or kickbacks
Prohibition on Reputation Injury Through Competitive Critique
Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely — directly or indirectly — the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers, including through competitive critique rendered in circumstances where the critic stands to benefit professionally from the other engineer's diminished standing
[Case 169] Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely — directly or indirectly — the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers, including through competitive critique rendered in circumstances where the critic stands to benefit professionally from the other engineer's diminished standing.
Project-Level Attribution in Qualification Proposals Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that includes projects completed by an engineer under prior employment in qualification proposals or solicitation materials to provide, next to each specific project listing, detailed attribution information identifying the prior employer, the engineer's specific role and involvement, and the associated client — not merely a prefatory notice at the beginning of a qualification section — so that prospective clients are not misled about the current firm's independent capabilities and the provenance of the referenced experience.
Project Delivery Method Advisor Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides advisory recommendations to a public or private client on the selection of project delivery methods (e.g., Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Manager-at-Risk, Progressive-Design-Build) for a capital infrastructure project, bearing obligations of objectivity, completeness, disclosure of self-interest, and faithful representation of all viable options regardless of the engineer's own eligibility to perform work under those methods.
Project Delivery Method Comparative Analysis Capability
Capability to identify, analyze, and comparatively evaluate all available project delivery methods — including Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build — against a client's specific funding source constraints, regulatory requirements, and project characteristics, and to present a complete, balanced, and objective comparative analysis that includes all viable options rather than a selective subset, enabling informed client decision-making.
A structured framework defining and governing the approved methods by which engineering and construction projects may be procured, contracted, and delivered, including Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build, often specified by funding agencies or regulatory bodies as conditions of project funding
[Case 96] A structured framework defining and governing the approved methods by which engineering and construction projects may be procured, contracted, and delivered, including Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build, often specified by funding agencies or regulatory bodies as conditions of project funding.
Capability to recognize when a project is likely to fail — including due to ethical violations, false reporting, community exclusion, or procedural defects — and to fulfill the professional obligation to advise clients or employers of this risk in a timely, clear, and professionally appropriate manner, including identifying the specific defects that threaten project success and recommending corrective action before irreversible harm occurs.
Project Success Adverse Notification Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer advise their client or employer when the engineer believes a project will not be successful — including when the project is proceeding on the basis of materially false, incomplete, or fraudulent professional reports — prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about known conditions that make project failure likely, as established by NSPE Code Section III.1.b.
Project Success Failure Risk Employer Notification Obligation
The engineers of Company 'B' fulfilled their obligation under Section l(c) of the Code by notifying their employer that they did not believe the project would be successful as designed by the engineers of Company 'A'
Duty of engineers employed in a production or manufacturing role who believe that a project will not be successful as designed — specifically because the plans and specifications contain miscalculations or technical deficiencies that will prevent the project from achieving its intended purpose safely — to notify their employer of that belief, fulfilling the faithful agent obligation to advise the employer of foreseeable project failure risk before proceeding with production, so that the employer can make an informed decision about whether to relay those concerns to the designing firm and how to proceed.
Code section III.1.b requires that engineers advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will be unsuccessful.
Duty of an engineer to advise clients or employers when the engineer believes a project will not be successful, where 'success' encompasses not only structural and economic outcomes but also safety outcomes for the public.
Project Success Redefinition for Safety Failure Advisory Capability
Additionally, if project success is defined as 'the public will not be endangered at all,' then Engineers A and B should advise their client that they believe the project will not be successful.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to redefine 'project success' in terms of the public health and safety objective — rather than the client's cost-reduction or operational objective — and on that basis to formally advise the client that the project, as currently planned, will not be successful because it cannot achieve the paramount safety objective, thereby fulfilling the professional obligation to notify the client of project failure risk while grounding the advisory in the engineer's paramount duty to public welfare.
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse When Safety Standards Rejected
Professional principle establishing that when a client refuses to accept an engineer's professionally determined safety standard — particularly one grounded in current technical data and designed to protect future occupants and the public from foreseeable harm — the engineer's appropriate ethical recourse, after exhausting persuasion, is to withdraw from the project rather than proceed under a standard the engineer has determined to be inadequate, recognizing that the engineer cannot lend professional credibility to a design that the engineer believes places the public at material risk
Proliferating Defective Product Market Exposure State
State in which a known or suspected product defect has not been corrected and additional units of the defective product continue to enter the market during the period of organizational inaction, progressively increasing the population at risk and the probability of a harmful incident.
Proliferating Unresolved Defect Proportional Urgency Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer calibrate the urgency and scope of safety escalation in proportion to the growing number of potentially defective units in circulation — establishing that as the population of affected products increases and the window for preventing harm narrows, the engineer's obligation to escalate more forcefully intensifies, and prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of reported incidents as a basis for maintaining a static, low-urgency escalation posture when the defect population is actively growing.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted in response to a public safety hazard to the imminence, severity, breadth, and employment context of the identified danger — establishing that imminent, widespread dangers involving critical public infrastructure require a full-bore multi-authority campaign, while dangers that are significant but less imminent and more localized require a proportionate graduated escalation beginning with immediate supervisor notification and proceeding through appropriate responsible parties — prohibiting both under-response (treating supervisor notification alone as a complete discharge) and over-response (treating every foreseeable hazard as requiring immediate simultaneous multi-authority mobilization), and establishing that the engineer's status as a public employee with specific custodial responsibility for the affected infrastructure amplifies the escalation obligation beyond that of a private engineer in an analogous situation.
Prolonged Unemployment Inducing Career Transition Pressure State
After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success
State in which a professional has been unemployed for an extended period following industry-wide layoffs, has exhausted opportunities in their primary specialty, and faces authoritative guidance that career survival requires transitioning to an adjacent role — creating sustained economic and professional pressure that may compromise the integrity of self-representation in job applications.
Promised Correction Follow-Through Capability
Capability of an engineer or firm representative who has explicitly committed to correcting a misrepresentation in firm promotional materials to follow through on that commitment within a reasonable timeframe — including tracking the correction through the firm's production and distribution process, verifying that updated materials replace inaccurate ones, and proactively confirming completion to the reporting party — recognizing that an unfulfilled promise of correction perpetuates the original ethical violation and creates an independent breach of professional integrity.
Promised Correction Follow-Through Obligation
Relational principle establishing that when an engineer or engineering firm representative explicitly promises to correct an identified misrepresentation or error in professional materials, that promise creates an affirmative ethical obligation to follow through within a reasonable time; prolonged inaction after a correction promise — particularly over a period of months — independently constitutes an ethical violation, because the promise itself was relied upon by the notifying party and the continued misrepresentation causes ongoing harm to the misrepresented individual and to prospective clients
[Case 131] Duty of an engineer or firm representative who has explicitly promised a colleague that a misrepresentation in firm promotional materials will be corrected to follow through on that promise within a reasonable time, and to take affirmative steps to ensure the correction is actually implemented; failure to act within a reasonable period (e.g., six months) after making such a promise constitutes an independent ethical violation distinct from the original misrepresentation, because the promise creates a specific relational obligation of good faith and professional integrity.
Proper Authority Identification Obligation in Public Safety Escalation
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer's internal reporting of a public safety concern to immediate supervisors and local officials has demonstrably failed to produce remedial action — particularly where a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law is evident — the engineer bears an affirmative obligation to correctly identify and report to the genuinely 'proper authorities,' which in the context of regulatory violations are the external governmental or state regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over the matter, not merely the internal organizational hierarchy or local political officials who have already failed to act.
Proper Authority Notification After Cross-Firm Safety Override Capability
The last sentence of Section 2(c) is likewise clear in requiring that the engineers not only notify proper authority of the dangers which they believe to exist, but that they also 'withdraw from further service on the project.' This mandate applies to engineers serving clients or employers.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a production or manufacturing firm who has identified safety deficiencies in plans received from a designing firm — and whose safety concerns have been dismissed by the designing firm and overridden by the production employer — to identify and notify the proper authority of the dangers believed to exist in the plans and specifications, understanding that the obligation to notify proper authority is triggered by the combination of a sustained safety opinion and the failure of internal and cross-firm escalation to resolve the concern, and that this notification obligation exists alongside and reinforces the obligation to withdraw from further service on the project.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to determine the specific affirmative actions required to fulfill public health, safety, and welfare obligations — including identifying to whom information must be reported, what technical information must be compiled, and what form of reporting is required — recognizing that the obligation extends beyond passive awareness to active, targeted reporting to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities, even when public authorities are already aware of some aspects of the situation.
Proper External Authority Identification After Internal Escalation Failure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role who, after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of immediate supervisors and local institutional authorities regarding ongoing legal or safety violations, to correctly identify that the 'proper authorities' for reporting are not the unresponsive local officials but rather external state or federal regulatory officials, and to escalate accordingly — recognizing that continued inaction after this recognition makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing violation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role with statutory environmental compliance responsibilities to recognize, after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of immediate supervisors and city council members regarding ongoing environmental law violations, that the 'proper authorities' for reporting are not the unresponsive local officials but rather state regulatory officials, and to escalate the environmental compliance concern to state authorities — recognizing that continued inaction after this recognition makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing violation.
Proper External Authority Identification After Internal Escalation Failure Obligation
the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor, as well as by members of the city council
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role who, after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of internal supervisors and elected officials regarding an ongoing legal or safety violation, to recognize that the 'proper authorities' are not the internal officials who have demonstrated disregard for the law but rather external state or regulatory authorities — and to escalate the violation to those external authorities — failing which the engineer becomes an accessory to the ongoing violation through inaction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role with statutory responsibility for environmental compliance who, after observing a pattern of ongoing disregard for applicable environmental law by supervisors and elected officials, and after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of those superiors through internal channels, to recognize that the 'proper authorities' are not the internal officials who have demonstrated disregard for the law but rather external state regulatory authorities, and to escalate the violation to those external authorities — failing which the engineer becomes an accessory to the ongoing violation through inaction.
Property Owner Priority in Safety Notification Sequencing
Relational principle establishing that when an engineer identifies a structural or safety risk affecting a privately owned property, the current property owner must be the first party notified — before or concurrent with notification to municipal or regulatory authorities — because the owner bears primary legal responsibility for the property, has the most direct interest in remediation, and is most immediately exposed to the risk; notification sequencing that bypasses the owner in favor of authorities first is ethically deficient unless the owner is unreachable or the risk is so imminent that delay is unconscionable.
Property Owner Proactive Site Visit and Stakeholder Inquiry Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to specify a public infrastructure route to proactively visit affected property owners — prior to finalizing route recommendations — to directly inquire about their willingness to sell or otherwise accommodate the proposed route, to listen to and accurately record owner responses, and to incorporate those responses as material information in the route analysis and disclosure to the public agency client, recognizing that firsthand stakeholder inquiry produces information that cannot be obtained through desk analysis alone.
A property owner stakeholder role in which the owner of a structure undertakes modifications to the structural system (e.g., removing load-bearing columns and footings) without engaging a licensed engineer, potentially creating collapse risk, and who receives safety notifications from the original design engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A property owner stakeholder role whose building has been identified as structurally unsafe by an investigating engineer, receiving direct safety recommendations (e.g., bracing) to prevent collapse, and whose cooperation with those recommendations bears on public safety outcomes.
Proportional Escalation Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers a public safety risk to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities notified to the imminence and breadth of the risk — distinguishing between situations requiring a full-bore multi-authority campaign (imminent, widespread danger such as a bridge collapse) and situations requiring a more limited but still multi-step escalation (non-imminent but potentially significant danger such as a building structural defect) — and to fulfill the escalation level appropriate to the specific risk profile.
Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
the facts and circumstances in the present case fall somewhere between those outlined in BER Cases 00-5 and 07-10 , and would require Engineer A to take steps beyond merely submitting a written report to the insurance company.
Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that risks that are imminent and widespread require a comprehensive, multi-authority escalation campaign, while risks that are significant but non-imminent and limited in scope require a more measured but still proactive response that goes beyond the minimum notification.
[Case 112] Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that risks that are imminent and widespread require a comprehensive, multi-authority escalation campaign, while risks that are significant but non-imminent and limited in scope require a more measured but still proactive response
[Case 112] Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that risks that are imminent and widespread require a comprehensive, multi-authority escalation campaign, while risks that are significant but non-imminent and limited in scope require a more measured but still proactive response that goes beyond the minimum notification
[Case 132] Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that risks that are imminent and widespread require a comprehensive, multi-authority escalation campaign, while risks that are significant but non-imminent and limited in scope require a more measured but still proactive response that goes beyond the minimum notification
[Case 132] Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that risks that are significant but non-imminent require a measured but still proactive response that goes beyond minimum notification.
[Case 137] Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that imminent, widespread risks require comprehensive multi-authority escalation.
[Case 137] Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that risks that are imminent and widespread require a comprehensive, multi-authority escalation campaign.
[Case 150] Fundamental ethical principle requiring engineers who discover public safety risks to calibrate the scope, urgency, and reach of their escalation response to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified risk — such that risks that are imminent and widespread require a comprehensive, multi-authority escalation campaign, while risks that are significant but non-imminent and limited in scope require a more measured but still proactive response.
Proportional Multi-Authority Escalation Calibrated to Risk Imminence Obligation
this Board is of the view that...the facts and circumstances in the present case fall somewhere between those outlined in BER Cases 00-5 and 07-10, and would require Engineer A to take steps beyond merely submitting a written report to the insurance company.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers a public safety risk to calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities notified to the imminence and breadth of the risk — distinguishing between situations requiring a full-bore multi-authority campaign (imminent, widespread danger such as a bridge collapse) and situations requiring a more limited but still multi-step escalation (non-imminent but potentially widespread danger such as a subdivision structural defect) — and to fulfill the escalation level appropriate to the specific risk profile rather than defaulting to either the minimum or maximum response.
Proportionality Calibration Between Imminent and Non-Imminent Structural Risk Constraint
the danger involved, while possibly significant, was not nearly as imminent or widespread as the potential bridge collapse in BER Case 00-5.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers a public safety risk calibrate the scope, urgency, and number of authorities contacted to the imminence, severity, and breadth of the identified danger — establishing that imminent, widespread dangers (such as bridge collapse) require full-bore multi-authority campaigns, while non-imminent, localized risks (such as barn structural deficiency under severe snow loads) require proportionate graduated escalation — prohibiting both under-response that treats non-response as discharge and over-response that treats every structural concern as requiring immediate multi-authority mobilization, as established by the contrast between BER Case 00-5 and BER Case 07-10.
Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization
Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'? Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'? The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation
Professional principle requiring engineers and ethics bodies evaluating whether another engineer's conduct constitutes reportable 'misrepresentation' to apply a proportionality analysis that distinguishes between presentations that could have been clearer and presentations that affirmatively mislead — recognizing that ambiguity or imperfect attribution does not automatically rise to the level of misrepresentation requiring formal reporting, and that the ethical obligation to report is triggered only when the conduct meets the applicable jurisdictional threshold for misconduct
Proportionate Misrepresentation Characterization Before Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is evaluating whether another engineer's qualification proposal practices constitute reportable misconduct to apply proportionate and accurate characterization of the conduct — distinguishing between presentations that are less clear than ideal and presentations that affirmatively misrepresent facts — before concluding that a reporting obligation is triggered, recognizing that the ethics code reporting duty applies to conduct that rises to actual misrepresentation or ethical violation, not merely to presentations that could have been clearer.
Proportionate Misrepresentation Threshold Assessment Constraint
Did Engineer B's and XYZ Engineers' presentation 'misrepresent facts concerning…past accomplishments'? Based on the information presented in the case, the information probably could have been clearer, but did it rise to 'misrepresentation'? The BER concludes that it would not rise to misrepresentation, and that Engineer A did not have an obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is evaluating whether a competitor's qualification proposal practice constitutes reportable misconduct must apply a proportionate and jurisdiction-calibrated threshold analysis — distinguishing between presentation practices that are merely suboptimal or insufficiently clear (which do not rise to misrepresentation and do not trigger a reporting obligation) and practices that affirmatively violate specific licensing board rules (which do constitute misconduct and trigger a mandatory reporting obligation) — prohibiting both over-reporting of ambiguous practices as misconduct and under-reporting of clear rule violations as mere stylistic imperfection.
Proportionate Multi-Step Non-Imminent Structural Risk Response Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to calibrate a multi-step response to a non-imminent but real structural collapse risk — sequencing notification to the property owner first, followed by written confirmation to the municipal authority, followed by deadline-conditioned escalation to county or state building officials — in a manner proportionate to the non-imminent nature of the risk, distinguishing this graduated response from the full-bore multi-authority campaign required for imminent widespread danger.
Proposal Clarity Self-Assessment Capability
Ethical practice would guide Engineer B to be as clear as possible in the differentiation of the two firms' project responsibilities.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm to critically self-assess whether attribution language in qualification proposals is sufficiently clear and prominent — including evaluating whether a single introductory qualifier is adequate or whether project-level repetition is required — so that a reasonable reader would not be misled about the origin of listed project experience, consistent with professional obligations to be as clear as possible in differentiating firm project responsibilities.
Prospective Appointee Self-Interested Advisory Non-Distortion Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that is itself a candidate or prospective appointee for a public role from advising the appointing governmental body on the structural question of whether to fill that role with a consultant (such as the advising firm) versus a full-time employee — establishing that the engineer's private commercial interest in being selected creates an irresolvable bias that disqualifies the engineer from providing impartial advisory input on the threshold appointment decision, and requiring the engineer to refrain from influencing or distorting the municipality's decision-making process in a manner that serves the engineer's own financial interests.
Prospective Bidder Constructability Consultant
a local contractor, Contractor B, with whom Engineer A has worked and who may potentially also bid on the water treatment facility construction contract
A construction contractor stakeholder role in which a contractor with whom an engineer has a prior working relationship is informally consulted by the design engineer on constructability issues during the design phase of a public project, while simultaneously being a potential bidder on the construction contract for that same project, generating procurement fairness concerns and obligations for the consulting engineer to avoid conferring informational advantages that distort competitive bidding.
Prospective City Engineer Self-Interest Advisory Non-Distortion Capability
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm or its principal — which is itself a candidate or prospective appointee for a public city engineer role — to recognize that advising the municipal client on the structural question of whether to hire a consulting city engineer versus a full-time city engineer constitutes a self-interested advisory distortion, and to refrain from providing such advice or to affirmatively disclose the self-interest before doing so, ensuring the municipal client's decision-making process is not corrupted by the firm's commercial interest in the outcome.
Prospective City Engineer Self-Interest Advisory Non-Distortion Obligation
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm or its principal — which is itself a candidate or prospective appointee for a public city engineer role — to refrain from providing advisory recommendations to the municipal client on the merits of hiring a consulting city engineer versus a full-time city engineer when the firm's own commercial interest in obtaining the appointment would distort or appear to distort the objectivity of that advice, and to either decline to advise on the structural question or affirmatively disclose the self-interest before any such advisory input is offered.
Prospective Client Misled by Firm Brochure
The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm and the selection of that firm may be based on the presence of that engineer in the firm as represented in the brochure
A prospective engineering services client who relies on a firm's marketing brochure listing key personnel when making selection decisions, and who may be misled when that brochure inaccurately represents the availability of named engineers — either because a listed engineer has been given notice of termination or has already departed — thereby forming unjustified expectations about the expertise available from the firm.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A member of the public or prospective client who reads and relies upon an engineering firm's marketing brochure to assess the qualifications of its personnel, reasonably assuming that any individual titled 'Engineer' holds an engineering degree or professional license, and who is therefore harmed by misrepresentative use of the title for non-degreed or unlicensed staff.
Prospective Conflict Disclosure Obligation Under Evolving Factual Circumstances
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who has been ethically cleared to occupy a dual role must maintain a continuing obligation to disclose to the client any new or changed factual circumstances — such as acquisition of private clients within the municipality, expansion of the scope of work being self-reviewed, or changes in the nature of the advisory authority — that would materially alter the conflict-of-interest analysis and potentially render the previously-permissible arrangement ethically impermissible; the ethical clearance is conditional on the factual premises remaining stable, and the engineer bears the burden of monitoring and disclosing changes
Prospective Dual-Role Evolving Conflict Ongoing Disclosure Monitoring Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has been ethically cleared to occupy a dual role (e.g., as both city engineer and design service provider) to continuously monitor for new circumstances — such as the acquisition of private clients within the municipality, situations requiring review of the firm's own work, or new contracts creating additional self-oversight risks — that would create or materially aggravate a conflict of interest, and to promptly disclose such circumstances to the municipal client as they arise, recognizing that the initial ethical clearance is conditional on the absence of such further circumstances.
Prospective Employer Resume Verification Inquiry Capability
Capability of a prospective engineering employer evaluating a job applicant's resume to recognize when qualification statements about patented or jointly-designed products are ambiguous as to individual versus team contribution, and to formulate and pursue targeted clarifying inquiries — such as requesting identification of co-designers, team size, and individual role — to verify the accuracy of claimed qualifications before making hiring decisions, thereby protecting the firm from being deceived by artfully misleading resume representations.
Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
The client may be familiar with an individual member of the firm as represented in the brochure
A prospective client or member of the public who evaluates and selects an engineering firm based on promotional materials such as brochures and resumes, reasonably relying on the accuracy of personnel listings and expertise claims therein, and who may be materially misled if such materials contain outdated or inaccurate information about the firm's available staff.
Prospective Evolving Conflict Circumstance Ongoing Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has been ethically cleared to occupy a dual role (e.g., city engineer plus design contractor for the same municipality) to continuously monitor for and promptly disclose to the municipal client any further circumstances that arise after the initial approval — such as acquisition of private clients within the municipality, situations requiring review of the firm's own work, or new contract relationships — that could create or materially aggravate a conflict of interest, recognizing that ethical clearance for a dual role is conditional on the factual circumstances that supported it and does not constitute permanent authorization regardless of changed conditions.
Prospective Home Purchaser Inspection Client
A client stakeholder role borne by a prospective residential property purchaser who retains a licensed engineer to perform a pre-purchase home inspection and prepare a written report, bearing a right of confidentiality over the inspection findings and a legitimate interest in protecting their bargaining position in the property transaction.
Protest of Non-Compliant Procurement Obligation
Earlier BER opinions confirm that engineers may, and sometimes must, challenge procurement practices that could compromise the public interest.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a public procurement process is non-compliant with applicable law or professional ethics to raise or support a formal protest of that procurement, where such protest is grounded in legitimate legal and ethical concerns rather than competitive self-interest, and where lodging such a protest does not constitute an unfair competitive act under the ethics code.
[proethica-intermediate] Duty to report violations or unsafe conditions to appropriate authorities
Prudent Disclosure Foregone Employment Vulnerability State
failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm
State in which a professional has made a legally or ethically permissible choice not to disclose information that would have been prudent to disclose — such as prior exam failures or past difficulties — and that non-disclosure, while not constituting an ethical violation, has created a materially weakened professional and relational position with the employer, such that if the undisclosed risk materializes (e.g., another exam failure), the professional faces amplified consequences including potential employment termination without the goodwill or negotiating position that full prior disclosure would have established.
Prudential Background Information Provision Pending Complaint Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that even where a professional engineer is not ethically compelled to disclose a pending ethics complaint to a current client, the engineer is constrained to actively weigh the prudential case for providing the client with limited, dispassionate, and non-prejudicial background information about the pending matter — particularly where doing so would enable the client to respond to third-party inquiries, demonstrate the engineer's transparency and professional confidence, and preserve the trust foundation of the professional relationship; distinguishing this prudential weighing obligation from a mandatory disclosure obligation, and establishing that the engineer's failure to engage in this weighing process itself constitutes a departure from the standard of professional responsibility, as established by BER Case 97-11.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer who is the subject of a pending ethics complaint or allegation — which has not yet been adjudicated — is not automatically compelled to disclose that complaint to current clients or prospective employers, because a complaint is a mere allegation that does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law, and because no engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations that could be false, baseless, or maliciously motivated — while requiring that the engineer weigh all relevant factors and, depending on the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action that may include providing appropriate background information, as established by BER Case 97-11.
Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
failure to disclose does come with a downside
Professional virtue principle recognizing that even when disclosure of adverse professional information is not ethically required, voluntary proactive disclosure to employers or clients may be prudentially advisable because it preserves the engineer's relational and professional standing in the event the undisclosed fact later becomes known or consequential — such that the engineer who discloses in advance negotiates from a position of mutual knowledge and trust, while the engineer who withholds and later faces adverse consequences is in a materially weaker relational position through their own choice
[Case 178] Professional virtue principle recognizing that even when disclosure of adverse professional information is not ethically required, voluntary proactive disclosure to employers or clients may be prudentially advisable because it preserves the engineer's relational and professional standing in the event the undisclosed fact later becomes known or consequential
Prudential Pre-Disclosure Relational Consequence Foresight Capability
The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
Capability of a professional engineer or engineer intern to foresee the relational and professional consequences of choosing not to disclose information that, while not ethically compelled, would — if disclosed and accepted by the employer — place the engineer in a significantly stronger professional and relational position in the event of subsequent adverse developments, and to weigh these prudential self-protective considerations alongside the ethical analysis when making disclosure decisions.
Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Risk Constraint
failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
Ethical and prudential constraint establishing that while a professional engineer or engineer intern may not be ethically required to disclose certain personal or professional information to a prospective employer, the choice not to disclose creates a foreseeable relational and professional vulnerability — specifically, that if the undisclosed information later becomes relevant (e.g., through failure to satisfy a licensure condition), the engineer will be in a significantly weaker professional and relational position than if disclosure had been made and the employer had chosen to proceed with full knowledge — constraining the engineer to weigh not only the immediate risk of non-disclosure but also the downstream relational consequences of the employer later discovering the withheld information in an adverse context.
Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Self-Protection Obligation
However, failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
Duty of a professional engineer or engineer intern who, while not ethically required to disclose certain personal or professional information to a prospective employer, recognizes that voluntary disclosure of that information — when it is relevant to a condition of employment — would place the engineer in a stronger professional and relational position with the employer if the condition is subsequently not met, thereby protecting the engineer from the amplified consequences of non-disclosure that arise when the employer later discovers the withheld information in a context of employment jeopardy.
Public-Agency-Authored Basic Plans Private Competitive Exploitation Prohibition Constraint
The basic plans for the project were prepared by an agency of the Federal Government of the United States
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a public agency, prepared or substantially contributed to the foundational basic plans of a project from subsequently converting those publicly-funded plans into a private competitive instrument — including by leveraging authorship of the plans to secure a private contract for the project's execution — establishing that the basic plans remain the property and product of the public agency and cannot be repurposed as a private competitive advantage, as derived from NSPE Code faithful agent, conflict of interest, and honorable conduct provisions.
Public-Pressure-Resisting Public Safety Escalation Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, believing there are great dangers present to public health and safety, faces pressure from employment situations or public actors to suppress or withhold safety concerns, and bears an overriding obligation to immediately contact all relevant county, state, and federal authorities — including transportation officials, county prosecutors, and the state engineering licensure board — notwithstanding that pressure, because abdicating this duty would constitute an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional and ethical responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, aware of a public health, safety, or welfare situation that is already known to some public authorities, bears an obligation to further report the situation to additional appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect the public, to engage civic groups, and to articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter — even when the situation is already publicly visible.
Public-Private Dual Role Structural Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds a public governmental role (with authority over plan review, recommendation, or approval) and a private consulting practice to refrain from accepting private consulting engagements that will foreseeably result in the engineer's own work being submitted for review, recommendation, or approval through the governmental channels the engineer controls — recognizing that the structural conflict created by this arrangement is irreconcilable from the moment of engagement, and that the ethical violation is not merely in the recommendation or vote but in the initial acceptance of the private commission under circumstances where self-approval was a foreseeable outcome.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when acceptance of a position or assignment creates a situation in which every available course of action — performing the work directly, delegating it, or relying on qualified subordinates — results in an ethical violation of the NSPE Code, the engineer must decline or withdraw from that position rather than proceeding on the theory that one of the ethically impermissible paths is 'least bad'; the inescapability of ethical violation upon acceptance is itself the signal that acceptance was impermissible, and the engineer's obligation is to avoid placing themselves in such a structurally impossible compliance scenario.
Public Agency Basic Plans Non-Conversion to Private Competitive Instrument Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a public agency, prepared or contributed to publicly-funded basic plans, project reports, or technical documents to recognize that those documents are public agency property and public resources — not personal professional assets — and that leveraging them as a competitive instrument in private solicitation (e.g., using intimate knowledge of the basic plans to position a private joint venture as uniquely qualified to complete the design) constitutes an impermissible conversion of public resources to private competitive advantage, regardless of whether the engineer also contributed technical expertise to those plans.
Public Agency Basic Plans Non-Conversion to Private Competitive Instrument Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a public agency, prepared or contributed to publicly-funded basic plans, feasibility reports, or preliminary design documents for a project, to refrain from converting that publicly-funded technical work product into a private competitive instrument — including by using intimate knowledge of those plans, personal acquaintance with the project owner's representatives, and insider access to project parameters to gain a structural competitive advantage in bidding for the full design contract — recognizing that: (1) the basic plans were prepared in the engineer's public capacity using public resources and public trust; (2) the competitive advantage derived from that public work product belongs to the public, not to the individual engineer; and (3) exploiting publicly-funded work product for private gain constitutes a breach of the faithful agent duty to the public employer and an unfair competitive practice injurious to other qualified firms.
Public Agency Contracting Ethics Capability
Capability to recognize and resist rationalization of procurement law violations in a public agency context, including the ability to identify when convenience, longstanding relationships, or administrative inertia are being used to justify non-compliant contracting practices that undermine competitive fairness and public trust, and to maintain ethical standards in the face of institutional pressure to acquiesce.
Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Integrity Preservation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to preserve the integrity of the agency's explicit cost-allocation policies — including policies requiring that only unavoidable utility conflicts be funded as part of public highway projects — by refraining from designing, directing, or approving design modifications whose primary purpose is to artificially create a policy-qualifying condition (such as an 'unavoidable' utility conflict) in order to shift costs from a local municipality to the public agency, recognizing that such artificial conflict creation constitutes a misuse of public funds and a violation of procurement integrity.
Public Agency Cost-Allocation Policy Knowledge Capability
Capability to understand, internalize, and correctly apply a public agency's explicit cost-allocation policy — including the distinction between unavoidable utility conflicts (agency-paid) and betterment work (municipality-paid) — and to recognize when a proposed design revision would artificially create a conflict to shift costs contrary to that policy.
Public Agency Position Private Marketing Non-Exploitation Self-Monitoring Capability
We are also uncomfortable with Firm A using its position as city engineer to openly market his services with prospective clients.
Capability of a private consulting engineering firm retained by a public agency to continuously monitor its own marketing and business development activities to ensure that the public agency position is not being used as a marketing tool to attract private clients — specifically recognizing that openly advertising to prospective private developer clients that they can save money by retaining the firm because it already serves as the public agency's inspection agent constitutes a prohibited exploitation of the public role, and that this marketing practice compounds the underlying conflict of interest by creating a systematic financial incentive structure that undermines inspection objectivity across all developer-client relationships.
Public Agency Role Commercial Exploitation Recognition Capability
In fact, Firm A used its position as the city's engineer as a marketing tool, openly telling prospective clients that they can save 50% on inspection costs by using Firm A.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm serving in a public agency capacity to recognize when the public agency role is being used as a marketing tool to attract private clients — including explicitly advertising cost savings to prospective private clients based on the dual-role arrangement — and to correctly identify such exploitation as an ethical violation that compounds the underlying conflict of interest.
Public Agency Role Marketing Exploitation Prohibition Obligation
Firm A used its position as the city's engineer as a marketing tool, openly telling prospective clients that they can save 50% on inspection costs by using Firm A.
Duty of a private consulting engineering firm engaged by a public agency in a plan review or inspection capacity to refrain from using that public agency role as a marketing tool to attract private clients — including refraining from advertising cost savings available to private developers who also retain the firm for private services — recognizing that such marketing exploitation of the public role creates an inherent conflict of interest and undermines the integrity of the public agency function.
Public Agency Work Product Non-Exploitation for Private Competitive Advantage Principle
The basic plans for the project were prepared by an agency of the Federal Government of the United States, and the project report was made by an agency of the foreign government, with the assistance of a team from the U.S. Agency.
Domain-specific principle establishing that engineers employed by a public agency who prepare plans, reports, or technical work product in their public capacity must not exploit that work product — including the technical knowledge, relationships, and insider access it generates — to secure private competitive advantage in subsequent procurement for the same project or work; the principle recognizes that publicly-funded work product belongs to the public interest and that using it as a springboard for private gain constitutes a betrayal of the public trust that funded its creation.
Public Announcement and Open Competition Procurement Minimum Standard Obligation
Regardless of the method of professional selection utilized in City X, one must assume that the method would, at a minimum, involve public announcement along with free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer holding public procurement authority to ensure that, regardless of the specific procurement method employed by the jurisdiction, any selection of an engineering firm for a public contract includes at minimum: (1) a public announcement of the contracting opportunity, and (2) a free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered — and to refrain from any advance commitment, verbal promise, or pre-selection that forecloses this minimum competitive opportunity before it is provided.
Public Authority Already Investigating Safety Concern State
such officials are already aware of the situation and have begun an investigation
State in which the relevant public authorities are already aware of and have begun investigating a documented public safety concern — such that the engineer's independent obligation to notify 'proper authorities' is effectively discharged by the pre-existing investigation, rendering further notification a useless act, while the engineer's obligation to refuse participation in non-compliant conduct remains fully active.
Public Authority Awareness Inadequate Action Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk — and whose concerns have been presented to public authorities (including the city attorney and city council) but not adequately acted upon — must escalate those concerns beyond the already-aware authorities to higher-level state, federal, or regulatory bodies, prohibiting the engineer from treating the governing body's awareness of the safety concern as a complete discharge of the professional escalation obligation when the governing body has proceeded contrary to engineering standards and state law.
Public Authority Awareness Non-Discharge of Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to escalate a public safety concern to appropriate authorities is not discharged merely because public authorities are already aware of the facts and circumstances — requiring the engineer to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and prohibiting the engineer from treating existing public authority awareness as a complete substitute for formal multi-authority escalation when the governing body has proceeded contrary to engineering standards.
[Case 112] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to escalate a public safety concern to appropriate authorities is not discharged merely because public authorities are already aware of the facts and circumstances — requiring the engineer to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied.
Public Authority Awareness Non-Excuse for Further Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is aware that public authorities already know of a public health, safety, or welfare situation involving engineering standards violations to nonetheless further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities — recognizing that the fact that some public authorities are aware of the facts and circumstances does not extinguish the engineer's independent obligation to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and that the engineer must pursue escalation until the appropriate authorities with jurisdiction over engineering standards compliance have been formally notified.
Public Authority Awareness Non-Formal-Report Permissibility Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when public authorities are already fully aware of the facts and circumstances of a public safety concern — including the engineering standards violations and state law prerequisites — a licensed professional engineer may not be required to file a formal report to those same already-aware authorities, but remains obligated to further report to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect public health, safety, and welfare, prohibiting the engineer from treating existing public authority awareness as a complete discharge of all escalation obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to escalate a public safety concern to appropriate authorities is not discharged merely because public authorities are already aware of the facts and circumstances — requiring the engineer to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and prohibiting the engineer from treating existing public authority awareness as a complete substitute for formal multi-authority escalation when the governing body has proceeded contrary to engineering standards.
Public Authority Awareness Without Adequate Regulatory Action State
State in which public authorities are already aware of the facts and circumstances of a documented public safety concern — such as a failing structure, unsafe road condition, or engineering standards deficiency — but have not taken adequate action to ensure that relevant engineering standards are applied and public health, safety, and welfare are protected, such that the professional engineer's obligation to report is not fully discharged by the mere fact of public authority awareness, and a further obligation exists to report to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure standards-consistent protection of the public.
Public Authority Role Exploited for Private Commercial Solicitation State
Firm A uses its position as the city's engineer as a marketing tool
State in which a private engineering firm holding a public-authority engagement (such as city engineer or municipal review engineer) actively uses that public role as a marketing advantage to solicit private clients who are subject to that same public authority — including by advertising cost savings achievable only through the dual-role arrangement — creating a structural conflict between the firm's public duty of impartiality and its private commercial interest in expanding its client base among the regulated parties.
Public Authority Submission Completeness Obligation Recognition Capability
The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, and that it would be reasonable to assume that the public authority approving the development would be interested in this information.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing a written report or analysis for submission to a public authority — such as a regulatory agency, planning board, or permitting authority — to recognize that the obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports requires inclusion of all relevant and pertinent information that the public authority would reasonably be interested in, including information that may be adverse to the client's interests, and to act on that recognition by including such information and advising the client of its inclusion rather than omitting it at the client's direction.
Public Board Member Private Plan Submission Absolute Prohibition State
In his capacity as an engineer in private practice he prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member.
State in which a professional engineer simultaneously serves as a member of a governmental body (e.g., county planning board) and, in private practice, prepares engineering plans that are submitted to that same body for approval — creating an absolute, non-waivable conflict of interest that cannot be cured by disclosure to the employer or client. The prohibition is categorical: the engineer may not participate in any consideration or action regarding services they or their organization provide in private practice, regardless of whether they subjectively recuse themselves from the vote.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer, acting in an official government capacity, is positioned to review, recommend, approve, or vote on work that they themselves prepared or submitted in a private consulting capacity — creating a direct self-review conflict where the engineer exercises governmental authority over their own private professional output.
Public Body Engineering Opinion Witness Engineer
Canons 5 and 7 refer to expression of 'opinion,' confirming the idea that the engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer offers expert opinion, judgment, and advocacy before public bodies such as legislative hearings, public hearings, commissions, courts, or other tribunals on matters of engineering significance — including large public infrastructure projects — bearing obligations to base opinions on adequate knowledge and honest conviction, disclose the retaining party, avoid personalities and abuse when criticizing peer work, and serve the public interest even when advocating a client's or employer's position.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A professional engineering role in which an engineer attends a public regulatory hearing as a witness — not retained by the primary applicant — and provides independent technical testimony on matters such as traffic, noise, and environmental impacts relevant to the proposed project and public welfare.
Public Confidence Engineering Profession Code Expansive Integrity Purpose Constraint
But counter to this approach should be a recognition that the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior.
Ethical constraint establishing that the NSPE Code of Ethics must be interpreted in light of its foundational purpose — ensuring that the public may have confidence in the integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior of professional engineers — prohibiting narrow interpretations of Code provisions that would allow personal conduct incompatible with professional integrity to escape ethical review on the grounds that it is unrelated to engineering practice, and establishing that the Code's moral imperatives regarding integrity, honor, and dignity are incongruous with any interpretation that ignores personal behavior bound to bring disrepute to the entire profession.
Public Confidence in Profession Protection Capability
This clearly undermines both the public's confidence in the profession and the intent of licensure that professional engineers adhere to minimum standards and technical competence obtained through significant education and practical experience as evidenced by successful completion of a rigorous examination.
Capability to recognize when conduct — including acquiescence in unlicensed practice, engineering title misrepresentation, or failure to report violations — undermines public confidence in the engineering profession and the intent of licensure, and to act to protect that confidence by fulfilling reporting, refusal, and challenge obligations, understanding that the profession's credibility and the public's trust depend on consistent enforcement of licensure standards.
Public Confidence in Professional Integrity as Ethics Code Foundational Purpose Principle
the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty and decorous behavior
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the foundational and overriding purpose of a professional ethics code is to regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners so that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior — and that this foundational purpose requires interpreting ethics code provisions expansively enough to encompass any conduct, including personal conduct, that undermines public confidence in the profession, rather than narrowly limiting the code's reach to conduct directly related to technical professional services
Public Constructability Meeting Convening Design Engineer
Engineer A could have conducted a publically advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer designing a public project, rather than consulting informally and selectively with a single prospective contractor on constructability issues, convenes a publicly advertised constructability meeting open to all interested contractors, thereby obtaining broad contractor input to improve design and construction outcomes while preserving the integrity of the public bidding process and avoiding the appearance of favoritism.
Public Constructability Meeting Convening Obligation
While Engineer A believes that the design documents and the overall project would benefit from discussions with Contractor B, Engineer A is concerned that by discussing technical and other aspects of the project with the contractor, Engineer A may be providing the contractor with an unfair advantage during the public bidding process.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing a public infrastructure project who has determined that constructability input from contractors would improve design quality to fulfill that design quality objective through a formal public constructability meeting — open to all prospective bidders on equal terms — rather than through informal bilateral consultation with a single contractor, so that the engineer's faithful agent duty to produce the best possible design documents is discharged without compromising the integrity of the subsequent competitive procurement process.
Public Constructability Meeting Faithful Agent Design Quality Obligation
Rather than consulting solely with Contractor B, Engineer A could have conducted a publically advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing a public infrastructure project who has determined that constructability input from contractors would improve design quality to fulfill that design quality objective — and thereby serve the client's interest in the best possible design — through a formal, publicly advertised constructability meeting open to all interested contractors on equal terms, rather than through informal bilateral consultation with a single prospective bidder, so that the engineer's faithful agent duty to produce the best possible design documents is discharged simultaneously with the obligation to preserve the integrity of the subsequent competitive procurement process.
Public Contracting Authority Integrity Maintenance Capability
Capability to maintain the integrity of public contracting authority throughout a tenure as a senior public agency official — including ensuring that all contract awards are made on the basis of qualifications and merit, that no preferential treatment is extended to firms with which the official has or anticipates a personal employment relationship, and that the official's contracting decisions remain free from actual or apparent conflicts of interest at all times, including during any period of employment negotiation.
Public Contracting Threshold Requirement
Municipal or governmental rules specifying dollar-amount thresholds above which engineering contracts require formal council authorization and competitive procurement processes such as RFQ, establishing procedural safeguards for public expenditure accountability
Public Controversy Engineering Decision State
Engineer C publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound
State in which a professional engineer's technical decision — made in compliance with applicable regulatory standards and in response to a client's legitimate needs — has become the subject of public controversy, community opposition, or competing expert criticism, where the engineer must balance obligations of honesty and objectivity in professional statements against the reality that reasonable engineers may reach different conclusions on the same facts, and where the controversy itself does not establish that the engineer acted unethically.
Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Maintenance Capability
When confronted with such situations, professional engineers have an obligation to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is confronted with a situation involving public controversy — including organized community opposition, media attention, and competing expert opinions — to maintain honest and objective professional statements and activities throughout the controversy, refraining from advocacy-driven distortion of technical findings, presenting professional judgments that reflect genuine technical analysis rather than political accommodation, and recognizing that professional judgment serves as the final arbiter of complex environmental and public welfare trade-offs even when no finite answer exists.
Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is confronted with a situation involving public controversy — including community opposition to a design decision, environmental concerns raised by residents, or competing public interests in infrastructure planning — to remain honest and objective in all professional statements and activities, refraining from allowing public pressure, community sentiment, or political controversy to distort the engineer's professional analysis, and presenting findings and recommendations based solely on technical merit and professional judgment.
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Obligation
in BER Case No. 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency with specific assigned institutional responsibility for a safety-critical asset — such as a bridge or public infrastructure — to fulfill a heightened safety obligation that is compelled both by professional engineering ethics and by the engineer's status as a public employee, requiring more aggressive escalation and a broader range of corrective actions than would be required of a private engineer encountering the same risk incidentally.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that a non-engineer official has overridden a professional engineering safety determination — by directing an unlicensed individual to perform an engineering assessment and implementing an inadequate remediation without follow-up inspection — to resist that override by immediately escalating to supervisors and then to a full range of external authorities including state and federal transportation officials, the state engineering licensure board, county commissioners, state officials, and other appropriate authorities.
Public Employee Engineer Heightened Public Safety Obligation
in BER Case No. 00-5 , as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
Domain-specific principle establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency with specific assigned responsibility for a public infrastructure asset bears a heightened ethical obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue public safety concerns through all available institutional channels, because the engineer's public employment role creates both a professional engineering duty and a public trust duty that reinforce each other.
[Case 132] Domain-specific principle establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency with specific assigned responsibility for a public infrastructure asset bears a heightened ethical obligation to pursue public safety concerns through all available institutional channels.
[Case 132] Domain-specific principle establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency with specific assigned responsibility for a public infrastructure asset bears a heightened ethical obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue public safety concerns through all available institutional channels, because the engineer's public employment role creates both a professional engineering duty and a public trust duty that reinforce each other
[Case 175] Domain-specific principle establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency with specific assigned responsibility for regulatory review bears a heightened ethical obligation — beyond that of a private consulting engineer — to pursue public safety concerns through all available institutional channels, because the engineer's public employment role creates both a professional engineering duty and a public trust duty that reinforce each other.
Public Employee Heightened Bridge Safety Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who holds specific custodial responsibility for public infrastructure — such as a bridge — bears a heightened escalation obligation requiring immediate and comprehensive multi-authority action when safety-critical infrastructure is at risk from non-engineer override, public pressure, or inadequate remediation, arising from the dual role as both a professional engineer and a public employee with specific custodial responsibility, and prohibiting the application of the more limited graduated-response standard applicable to private engineers in analogous situations, as established by BER Case 00-5.
Public Employee Heightened Institutional Safety Responsibility Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that employment by a public agency with specific assigned institutional responsibility for a piece of infrastructure — such as a bridge — creates a heightened and compounded safety obligation that goes beyond the duty of a private engineer, compelling the engineer both as a licensed professional and as a public employee to take immediate, broad, and multi-authority corrective action when safety is compromised, and to distinguish this heightened duty from the more graduated obligations applicable to engineers without such specific public institutional responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and correctly apply the distinction between the heightened safety escalation obligations of a public employee with specific infrastructure responsibility — who is compelled both as a professional engineer and as a public employee to take immediate, broad, multi-authority action — versus the more graduated escalation obligations of a private contractor employee — who should first notify the immediate supervisor and allow employer channels to engage external authorities — and to calibrate professional conduct accordingly.
Public Employee Heightened Safety Escalation Constraint
in BER Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer and a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who holds specific responsibility for public infrastructure bears a heightened escalation obligation — beyond that of a private engineer — requiring immediate and comprehensive multi-authority action when safety-critical infrastructure is at risk, arising from the dual role as both a professional engineer and a public employee with specific custodial responsibility, and prohibiting the application of the more limited graduated-response standard applicable to private engineers in analogous situations.
Public Employee Heightened Safety Obligation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize that their role as a public employee — with specific assigned responsibility for a piece of public infrastructure — creates a heightened ethical obligation beyond that of a private engineer, compelling both professional and civic action to address identified safety risks, including understanding that public employment with infrastructure responsibility amplifies the duty to escalate and pursue corrective action through all available channels.
Public Employee Structural Safety Heightened Obligation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency with specific assigned responsibility for a piece of public infrastructure to recognize that their role as a public employee amplifies their professional ethical obligation — compelling both professional and civic action — to address identified structural safety risks, including understanding that public employment with infrastructure responsibility creates a heightened duty to pursue a full-bore escalation campaign when imminent widespread danger is present, as distinguished from the more limited obligations of a private engineer observing a non-imminent risk.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to recognize that their role as a public employee — with specific assigned responsibility for a piece of public infrastructure — creates a heightened ethical obligation beyond that of a private engineer, compelling both professional and civic action to address identified safety risks, including understanding that public employment with infrastructure responsibility amplifies the duty to escalate and pursue corrective action through all available channels.
Public Employee vs Private Employee Safety Escalation Distinction Capability
in Case 00-5, as an employee of the local government, Engineer A had a specific responsibility for the bridge in question and was compelled both as a professional engineer but also as a public employee to take appropriate measures to address the issue.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and correctly apply the distinction between the heightened safety escalation obligations of a public employee with specific infrastructure responsibility — who is compelled both as a professional engineer and as a public employee to take immediate, broad, multi-authority action — versus the more graduated escalation obligations of a private contractor employee — who should first notify the immediate supervisor and allow employer channels to engage external authorities — and to calibrate professional conduct accordingly.
Public Engagement Report Accuracy Capability
Capability to ensure that reports summarizing public engagement processes accurately and completely represent the material facts of how sessions were conducted — including session locations, times, accessibility features, comment submission methods, participation rates, and the nature of comments received — and to recognize when omissions, framing choices, or selective characterizations in such reports would create false impressions about community support or opposition.
Public Engagement Report Accuracy Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that reports summarizing public engagement processes for infrastructure projects accurately and completely represent the conditions under which engagement was conducted — including meeting times, locations, accessibility features, comment submission mechanisms, and the identity of communities that participated — prohibiting the submission of engagement reports that omit material procedural facts in a manner that creates a misleading impression of community support or participation.
Public Engagement Report Completeness and Accuracy Obligation
Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted. Additionally, Firm DBA's report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — whether as lead engineer, subcontractor, or PE supervisor — to ensure that public engagement reports submitted in connection with a public infrastructure project accurately and completely disclose all material facts about the engagement process, including session locations, times, accessibility, comment procedures, and the actual positions of affected communities, and to refrain from making unsupported claims about community support or opposition.
Public Engineering Commentary Factual Accuracy Insistence Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who participates in group discussion, public forums, or publication of articles on engineering projects to insist on the use of facts in reference to the engineering project, ensuring that all claims — including cost estimates, technical assessments, and characterizations of competing proposals — are grounded in documented factual analysis rather than assertion, speculation, or advocacy unsupported by engineering data.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who issues statements, criticisms, or arguments on matters of public policy — including highway routing, infrastructure decisions, or other engineering-related civic matters — to ground those statements in established facts, even when intermingled with professional opinion, so that public discourse on engineering matters is informed by honest technical analysis rather than unsupported advocacy or speculation.
Public Engineering Commentary Factual Accuracy Insistence Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who participates in group discussion, public forums, or publication of articles on engineering subjects to insist on the use of facts in reference to the engineering project, to verify that all claims — including cost estimate critiques, characterizations of alternative routes, and technical comparisons — are accurate and factually supported, and to refrain from making or endorsing factually inaccurate statements even when those statements might advance a preferred policy outcome.
Public Engineering Commentary Sound Knowledge Foundation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who expresses an opinion on an engineering subject in public — including through open letters, press statements, public hearings, or civic forums — to ground that opinion only in adequate professional knowledge and honest conviction, ensuring that the engineer possesses sufficient domain expertise and factual grounding to support the technical claims made, so that public discourse on engineering matters is informed by reliable professional judgment rather than uninformed speculation.
Public Engineering Commentary Sound Knowledge Foundation Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who expresses an opinion on an engineering subject in a public forum — including through press letters, public hearings, or civic commentary — to verify that the opinion is founded on adequate engineering knowledge and honest conviction, to assess whether the engineer's professional background and prior involvement in related work provides a sufficient factual basis for the public opinion expressed, and to refrain from issuing public engineering opinions that exceed the engineer's actual knowledge base or that are not grounded in genuine professional analysis.
Public Engineering Commentary Undisclosed Private Interest Prohibition Obligation
his public comment may not be on behalf of an undisclosed private interest (Section 4 (a))
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who issues statements, criticisms, or arguments on matters connected with public policy — including highway routing, infrastructure siting, or other engineering-related civic matters — to refrain from making such statements when they are inspired or paid for by private interests unless the engineer explicitly discloses on whose behalf the statement is being made, so that the public, government agencies, and other stakeholders can appropriately weigh the engineer's commentary in light of any private interest motivating it.
Public Engineering Commentary Undisclosed Private Interest Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who issues public statements, criticisms, or arguments on matters connected with public policy — including infrastructure routing decisions — to recognize and self-apply the prohibition against issuing such commentary on behalf of an undisclosed private interest, to affirmatively assess whether any private client or financial beneficiary is behind the commentary, and to either disclose that interest or refrain from issuing the commentary if it is privately inspired or paid for, thereby ensuring that public commentary represents genuine professional civic judgment rather than covert advocacy for private parties.
Public Expenditure Integrity Whistleblowing Standard
Professional norms and ethical principles governing the conditions under which an engineer may or must disclose employer misconduct related to unjustified or wasteful public expenditures — particularly in defense contracting — distinguishing between situations involving public health and safety (where disclosure is obligatory) and those involving fiscal or programmatic concerns (where disclosure is a matter of personal conscience rather than ethical duty), and acknowledging the professional and employment consequences of such action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms, ethical provisions, and legal protections governing engineers who disclose public health and safety risks beyond formal reporting channels, including the distinction between professional obligations and personal citizen actions, and the conditions under which whistleblowing is ethically permissible or encouraged
Public Expenditure Objecting Whistleblower Engineer
A professional engineering role in which an engineer, employed on a defense or public-works project, objects to plans or specifications on grounds of unsatisfactory quality or unjustified expenditure of public funds — rather than direct endangerment of public health or safety — and bears an ethical right (but not a codified duty) to escalate those objections internally or publicly as a matter of personal conscience, with the understanding that such whistleblowing carries the likely consequence of loss of employment and is not mandated by the Code unless public health, safety, or welfare is directly endangered.
Public Fund Diversion Design Manipulation Prohibition Constraint
Legal, regulatory, and ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency from deliberately designing or directing the design of a public infrastructure project in a manner that artificially creates utility conflicts — or otherwise manipulates design geometry — for the purpose of causing public agency funds to be expended on work that agency policy designates as a local municipality betterment, thereby covertly diverting public funds from their authorized purpose to benefit a third-party municipality, regardless of the financial hardship of that municipality or the engineer's benevolent intent.
Public Funds Defense Expenditure Whistleblowing Mandatory-vs-Permissible Threshold Discrimination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing bodies to correctly distinguish between (a) situations in which an engineer has a mandatory ethical obligation to escalate concerns about unjustified defense expenditure — which would apply if the concern rises to the level of direct public health or safety danger — and (b) situations in which the engineer has only a permissible right to escalate as a matter of personal conscience, recognizing that the absence of a mandatory duty does not eliminate the permissibility of continued advocacy at personal cost.
Public Funds Unjustified Expenditure as Ethics Code Cognizable Concern
Professional virtue principle establishing that unjustified expenditure of public funds — even absent a direct danger to public health or safety — constitutes a cognizable ethical concern under professional engineering codes, such that an engineer who identifies such unjustified expenditure has an ethical right (though not necessarily a mandatory duty) to pursue the matter, including through public disclosure, because the ethics code's scope extends beyond narrow public health and safety to encompass broader public welfare concerns including responsible stewardship of public resources
[Case 157] Professional virtue principle establishing that unjustified expenditure of public funds — even absent a direct danger to public health or safety — constitutes a cognizable ethical concern under professional engineering codes, such that an engineer who identifies such unjustified expenditure has an ethical right (though not necessarily a mandatory duty) to pursue the matter, including through public disclosure, because the ethics code's scope extends beyond narrow public health and safety to encompass broader public welfare concerns including responsible stewardship of public resources.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who has identified a significant public health and safety risk—arising from a client's or public authority's decision to proceed without recommended safeguards—bears obligations to escalate warnings beyond the immediate client relationship, including written notification to decision-makers, public testimony, and reporting to state regulatory authorities, even after being discharged from the project, and to consider continuing obligations as both a professional and a citizen.
Public Health Safety Threshold Mandatory vs Personal Conscience Whistleblowing Distinction Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that professional ethics bodies and individual engineers distinguish between (a) situations involving direct danger to public health and safety — which trigger a mandatory escalation obligation that goes beyond personal conscience — and (b) situations involving financial impropriety, wasteful expenditure, or unsatisfactory plans without public health and safety impact — which trigger only a personal conscience right to escalate, not a mandatory duty — prohibiting the conflation of these two categories and establishing that the presence or absence of direct public health and safety risk is the operative threshold determining whether escalation is ethically mandatory or merely permissible as a matter of personal conscience, as established by the contrast between BER Case 82-5 (no public safety, personal conscience only) and BER Case 88-6 (public safety, mandatory escalation).
Public Health Safety Whistleblowing Mandatory Duty Versus Personal Conscience Distinction Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies and individual engineers to distinguish between (a) situations involving direct danger to public health and safety — where the engineer bears a mandatory professional obligation to refuse, document, and escalate — and (b) situations involving unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds without direct public health danger — where continued advocacy after employer rejection is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right rather than mandatory professional duty; and to apply the correct category to the facts of each case so that engineers are neither under-obligated in genuine safety emergencies nor over-obligated in matters of institutional policy disagreement.
Public Hearing Adverse Impact Relevance-Conditioned Voluntary Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a private client to correctly determine whether adverse impacts of a proposed project — such as increased traffic, noise, and air pollution — are 'relevant and pertinent' to the specific proceeding, and to calibrate voluntary disclosure obligations accordingly: recognizing that if such impacts are relevant and pertinent, there is an obligation to disclose them in any presentation made on the project, while if they are not relevant and pertinent in the engineer's professional judgment, voluntary disclosure is not ethically required, and that this relevance-pertinence determination is itself a professional judgment call that must be made objectively and in good faith.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public hearing — on behalf of a client — to exercise professional judgment about which information is relevant and pertinent to the hearing's subject matter, and to present that information completely and objectively while refraining from volunteering information that, in the engineer's professional judgment, is not relevant and pertinent to the specific proceeding, recognizing that the obligation to disclose is calibrated to relevance and pertinence rather than requiring exhaustive disclosure of all potentially related information.
Public Hearing Climate Risk Information Gap Remediation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who anticipates that a proposed infrastructure project will raise material climate-related risk questions at a public regulatory hearing — questions that current regulatory standards and the client's authorized scope do not address — to take proactive steps to ensure that the public hearing process is not conducted with a foreseeable and material information gap, including proposing supplemental analysis, submitting technical findings to the hearing record, or escalating to regulatory authorities so that decision-makers and affected community members have access to accurate and complete risk information.
Public Hearing Climate Risk Information Gap Remediation Obligation
anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who anticipates that a proposed infrastructure project will raise material climate-related flood risk questions in public regulatory hearings — and who has been directed by the client to forgo the analysis needed to answer those questions — to ensure that the regulatory hearing process is not conducted with a material information gap on climate risk, either by obtaining client authorization for the analysis, proposing a written risk disclosure report for regulatory consideration, or, if those avenues are foreclosed, escalating to regulatory authorities independently.
Public Hearing Conditional Honest Answer Readiness Constraint
Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a client who does not volunteer adverse impact information must nonetheless be fully prepared and committed to providing complete, honest, and accurate testimony on those impacts if directly questioned by the decision-making body — prohibiting the engineer from withholding, deflecting, or providing incomplete answers when directly questioned on matters within the engineer's knowledge, even when those matters were not volunteered in the initial presentation, as established by NSPE Code non-deception and objectivity provisions and the principle that selective non-volunteering is permissible only when paired with unconditional readiness to answer truthfully upon direct inquiry.
Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who prepared original design documents for a public infrastructure project presents and defends those designs before a public regulatory or administrative body, bearing obligations of technical accuracy, completeness, objectivity, and responsiveness to competing technical concerns raised by other engineers or members of the public, including obligations to address all relevant safety and environmental issues rather than selectively redirecting testimony.
Public Hearing Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Capability
Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public regulatory hearing — whether on behalf of a private client or a public agency — to answer all direct questions posed by the regulatory body completely, honestly, and without evasion or artful omission, recognizing that while the engineer may exercise professional judgment about what to volunteer, the obligation to answer direct questions truthfully and fully is unconditional and cannot be subordinated to client-favorable presentation strategy.
Public Hearing Multi-Witness Process as Institutional Completeness Mechanism
Fundamental ethical principle recognizing that the adversarial, multi-witness structure of a public regulatory hearing functions as an institutional mechanism for ensuring that decision-makers receive complete information about proposed projects — including adverse impacts — through the combined testimony of proponents, opponents, independent experts, and public witnesses, such that no single retained engineer bears the full proactive disclosure burden that would apply in a non-adversarial advisory context where no other information sources are available to the decision-maker.
Public Hearing Presenter Direct Question Complete and Honest Answer Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a client to answer all direct questions posed by the hearing body completely, honestly, and without evasion or material omission — recognizing that while the engineer may exercise judgment about what to volunteer, the engineer has no discretion to provide incomplete, misleading, or evasive answers when directly questioned, and that this obligation is mandatory and non-defeasible regardless of client interest or the adversarial nature of the question.
Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
Engineer A was required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained by a private developer or public client is required to attend and present a proposed design at a public regulatory hearing, bearing obligations of honesty and objectivity in professional statements, and facing ethical questions about the duty to volunteer information not specifically requested by the reviewing body when that information is relevant and pertinent to public welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who prepared original design documents for a public infrastructure project presents and defends those designs before a public regulatory or administrative body, bearing obligations of technical accuracy, completeness, objectivity, and responsiveness to competing technical concerns raised by other engineers or members of the public, including obligations to address all relevant safety and environmental issues rather than selectively redirecting testimony.
Public Hearing Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public hearing — on behalf of a client — to exercise professional judgment about which information is relevant and pertinent to the hearing's subject matter, and to present that information completely and objectively while refraining from volunteering information that, in the engineer's professional judgment, is not relevant and pertinent to the specific proceeding, recognizing that the obligation to disclose is calibrated to relevance and pertinence rather than requiring exhaustive disclosure of all potentially related information.
Public Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment Non-Mandatory Volunteering Constraint
Engineer A was aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and did not volunteer this fact
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer presenting technical findings at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a client is not automatically obligated to volunteer all potentially adverse information — including information about increased traffic, noise, or air pollution — when the engineer has exercised professional judgment that such information is not 'relevant and pertinent' to the specific hearing purpose, and when the engineer would have provided the information if directly questioned, prohibiting the characterization of selective professional judgment about relevance as an ethical violation when the omitted information is subsequently presented by other witnesses at the same hearing.
Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Obligation
Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony
Duty of a licensed professional engineer providing verbal engineering input at a public regulatory hearing — where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making — to address all material technical concerns raised by other witnesses, including concerns about safety risks such as potential leaks from underground fuel storage tanks, and to either explain how those concerns have already been evaluated and addressed or to offer to re-examine the plans, rather than redirecting conversation away from the raised issues, so that the board's decision is based on complete and accurate engineering information.
Public Hearing Triggering Condition Distinguishing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer assessing the scope of a public safety reporting obligation to recognize and apply the distinction between situations in which a public hearing has been scheduled — at which false or misleading data is being or will be presented to a regulatory authority — and situations in which no public hearing exists, recognizing that the presence of a scheduled public hearing with false data presentation constitutes a heightened triggering condition that generates a more immediate and direct external reporting obligation, while the absence of a public hearing requires a more graduated internal escalation approach before external reporting is warranted.
other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
A professional engineering role in which an engineer attends a public regulatory hearing as a witness — not retained by the primary applicant — and provides independent technical testimony on matters such as traffic, noise, and environmental impacts relevant to the proposed project and public welfare.
Public Infrastructure Commentary Undisclosed Private Interest Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from issuing statements, criticism, or arguments on matters connected with public policy — including public infrastructure route selection, cost estimate critiques, and alternative design proposals — when those statements are inspired or paid for by a private interest that is not disclosed to the public and decision-making authorities; establishing that the prohibition applies regardless of whether the engineer's technical conclusions are correct, and that the operative ethical violation is the concealment of the private interest that motivates or funds the commentary, not the content of the commentary itself; and establishing that the disclosure obligation is satisfied when the engineer affirmatively identifies the private party on whose behalf the statement is made.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is retained and financially compensated by a private party to testify at a governmental or regulatory hearing from failing to affirmatively disclose that private retainer relationship at the outset of testimony — establishing that the financial relationship between the engineer and the private retaining party is material information that the regulatory body and the public are entitled to know in order to properly evaluate the independence and potential bias of the testimony, and that the omission of such disclosure constitutes a deceptive practice that violates the engineer's duty of non-deception and the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard.
Public Infrastructure Cost Allocation Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the proper allocation of infrastructure improvement costs between public agencies and local municipalities in highway and utility projects, including the prohibition on deliberately designing projects to artificially create utility conflicts in order to shift costs from a municipality to a state agency or vice versa, and the duty of engineers to design in good faith consistent with applicable cost-allocation policies.
Public Infrastructure Fatal Accident Scope Non-Shield Constraint
Engineer A's scope of work is solely to identify any pavement damage on the bridge and report the damage to VWX for further review and repair.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer is performing contracted inspection services on public infrastructure where a confirmed fatal accident has recently occurred, the engineer's contracted scope of services cannot shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose incidentally observed structural conditions that may have contributed to that fatal accident — prohibiting the engineer from treating the scope boundary as a complete defense against the disclosure obligation when the combination of public infrastructure, confirmed fatality, and observed structural condition creates a heightened public safety imperative that overrides scope limitations.
Public Infrastructure Fatality-Context Heightened Escalation Threshold Recognition Capability
A public agency retains the services of VWX Architects and Engineers to perform a major scheduled overhaul of a bridge.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when a structural defect is observed on public infrastructure — a bridge owned and operated by a public agency — in the context of a confirmed fatality that may be causally linked to that defect, the combination of public ownership, confirmed fatality, and structural defect creates a heightened escalation threshold that requires written notification to public authorities, distinguishing this context from cases involving private property, non-fatal incidents, or speculative defects without fatality linkage.
Public Infrastructure Route Advocacy Honest Objectivity Non-Partisan Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly advocates for an alternative public infrastructure route — including through open letters or press statements — to ensure that the advocacy is grounded in honest, objective professional analysis rather than partisan alignment with municipal officials, citizen groups, or other non-engineering stakeholders whose interests may coincide with the engineer's preferred route, and to refrain from allowing the appearance of coordinated advocacy with non-engineering parties to substitute for independent professional judgment.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is confronted with a situation involving public controversy — including community opposition to a design decision, environmental concerns raised by residents, or competing public interests in infrastructure planning — to remain honest and objective in all professional statements and activities, refraining from allowing public pressure, community sentiment, or political controversy to distort the engineer's professional analysis, and presenting findings and recommendations based solely on technical merit and professional judgment.
Public Inspection Role Private Developer Solicitation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a private engineering firm holding a public agency's plan review or construction inspection mandate from using that public role as a marketing tool to solicit private design or inspection business from the very developers subject to its public oversight — including by advertising cost savings derived from the firm's insider position as the agency's reviewer — establishing that such solicitation independently violates faithful agent obligations to the public client, the prohibition on improper competitive methods, and the prohibition on exploiting a public role for private commercial gain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineering firm that simultaneously serves as a public agency's reviewing engineer and as a design or inspection service provider for private parties subject to that same review from exploiting its dual role as a marketing tool — including by advertising cost savings to prospective private clients based on the firm's insider position as the agency's reviewer — establishing that such marketing exploitation compounds the underlying conflict of interest and independently violates the prohibition on improper competitive conduct and faithful agent obligations to both the public agency and private clients.
A professional ethics framework governing how engineers must balance competing interests of multiple stakeholders — including governmental entities, local communities, property owners, and the general public — when recommending solutions to infrastructure or public works conflicts, including the obligation to explore creative alternatives before recommending adversarial remedies such as condemnation.
Public Interest Engineering Peer Critique High-Level Professional Deportment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer — particularly at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public — to offer that criticism on a high level of professional deportment: avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or application of engineering data, offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks, and refraining from malicious or false injury to the professional reputation of the criticized engineer — consistent with the principle established in BER Cases 63-6 and 65-9 that public criticism of another engineer's work is ethically permissible provided it is offered with due restraint and professional decorum.
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek
Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who possess specialized knowledge of environmental, safety, or public welfare risks associated with a proposed project to provide truthful, objective, and complete public testimony at regulatory hearings — even when acting as private citizens rather than retained professionals — when such testimony serves the public interest and is grounded in established technical facts or professional assessments
[Case 112] Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who possess specialized knowledge of safety risks associated with a proposed project or legislative change to provide truthful, objective, and complete public testimony at regulatory or legislative hearings — even when acting as private citizens rather than retained professionals — when such testimony serves the public interest and is grounded in established technical facts or professional assessments
[Case 112] Professional principle requiring licensed engineers who possess specialized knowledge of safety risks associated with a proposed project or ordinance change to provide truthful, objective, and complete public testimony at legislative or regulatory hearings — even when acting as private citizens rather than retained professionals — when such testimony serves the public interest and is grounded in established technical facts or professional assessments
Public Interest Environmental Testimony Obligation
These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, acting as a private citizen or member of the public, possesses technical knowledge indicating that a proposed development project poses material environmental or public safety risks — such as potential contamination of a public waterway from underground fuel storage tank leaks — to bring those concerns forward at a public regulatory hearing, and if the formal presentation fails to produce corrective action, to escalate the concern to a higher regulatory authority such as a state environmental agency, so that the public's interest in environmental protection and safety is served.
Public Interest Environmental Witness Engineer
A licensed professional engineer who, acting as a private citizen or member of the public rather than in a formal professional capacity, testifies at a public regulatory or administrative hearing about environmental, safety, or technical concerns related to a proposed project, bearing obligations to provide accurate, complete, and objective technical information to protect public welfare and the environment.
Public Interest Highway Route Critic Engineer
A principal of a consulting engineering firm...issued a public letter, 'To Whom Concerned,' which was published in the local press, discussing the alternative routes.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer — typically a principal of a consulting firm with relevant domain experience — publicly criticizes proposed public infrastructure route decisions made by a government agency, proposes alternative solutions, and engages in open public debate through published letters or statements, bearing obligations of technical accuracy, honest professional judgment, and public welfare even when acting outside a formal client engagement.
Public Interest Peer Critique Deportment Standard
a related ethical principle then obtaining '...does not prohibit ...public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply due restraint. . .in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer; the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.'
Professional virtue principle establishing that when engineers publicly criticize the work of another engineer in the public interest — including at hearings on engineering projects — such criticism must be offered at a high level of professional deportment: avoiding personalities and abuse, grounding critique in engineering conclusions or application of engineering data, and offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks, so that the public interest is served without injuring professional reputations through malicious or indiscriminate criticism.
Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer — particularly at hearings on an engineering project or in public forums — in the interest of the public to offer such criticism on a high level of professional deportment: avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or the application of engineering data, and offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks, recognizing that public criticism of a peer's work is ethically permissible only when conducted with due restraint and professional objectivity.
Public Interest Technical Position Persistence Under Institutional Override Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to maintain and stand by their professional position — 'stick to their guns' — when they believe the public health and safety is at stake, even after a superior or institutional authority has overridden their determination, and to continue representing the public interest through the available professional mechanisms (permit refusal, formal submission, board consultation) rather than capitulating to institutional pressure or withdrawing prematurely from the professional responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that bowing to public pressure (community petitions, rallies, political advocacy) or employment situations (supervisory override, job loss risk) when the engineer believes great dangers to public health and safety are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility and obligation, and to actively resist such abrogation by maintaining the safety determination and pursuing all available escalation pathways.
Public Interest Traffic Safety Engineering Testimony Obligation
many within the local engineering community, including Engineer A, consider unsafe, believe does not satisfy current standards and best practices
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who possesses specialized knowledge of traffic engineering standards and has determined that a proposed local ordinance change is unsafe and contrary to established engineering standards and state law to provide complete, objective, and technically grounded testimony at public forums — including city council meetings — presenting the specific safety deficiencies, standards violations, and legal non-compliance of the proposed change, so that the legislative body and the public have accurate technical information before a vote is taken.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, acting as a private citizen or member of the public, possesses technical knowledge indicating that a proposed development project poses material environmental or public safety risks — such as potential contamination of a public waterway from underground fuel storage tank leaks — to bring those concerns forward at a public regulatory hearing, and if the formal presentation fails to produce corrective action, to escalate the concern to a higher regulatory authority such as a state environmental agency, so that the public's interest in environmental protection and safety is served.
Public Objector Procurement Spirit Intent Protest Proportionality Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that members of the public and elected officials who object to a specific procedural decision in a public engineering procurement process — such as a procuring authority's decision to allow a competing firm to amend its qualification submission — must ground their objections in the actual spirit and intent of the governing procurement law rather than in strict procedural literalism, and must calibrate the intensity of their protest to the actual harm caused by the procedural decision, prohibiting disproportionate objections that would sacrifice the public interest in selecting the most qualified firm for a large and complex project on the altar of procedural formalism when the procuring authority has taken reasonable steps (legal clearance, equal-access extension) to ensure fairness.
Public Official Conflict of Interest Standard
Professional norms, ethical obligations, and regulatory standards governing the conduct of engineers serving in public official roles, particularly regarding conflicts of interest arising from prior or anticipated private-sector relationships, the duty to avoid exploitation of public position for private gain, and obligations of impartiality in procurement and contract award decisions
Public Official Engineering Services Solicitor
A non-engineer public administrative official role that solicits engineering advisory services or analyses from licensed engineers, potentially without full awareness of the professional obligations triggered by such solicitations, bearing standing as a recipient of engineer duties of completeness, objectivity, and prohibition against inducements.
Public Official Good Intent Non-Justification for Procurement Promise Constraint
In recognition of Engineer A's work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer, verbally promises to select Engineer A's firm on a future engineering project for City X.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving in a public procurement authority role — such as a chief city engineer — cannot justify an informal verbal promise to award a future public engineering contract to a specific firm on the basis of benign, appreciative, or well-intentioned motivation, including recognition of prior meritorious service, establishing that the propriety of procurement conduct is assessed by its structural effect on competitive fairness rather than by the subjective intent of the official making the promise.
Public Official Pre-Selection Promise Prohibition
Domain-specific principle prohibiting public engineers in procurement authority roles from making verbal or informal promises to select specific private firms for future contracts outside of lawful competitive selection processes, regardless of the merit of the firm's prior contributions or the official's genuine appreciation for past services — recognizing that such promises corrupt procurement integrity, bypass statutory qualification-based selection requirements, and constitute an abuse of public contracting authority
Public Official Private Plan Approval Participation Prohibition Constraint
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer; then, as county engineer, he recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve those plans.
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who serves in a public official capacity — including as a governmental engineer or planning board member — from participating in the review, recommendation, or approval of engineering plans that the engineer prepared in a private consulting capacity, establishing that the dual role creates an irresolvable conflict of interest regardless of whether the engineer abstains from the final vote, because the engineer's governmental role creates influence over the approval process that cannot be neutralized by partial recusal, as established by BER Case 67-1 and the principle that the engineer would be in violation of the NSPE Code even if not a member of the planning board by virtue of the county engineer's responsibility to submit plans with recommendation.
Public Official Procurement Subversion State
State in which a public official with authority over engineering procurement has taken action — such as making an advance verbal commitment to select a specific firm — that subverts or misuses the existing procurement policies and procedures of the public entity, bypassing the required public announcement and open competition among all qualified and eligible engineers and firms, thereby corrupting the integrity of the procurement process before it formally begins.
Engineer M's firm partners with an engineering consultant, Firm DBA, to coordinate public outreach and conduct these sessions
A professional engineering consulting firm or role engaged to coordinate and conduct mandated public engagement sessions for public infrastructure projects, bearing obligations to ensure sessions are accessible, inclusive, representative, and accurately reported, with licensed engineers in supervisory authority over all outreach activities.
Public Oversight Role Judgment and Discretion Domain Competence Prerequisite Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving in a public oversight role — such as county surveyor — must possess at minimum some substantive degree of background and experience in the specific technical domain being overseen, because without such background the engineer cannot properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the role, prohibiting acceptance of oversight positions on the basis of general PE licensure alone when the engineer lacks any substantive background in the domain being overseen, and establishing that the judgment-and-discretion requirement of oversight roles is a domain-specific competence requirement that cannot be satisfied by general administrative authority or by having qualified subordinates prepare the underlying documents.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer accepting a supervisory, oversight, or administrative role whose core duties include review, oversight, or approval of work products in a specific technical domain must possess at minimum some substantive degree of background and experience in that domain — prohibiting acceptance of such roles on the basis of general licensure alone when the engineer lacks any substantive background in the domain being overseen, because without such background the engineer cannot properly perform and exercise the judgment and discretion required by the role, as established in BER Case 85-3 and applied in BER Case 94-8.
Public Peer Critique Non-Malicious Non-False Temperate Conduct Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work, cost estimates, or technical conclusions of another engineer — including government engineers — to ensure that such criticism is not malicious, not false, not indiscriminate, and not intended to injure the other engineer's professional reputation, prospects, or practice; and to conduct the criticism in temperate language and constructive terms, recognizing that while honest technical disagreement is ethically permissible, criticism that is malicious, unjust, or designed to injure a peer crosses the ethical boundary regardless of whether the underlying technical position is correct.
Public Peer Critique Non-Malicious Temperate Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work, cost estimates, or technical conclusions of another engineer — including engineers employed by government agencies — to ensure that the criticism is not malicious, not unjust, not intended to injure the other engineer's professional reputation, and is expressed in temperate language and constructive terms, while recognizing that adverse technical findings and honest disagreement with another engineer's conclusions do not constitute malicious or unjust criticism when offered in good faith based on professional analysis.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who publicly criticizes the work of another engineer — particularly at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public — to offer that criticism on a high level of professional deportment: avoiding personalities and abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or application of engineering data, offering alternative conclusions or analyses rather than personal attacks, and refraining from malicious or false injury to the professional reputation of the criticized engineer — consistent with the principle established in BER Cases 63-6 and 65-9 that public criticism of another engineer's work is ethically permissible provided it is offered with due restraint and professional decorum.
Public Petition Pressure for Unsafe Infrastructure Reopening State
State in which organized public pressure (petition, rally, political mobilization) is applied to reopen infrastructure that has been closed on engineering safety grounds, creating tension between democratic responsiveness and engineering safety obligations.
[Case 137] State in which organized public pressure (petition, rally, elected body action) has been applied to reopen infrastructure that engineers have closed on safety grounds, creating political pressure that competes with engineering safety judgment.
Public Policy Balancing Large Project Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer works on large, complex public infrastructure projects — such as water-power complexes or highway alignments — where engineering judgment must be integrated with public policy determinations, bearing obligations to present technically sound analyses, acknowledge legitimate alternative engineering conclusions, and recognize that the final adopted approach may properly reflect both engineering and public policy considerations rather than purely technical optimization.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained by a public agency must balance the competing interests of multiple stakeholders — including state authorities, multiple municipalities, and private property owners with historic or sentimental property — when specifying a route or design solution, bearing obligations to advise the client of all feasible and reasonable alternatives, seek amicable resolutions consistent with the public interest, and weigh the greatest good for the greatest number against creative solutions that may protect minority stakeholder interests.
Public Policy Engineering Challenge Post-Decision Non-Ethical-Indictment Obligation
these decisions in the public arena are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged a design or policy decision made by other engineers — including by raising environmental or safety concerns in a public forum — to accept, after the appropriate public authority has considered all views and reached a decision, that each engineer involved acted in conformance with the code of ethics, and to refrain from treating the outcome as an ethical indictment of engineers whose honest professional judgment differed; recognizing that conflicting professional views in public policy matters are not an ethical concern and that open public debate resolved by appropriate authority is the proper mechanism for such disputes.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or disagreed with a design decision made by other engineers in a public policy context — including environmental, infrastructure, or land-use decisions — to accept, after due consideration of all views by the appropriate public authority, that each engineer involved acted in conformance with the code of ethics, and to refrain from treating the outcome of the public debate as an ethical indictment of engineers whose professional judgment differed from the challenger's; recognizing that public policy engineering decisions are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority, and that the resolution of such debate does not retroactively render any participating engineer's honest professional judgment unethical.
Public Policy Engineering Debate Open Resolution Principle
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that engineering decisions made in the public arena — particularly those involving environmental trade-offs, infrastructure design, and competing community interests — are legitimately subject to open public debate and must ultimately be resolved by the appropriate public authority, not by any single engineer or engineering consensus; engineers who participate in such debates in good faith act ethically regardless of which position ultimately prevails.
Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or criticized a design or policy decision made by other engineers to recognize when appropriate public authority has considered all views and decided to proceed, to accept that outcome as legitimate, to refrain from continued professional disparagement of the engineers who reached a different conclusion, and to recognize that all involved engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or disagreed with a design decision made by other engineers — including through public letters, testimony, or civic advocacy — to accept, after due consideration of all views, that the decision to proceed with the challenged design was made by appropriate public authority, that all involved engineers acted in conformance with the code, and that conflicting professional views between engineers on public policy matters are not ethically problematic, thereby refraining from continued obstruction or professional disparagement of the engineers who reached a different conclusion.
Public Policy Engineering Debate Post-Decision Acceptance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or disagreed with a design decision made by other engineers in a public policy context — including environmental, infrastructure, or land-use decisions — to accept, after due consideration of all views by the appropriate public authority, that each engineer involved acted in conformance with the code of ethics, and to refrain from treating the outcome of the public debate as an ethical indictment of engineers whose professional judgment differed from the challenger's; recognizing that public policy engineering decisions are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority, and that the resolution of such debate does not retroactively render any participating engineer's honest professional judgment unethical.
Public Policy Engineering Decision Open Debate Appropriate Authority Resolution Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that engineering decisions made in the public policy arena — including decisions about infrastructure design that involve environmental trade-offs — are subject to open public debate and must ultimately be resolved by the appropriate public authority, prohibiting any single engineer or engineering firm from treating their professional judgment as the final and exclusive arbiter of public policy engineering decisions, and establishing that after due consideration of all views by the appropriate public authority, all engineers involved in the debate must accept that each engineer who acted in conformance with the code acted ethically, regardless of which position the public authority adopted, as established by BER Case No. 79-2.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or disagreed with a design decision made by other engineers — including in a public forum before a regulatory or governmental body — is obligated, after due consideration of all views, to accept the outcome of the public deliberative process as ethically legitimate when the decision-making authority proceeds with the challenged design, prohibiting continued public opposition that characterizes the accepted design as unethical solely because the engineer's preferred alternative was not adopted, and establishing that conflicting professional views in public policy engineering debates are not inherently unethical on either side, as established by BER Case No. 79-2 and the principle that public policy engineering decisions are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
Public Policy Engineering Disagreement Post-Decision Acceptance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or disagreed with a design decision made by other engineers — including in a public forum before a regulatory or governmental body — is obligated, after due consideration of all views, to accept the outcome of the public deliberative process as ethically legitimate when the decision-making authority proceeds with the challenged design, prohibiting continued public opposition that characterizes the accepted design as unethical solely because the engineer's preferred alternative was not adopted, and establishing that conflicting professional views in public policy engineering debates are not inherently unethical on either side, as established by BER Case No. 79-2 and the principle that public policy engineering decisions are subject to open public debate and resolution by appropriate public authority.
Public Policy Environmental Impact Disclosure Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained by a private developer to present a project at a public hearing bears an obligation to determine whether traffic, noise, air pollution, or other environmental impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' to the project and, if so, to disclose that information to the public body, even when not explicitly requested, applying professional judgment to determine the scope of mandatory disclosure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained by a private developer or public client is required to attend and present a proposed design at a public regulatory hearing, bearing obligations of honesty and objectivity in professional statements, and facing ethical questions about the duty to volunteer information not specifically requested by the reviewing body when that information is relevant and pertinent to public welfare.
Public Policy Environmental Trade-Off Case-By-Case Professional Judgment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in designing or evaluating projects involving environmental trade-offs — where society's need for infrastructure must be balanced against unavoidable environmental impacts — to apply case-by-case professional judgment to each project individually, recognizing that no universal finite answer exists to such trade-offs, that professional judgment is the final arbiter of the best balance between competing societal needs and environmental concerns, and that honest application of such judgment — even when it produces controversial outcomes — constitutes ethical conduct consistent with the NSPE Code.
Public Policy Infrastructure Decision Engineering Efficiency Override Non-Indictment Capability
Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either point of view cannot be said to be 'incorrect.'
Capability of professional ethics bodies, reviewing authorities, and engineers themselves to recognize that when a large public infrastructure project is ultimately resolved by public policy considerations — such as community impact, equity, or political priorities — rather than by pure engineering efficiency and cost optimization, the engineer who advocated for the more efficient engineering solution is not thereby shown to have been 'incorrect,' unethical, or incompetent, and that the public policy override of engineering efficiency does not constitute an ethical indictment of the engineer whose technically sound but policy-overridden recommendation was not adopted.
Public Policy Override Engineering Efficiency Non-Ethical-Indictment Constraint
Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily populated residential district.
Ethical constraint establishing that when a large public infrastructure project is ultimately resolved by public policy considerations — such as routing a highway through a less efficient but less populated corridor — rather than by pure engineering efficiency and cost criteria, the engineer who advocated the more efficient engineering solution cannot be said to be 'incorrect' and must not be ethically indicted for having presented the engineering-efficiency position, prohibiting the retroactive characterization of an engineer's technically grounded efficiency recommendation as an ethical violation merely because public policy ultimately dictated a different outcome, as established by the BER's highway routing example and the principle that large public projects may properly reflect both engineering diagnoses and determinations of public policy.
Public Policy Override of Engineering Efficiency Non-Ethical-Indictment Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies, reviewing authorities, and engineers themselves to recognize that when a large public infrastructure project is ultimately designed or routed in a manner that reflects public policy considerations — such as routing a highway through a lightly populated area at greater cost and less efficiency rather than through a heavily populated residential district — rather than pure engineering efficiency and cost optimization, neither the engineer who advocated the efficiency-optimized solution nor the engineer who advocated the policy-preferred solution can be said to be 'incorrect' or to have acted unethically, because large public projects properly reflect both engineering diagnoses and determinations of public policy, and the resolution of such competing approaches by appropriate public authority does not retroactively render any participating engineer's honest professional judgment unethical.
Public Policy Override of Pure Engineering Efficiency Principle
Fundamental ethical principle recognizing that for large public infrastructure projects, the approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses but also determinations of public policy, such that an engineering solution optimized solely for efficiency and cost may be legitimately overridden by public policy considerations — such as routing a highway through a lightly populated area at greater cost rather than through a heavily populated residential district — and that an engineer who presents either the efficiency-optimized or the policy-responsive point of view cannot be said to be incorrect.
Public Policy Route Selection Authority Deference Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who publicly advocates for an alternative infrastructure route or design option to recognize and explicitly acknowledge that the determination of which route or option is superior is a question for resolution by the appropriate public authority — not by the engineer — and to refrain from claiming or implying that the engineer's preferred alternative is definitively superior, presenting the professional analysis as input to the public decision-making process rather than as a substitute for it.
Public Policy Route Selection Authority Deference Self-Application Capability
This is not to say that the alternate route proposed by the consulting engineer was in fact superior to those suggested by the engineers of the highway department. This is a question for determination by appropriate public authority.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who publicly advocates for an alternative infrastructure route or design option to recognize that the final determination of which route or design to adopt is properly within the authority of appropriate public bodies — not the engineer — and to frame public advocacy as professional input to the decision-making process rather than as a binding determination, accepting that the public authority may legitimately choose a different option than the one the engineer recommends, and refraining from treating the engineer's professional preference as dispositive of the public policy question.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has publicly challenged or criticized a design or policy decision made by other engineers to recognize when appropriate public authority has considered all views and decided to proceed, to accept that outcome as legitimate, to refrain from continued professional disparagement of the engineers who reached a different conclusion, and to recognize that all involved engineers may have acted in conformance with the code despite reaching conflicting conclusions.
Public Policy Statement Sponsorship Disclosure Standard
He shall not issue statements, criticisms, or arguments on matters connected with public policy which are inspired or paid for by private interests, unless he indicates on whose behalf he is making the statement.
A professional ethics standard requiring engineers to disclose the identity of any private interest on whose behalf they are making statements, criticisms, or arguments on matters connected with public policy, ensuring transparency about the source of funding or advocacy motivation.
Public Position Marketing Exploitation Prohibition
Public Pressure Employment Pressure Safety Abrogation Prohibition Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from bowing to either public pressure (community petitions, rallies, political demands) or employment situation pressures (supervisory override, institutional hierarchy, job security concerns) when the engineer believes great dangers to public health and safety are present — establishing that yielding to either form of pressure in such circumstances constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility and obligation, and that the engineer must take immediate steps to contact all relevant governing, prosecutorial, regulatory, and licensing authorities regardless of the social and institutional pressures to remain silent or acquiesce.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Capability
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission. Engineer A explained the extent of the damage and the efforts underway to replace the bridge. The County Commission decided not to reopen the bridge.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who has ordered closure or restriction of safety-critical infrastructure to maintain that safety determination in the face of organized public pressure — including petitions with hundreds of signatures, public rallies, and political advocacy for reopening — by clearly articulating the technical basis for the determination to governing authorities and resisting the temptation to bow to public sentiment when the engineer believes great dangers are present, consistent with the principle that yielding to public pressure when great dangers exist is an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to maintain a safety-based infrastructure closure or restriction determination in the face of organized public pressure — including petitions, rallies, and political advocacy — by clearly articulating the technical basis for the determination to governing authorities, resisting demands to reopen or relax the restriction as a political concession, and recognizing that public pressure and employment considerations cannot override the engineer's fundamental obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Bridge Closure Safety Determination Obligation
A rally was held, and a petition with approximately 200 signatures asking that the bridge be reopened to limited traffic was presented to the County Commission. Engineer A explained the extent of the damage and the efforts underway to replace the bridge.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who has closed safety-critical infrastructure based on professional engineering judgment to maintain that closure determination against public pressure — including organized rallies, petitions, and political demands for reopening — and to explain the technical basis for the closure to governing authorities, rather than yielding the professional safety determination to community sentiment or political pressure.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Engineering Safety Closure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who has ordered closure or restriction of safety-critical infrastructure based on professional engineering judgment to maintain that determination against organized public pressure — including petitions, rallies, and political demands — and to explain the technical basis for the determination to governing authorities, rather than yielding the professional safety determination to community sentiment or political pressure.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Infrastructure Safety Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to maintain a safety-based infrastructure closure or restriction determination in the face of organized public pressure — including petitions, rallies, and political advocacy — by clearly articulating the technical basis for the determination to governing authorities, resisting demands to reopen or relax the restriction as a political concession, and recognizing that public pressure and employment considerations cannot override the engineer's fundamental obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Public Pressure Non-Subordination of Safety Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to maintain a professional safety determination — including infrastructure closure decisions — in the face of organized public pressure, petitions, rallies, and political advocacy for reversal, by clearly explaining the technical basis for the determination to governing authorities and resisting the temptation to bow to public sentiment when the engineer believes great dangers are present, consistent with the principle that yielding to public pressure when great dangers exist is an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental responsibility.
Public Pressure Overriding Engineering Safety Closure State
State in which a governing authority (e.g., county commission, municipal body) reverses or weakens an engineering-based safety closure or restriction in response to organized public pressure (e.g., petitions, rallies, community opposition) — without adequate engineering justification — thereby creating a condition where public infrastructure is reopened or made accessible contrary to the professional judgment of licensed engineers, and triggering obligations for those engineers to escalate their safety concerns through all appropriate channels.
Public Pressure Resistance in Safety Determination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to maintain professional safety determinations — including bridge closures, structural condemnations, or other protective measures — in the face of organized public pressure such as petitions, rallies, or political advocacy, recognizing that yielding professional safety judgments to public sentiment when the engineer believes great dangers are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
Public Pressure Safety Determination Non-Subordination Constraint
Absolute ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from subordinating a professionally grounded safety determination — including bridge closures, load restrictions, or structural safety assessments — to public pressure, petitions, rallies, or political demands for reopening or relaxation of safety measures, establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety is non-negotiable regardless of the intensity of public opposition, and that bowing to public pressure when great dangers are present constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's most fundamental professional responsibility.
[Case 112] Absolute ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from subordinating a professionally grounded safety determination to public pressure, citizen advocacy, or political demands, establishing that the engineer's paramount obligation to public safety is non-negotiable regardless of the intensity of public opposition or the source of the pressure.
Public Procurement Authority Competitive Process Enforcement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer holding public procurement authority — such as a chief city engineer — to affirmatively enforce competitive qualification-based selection processes for all engineering contracts under their authority, including refraining from substituting informal recognition arrangements, personal relationships, or gratitude-based selections for the formal competitive process, and ensuring that all qualified firms have equal opportunity to compete regardless of prior informal contributions to the agency.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role to ensure that engineering service contracts are awarded in compliance with applicable qualification-based selection (QBS) procurement laws, including conducting required RFQ processes and obtaining required Council authorization before awarding contracts that exceed statutory thresholds, and to refrain from approving or ratifying contracts that circumvent these legal requirements.
Public Procurement Confidential Information Self-Exclusion Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm submitting qualifications or other materials to a public agency in a public procurement process refrain from including confidential or proprietary information in those submissions — establishing that public procurement submissions are subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and regulations, and that the engineer bears responsibility for ensuring that submissions do not contain information the engineer would not wish to be publicly disclosed, prohibiting the engineer from relying on the public agency to protect confidential information included in public procurement submissions, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that public procurement processes are designed to be free and open.
Public Procurement Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who submit qualifications or other materials to public agencies in response to public procurement solicitations to exercise informed judgment about the confidentiality risks of including proprietary or sensitive information in those submissions, recognizing that public procurement submissions may be subject to mandatory disclosure under applicable freedom of information laws and that the engineer bears responsibility for protecting their own confidential information by choosing not to include it in public submissions
Public Procurement FOIA Timing Appearance of Impropriety Avoidance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer competing in a public procurement to structure any FOIA requests for competitor information so that the timing of those requests cannot create an appearance of impropriety — specifically, by ensuring that the FOIA request is not submitted during the window in which the engineer's own qualifications submission is still being prepared or could be influenced by the competitor intelligence obtained, thereby preserving both the reality and the appearance of fair competition.
Public Procurement FOIA Timing Sequencing Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer competing in a public procurement process must sequence any FOIA request for competitor qualification materials only after — not before — the engineer's own firm has submitted its qualifications to the procuring agency, prohibiting pre-submission FOIA requests that allow the requesting engineer to review and potentially tailor their own submission based on advance knowledge of a competitor's qualifications, thereby preserving the integrity of the qualification-based selection process and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that while a licensed professional engineer or firm may lawfully use a state Freedom of Information Act mechanism to obtain a competitor's publicly disclosed qualification submission in a public procurement process, the engineer must submit the FOIA request only after — not before — the engineer's own firm has submitted its qualifications response, prohibiting pre-submission FOIA requests that create an appearance of impropriety by suggesting that the requesting firm sought to tailor its own submission based on advance knowledge of a competitor's qualifications, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that public procurement processes must be free from even the appearance of unfair competitive advantage.
The agency advertises for bids on major building renovation projects; the bid documents made no reference to existing as-builts or drawings
Professional norms, ethical obligations, and regulatory standards governing the equitable treatment of all bidders in public engineering procurement processes, including the obligation to provide all material information — such as existing drawings, site conditions, and technical documentation — to all prospective bidders simultaneously and prior to bid submission, so that bids are prepared on a consistent informational basis.
[Case 96] Professional norms, ethical obligations, and regulatory standards governing the equitable treatment of all bidders in public engineering procurement processes, including the obligation to provide all material information to all prospective bidders simultaneously and prior to bid submission, so that bids are prepared on a consistent informational basis.
Public Procurement Integrity Public Interest Articulation Capability
The integrity of the professional engineering selection process is critically important in assuring that the public receives high-quality engineering services at a fair and reasonable cost
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand, internalize, and articulate the public interest rationale underlying strict public procurement rules — including the rationale that free and open procurement processes protect against misrepresentations by consultants, that strict adherence assures the public receives high-quality engineering services at fair cost, and that non-adherence undermines public confidence in the process, the procuring agency, and the engineering profession — and to apply this understanding when evaluating and enforcing procurement compliance.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to understand, interpret, and apply public procurement laws, qualification-based selection (QBS) statutes, and competitive contracting requirements applicable to public engineering service contracts, including knowledge of dollar thresholds, authorization requirements, and RFQ process mandates codified in professional engineering licensure laws.
Public Procurement Minimum Public Announcement and Open Opportunity Constraint
Legal and ethical constraint establishing that any method of public engineering procurement must, at a minimum, include a public announcement of the opportunity and a free and open opportunity for all qualified and eligible engineers and engineering firms to be considered for the contract — prohibiting procurement methods that bypass public notice or restrict consideration to pre-selected firms, regardless of the specific selection methodology employed by the jurisdiction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Legal and regulatory constraint requiring that public agency engineering contracts exceeding specified dollar thresholds be awarded only through formally mandated competitive qualification-based selection processes, including RFQ advertisement and governing body authorization, prohibiting sole-source or administratively convenient awards that bypass statutory procurement procedures.
Public Procurement Misrepresentation Check Transparency Constraint
in view of the fact that the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest
Ethical constraint establishing that the openness of a public procurement process — including the availability of submitted qualifications for public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws — serves a legitimate public interest function by enabling review of parties' representations to detect misleading or deceptive submissions that could undermine the public interest, and that a licensed professional engineer must recognize this transparency function as a legitimate feature of the procurement system rather than an improper intrusion, prohibiting the engineer from treating FOIA-based review of procurement submissions as inherently improper when it serves the public interest in detecting misrepresentation, as established by BER Case 10-8.
Public Procurement Misrepresentation Check Transparency Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer participating in a public procurement process to recognize that the openness and transparency of that process — including the availability of submitted qualifications through FOIA — serves a legitimate public interest function as a check against misleading or deceptive representations by competing firms, and to conduct procurement submissions accordingly, ensuring that all representations made in qualifications submissions are accurate and not misleading, in part because those submissions are subject to public scrutiny.
Public Procurement Objector Procurement Spirit and Intent Protest Proportionality Obligation
Duty of members of the public or elected officials who object to a specific procedural decision in a public engineering procurement process — such as allowing a competing firm to amend its qualification submission — to ground their objection in a good-faith assessment of whether the decision actually violated the spirit and intent of the governing procurement law, rather than in competitive or political motivations, and to recognize that procedural accommodations extended equally to all competing firms and legally cleared by counsel do not necessarily violate procurement integrity, even if they were not explicitly anticipated by the governing statute.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a public procurement process is non-compliant with applicable law or professional ethics to raise or support a formal protest of that procurement, where such protest is grounded in legitimate legal and ethical concerns rather than competitive self-interest, and where lodging such a protest does not constitute an unfair competitive act under the ethics code.
some members of the public and of the city council objected to allowing Firm A to alter its qualification proposal
A stakeholder role borne by members of the public or elected officials who object to a specific procedural decision made by a public agency during an engineering procurement process, alleging that the decision violates the intent of governing procurement law or constitutes unethical conduct by a competing firm, thereby exercising a public oversight function over the integrity of the procurement.
Public Procurement Open Process Misrepresentation Protection Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the openness and transparency of public procurement processes — including FOIA availability of submitted qualifications — serves a protective public interest function by enabling review of parties' representations and thereby reducing the risk that misleading or deceptive representations undermine the public interest, and to apply this understanding when evaluating the ethical dimensions of accessing and reviewing competitor submissions in public procurement contexts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand, internalize, and articulate the public interest rationale underlying strict public procurement rules — including the rationale that free and open procurement processes protect against misrepresentations by consultants, that strict adherence assures the public receives high-quality engineering services at fair cost, and that non-adherence undermines public confidence in the process, the procuring agency, and the engineering profession — and to apply this understanding when evaluating and enforcing procurement compliance.
Public Procurement Procedural Compliance Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint requiring that public agency engineering contracts exceeding specified dollar thresholds be awarded only through formally mandated competitive qualification-based selection processes, including RFQ advertisement and governing body authorization, prohibiting sole-source or administratively convenient awards that bypass statutory procurement procedures.
Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm submitting qualifications or other materials to a public agency in response to a public RFQ or QBS solicitation to refrain from including confidential or proprietary information in those submissions, recognizing that such submissions are subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and regulations and that inclusion of confidential information in public procurement submissions forfeits any expectation of confidentiality protection.
Public Procurement Qualifications Reviewer Engineer
a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or competing firm obtains and reviews a rival firm's qualifications submission to a public agency under applicable public procurement and FOIA laws, bearing obligations to act consistently with free and open competition principles, to avoid misrepresentation, and to ensure that the review serves the public interest in accurate and non-deceptive procurement rather than purely competitive advantage.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a competitor for a public engineering contract submits a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain a copy of a competing firm's qualifications submission to a public agency, bearing obligations to avoid the appearance of impropriety by submitting the FOIA request only after the requesting firm has itself submitted its own qualifications, and to act consistently with applicable public procurement laws and regulations.
Public Procurement Regulatory Deference Obligation
Engineer B appears to have been acting in a manner consistent with those laws and regulations, and the Board is not in a position to second guess or otherwise determine the appropriateness of those rules and regulations.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer competing in a public procurement process to act in conformance with applicable laws and regulations governing that process — including FOIA disclosure rules — and to refrain from second-guessing or circumventing the legal framework established by legislatures and regulators to advance the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services, recognizing that the engineer's role is to operate within that framework rather than to substitute personal judgment for the policy choices embedded in it.
Public Procurement Submission FOIA Exposure Self-Protection Constraint
Engineer A submits his firm's engineering qualifications to a state agency for a public project using the state's public procurement procedures.
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm submitting qualifications or other materials to a public agency under public procurement procedures recognize that such submissions are subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA statutes, and accordingly refrain from including confidential, proprietary, or competitively sensitive information in those submissions unless the engineer is prepared for that information to be publicly disclosed to competitors and the general public.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm submitting qualifications or other materials to a public agency in a public procurement process refrain from including confidential or proprietary information in those submissions — establishing that public procurement submissions are subject to public disclosure under applicable FOIA laws and regulations, and that the engineer bears responsibility for ensuring that submissions do not contain information the engineer would not wish to be publicly disclosed, prohibiting the engineer from relying on the public agency to protect confidential information included in public procurement submissions, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that public procurement processes are designed to be free and open.
Public Procurement Transparency as Public Interest Protection Mechanism
the public procurement process is intended to be free and open in order to, among other considerations, avoid misrepresentations by parties including consultants, a review of a party's representations provides the public with some degree of protection that misleading or deceptive representations are not made that could undermine the public interest.
Fundamental principle recognizing that the openness and transparency of public procurement processes — including public disclosure of submitted qualifications — serves the public interest by enabling verification of representations made by competing firms, thereby protecting against misleading or deceptive submissions that could undermine the integrity of qualification-based selection and harm the public interest in obtaining the most qualified engineering services
Public Procurement Whistleblower Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified credible evidence of procurement law violations in a public agency context, reported those findings internally, and received no corrective response, to escalate the matter to appropriate external authorities — including oversight bodies, legal counsel, or regulatory agencies — rather than acquiescing to the continuation of unlawful contracting practices, when the public interest in lawful and competitive procurement is at stake.
Public Professional Identification Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Duty Obligation
Obligation of a professional engineer who is publicly identified in their professional capacity — including in media accounts, court records, or public proceedings — in connection with a criminal conviction or serious misconduct, to recognize that such public identification creates a profession-implicating dimension to their personal conduct, and to submit to professional disciplinary review; and the corresponding obligation of the professional ethics body to treat such public identification as triggering its disciplinary jurisdiction, because the public association of engineering with criminal conduct damages the profession's collective reputation and public trust regardless of whether the underlying offense was engineering-related.
Public Professional Identification Reputational Harm Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that being publicly identified in their professional capacity — including in media accounts, court records, or news coverage — in connection with criminal conduct or dishonest behavior creates a specific reputational harm to the engineering profession as a whole, and that this public identification triggers heightened professional ethics obligations beyond those that would apply to purely private misconduct, because the association between engineering and dishonesty in the public record damages public confidence in the profession.
Public Professional Identity Criminal Conduct Profession Reputational Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a professional engineer's identity as an engineer is publicly disclosed in connection with a criminal proceeding — including through media coverage, court records, or public reporting — the engineer bears a heightened obligation to recognize that the public linkage of engineering professional status with criminal conduct causes reputational harm to the entire engineering profession, and that this public identification independently activates the NSPE Code's honor and dignity provisions even when the criminal conduct is unrelated to engineering practice — prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of a direct nexus between the criminal conduct and engineering work as a basis for concluding that no professional ethics violation has occurred, as established by the facts of Engineer B's case in BER Case 75-5.
Public Professional Identity Exposure in Criminal Proceeding State
State in which a professional engineer's identity as an engineer is publicly disclosed in connection with a criminal conviction or proceeding — through newspaper accounts, court records, or other public media — such that the engineer's professional standing and the reputation of the engineering profession are directly implicated in the public record of the criminal matter, activating obligations for professional societies and licensing boards to respond to protect public confidence in the profession.
Engineer A submitted his firm's engineering qualifications for a public project to a state agency using the state's public procurement procedures.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer or firm responds to a public Request for Qualifications (RFQ) by submitting the firm's engineering qualifications to a public agency under applicable public procurement procedures, bearing obligations to submit accurate and non-deceptive qualifications, to comply with all procedural requirements (including deadlines and designated submission locations), and to accept that public submissions may be subject to disclosure under applicable FOIA laws.
If the individuals most heavily involved in the project at Firm DBA are Certified Public Relations Professionals, they would be held to a code of ethics that provides for honest and truthful conduct.
Formal codified ethics standards governing public relations professionals, including obligations for honest and truthful conduct in communications and public engagement work
Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held
A firm engaged to provide communication and public relations services on a public infrastructure project, staffed or supervised by licensed professional engineers, bearing obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics to issue truthful and objective statements, avoid deceptive acts, and not omit material facts in reports delivered to clients and the public.
Public Resource Non-Exploitation in Concurrent Private Practice
whether the individual is using the materials, equipment, and resources of the individual's full-time employer in pursuing and performing part-time work
Professional principle prohibiting engineers engaged in concurrent private practice (moonlighting) from using their governmental employer's materials, equipment, facilities, information, or other resources — whether tangible or intangible — in the pursuit or performance of private work, recognizing that such use constitutes a misappropriation of public assets for private benefit and a breach of the faithful agent and trustee obligation owed to the governmental employer
Public Resource Use in Private Work Prohibition State
State in which a government-employed engineer performing private consulting work faces an active prohibition — arising from public employment obligations, government policy, and professional ethics — against using public materials, equipment, resources, or time in the pursuit or performance of that private work, with violations potentially implicating professional liability, public trust, and employer policy compliance.
Public Resources Non-Use in Private Consulting Work Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency who simultaneously performs private consulting work to refrain from using public resources — including government-developed materials, presentations, data, equipment, time, or institutional assets — in the performance of private consulting services, recognizing that use of public resources for private benefit constitutes a breach of the faithful agent duty to the governmental employer and may violate applicable governmental ethics regulations.
Public Safety Clear and Present Danger Competence Threshold Escalation Capability
In the present case, the competency issues at stake pose a clear and present danger to the public health and safety.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when competency issues at stake in an assignment pose a clear and present danger to public health and safety — as distinguished from merely technical or administrative competence concerns — and to apply a heightened standard of response that prioritizes public safety paramount over employer pressure, institutional convenience, or resource constraints, including escalating to appropriate authorities when the danger threshold is met.
Public Safety Code Exception Clause Activation Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers information obtained in a professional capacity that constitutes an immediate danger to public health and safety to recognize and invoke the explicit exception clause in the NSPE Code (Section II.1.c.) that permits — and ethically requires — disclosure of such information to appropriate persons (including tenants, building occupants, and public authorities) notwithstanding the general prohibition on revealing client information without prior consent, because the Code itself authorizes disclosure in cases where public health and safety is endangered.
Public Safety Endangerment Mandatory Obligation vs Personal Conscience Right Distinction Constraint
the case then before us did not directly involve the protection of the public safety, health, and welfare, but rather was an internal dispute between an employer and an employee
Ethical constraint requiring that licensed professional engineers and ethics bodies distinguish between (a) situations involving endangerment to public safety, health, and welfare — which trigger a mandatory ethical obligation to report to proper authorities and withdraw from the project — and (b) situations involving internal employer-employee disputes without direct public safety impact — which trigger only a personal conscience right to escalate, not a mandatory duty — prohibiting the conflation of these two categories and establishing that the presence of public safety endangerment is the operative threshold that converts a discretionary right into a mandatory obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint requiring that professional ethics bodies and individual engineers distinguish between (a) situations involving direct danger to public health and safety — which trigger a mandatory escalation obligation that goes beyond personal conscience — and (b) situations involving financial impropriety, wasteful expenditure, or unsatisfactory plans without public health and safety impact — which trigger only a personal conscience right to escalate, not a mandatory duty — prohibiting the conflation of these two categories and establishing that the presence or absence of direct public health and safety risk is the operative threshold determining whether escalation is ethically mandatory or merely permissible as a matter of personal conscience, as established by the contrast between BER Case 82-5 (no public safety, personal conscience only) and BER Case 88-6 (public safety, mandatory escalation).
Public Safety Endangerment Whistleblowing Mandatory Obligation Non-Equivalence to Personal Conscience Right Obligation
Clearly, the case presently before the Board involves 'endangerment to the public safety, health and welfare' the contamination of the water supply and therefore it is clear that Engineer A has an obligation to report the matter to her employer.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of professional ethics bodies to recognize and apply the critical distinction between (a) internal employer-employee disputes not directly involving public safety — where whistleblowing is an ethical right of personal conscience but not a mandatory professional duty — and (b) situations involving direct endangerment of public safety, health, and welfare — where the engineer bears a mandatory ethical obligation, not merely a right, to report to proper authorities and withdraw from the project; and to correctly categorize the facts of each case to determine which regime applies.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of professional ethics bodies and individual engineers to distinguish between (a) situations involving direct danger to public health and safety — where the engineer bears a mandatory professional obligation to refuse, document, and escalate — and (b) situations involving unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds without direct public health danger — where continued advocacy after employer rejection is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right rather than mandatory professional duty; and to apply the correct category to the facts of each case so that engineers are neither under-obligated in genuine safety emergencies nor over-obligated in matters of institutional policy disagreement.
Capability to recognize when identified risks to public health and safety exceed the client relationship and require escalation to regulatory authorities or public bodies, and to act on that recognition by reporting to appropriate external parties
[Case 56] Capability to recognize when identified risks to public health and safety exceed the client relationship and require escalation to regulatory authorities or public bodies, and to act on that recognition by reporting to appropriate external parties — including recognizing when a systemic agency practice of assigning engineering review authority to unqualified personnel creates a public safety risk requiring escalation beyond the immediate project context.
Engineer A has an obligation to further report the situation to appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, aware of a public health, safety, or welfare situation that is already known to some public authorities, bears an obligation to further report the situation to additional appropriate local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistently applied to protect the public, to engage civic groups, and to articulate why engineering judgment and expertise matter — even when the situation is already publicly visible.
Public Safety Fee Protest Engineering Firm
Firms B and C are permitted, or required, to present information to the responsible government agency (i.e., 'the proper authority') if Firms B and C believe that Firm A's action endangers public health and safety
A professional engineering firm role in which a competing firm, having analyzed the engineering requirements of a public project, formally protests the award of a contract to a lower-bidding competitor on the sincere and good-faith grounds that the competitor's fee is so low as to be economically infeasible for rendering competent and safe engineering service, bearing obligations to act from genuine public safety motivation rather than competitive self-interest, to use proper reporting channels, and to avoid injuring a competitor's interests for self-aggrandizement.
Public Safety Obligation Scope Non-Limitation by Law or Regulation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's primary obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare is not bounded by what is required by applicable law or regulation, prohibiting the engineer from treating regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of professional ethical obligations when the engineer has affirmative knowledge that the regulatory minimum is insufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare under foreseeable conditions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint arising from the foundational engineering canon that public safety, health, and welfare must be held paramount over client interests, prohibiting engineers from proceeding with work that creates unmitigated risks to public welfare even under client direction.
Public Safety Paramount Client Direction Conditional Declination Constraint
In that event it would clearly be the duty of Engineers A and B to decline to follow the town council's decision to proceed with the project.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to decline a client's direction to proceed with a project is conditional upon the engineer's sincere professional judgment that the project would actually be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare — prohibiting the engineer from treating the mere existence of public controversy or peer disagreement as a sufficient basis for declination, and establishing that where the engineer sincerely believes the design will not jeopardize public health, proceeding with the client-directed design is ethically permissible, as established by NSPE Code Section 2(a) and BER Case No. 79-2.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer has made a professionally grounded determination that a specific safety measure is necessary for a dangerous project, and the client refuses to implement that measure, the engineer faces a binary ethical choice — either insist that the client implement the safety measure or refuse to continue work on the project — prohibiting any intermediate response of silent continuation, passive acquiescence, or proceeding without dissent as ethically impermissible, and establishing that there is no ethically neutral middle ground between insistence and withdrawal when genuine public safety is at stake.
Part of Engineer L's scope of work for Client X includes ensuring that stormwater from the new development will not impact this primary drinking water source for the community.
Ethical constraint arising from the foundational engineering canon that public safety, health, and welfare must be held paramount over client interests, prohibiting engineers from proceeding with work that creates unmitigated risks to public welfare even under client direction.
Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
Public health, safety, and welfare are the paramount concern of every engineer and pre-empt any obligation to clients.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare pre-empts any duty of confidentiality to a client, attorney, or retaining party — prohibiting the engineer from remaining silent about discovered safety risks on the basis of confidentiality instructions, and requiring notification of affected parties and appropriate public authorities when a clear risk to public health, safety, and welfare exists, as established by BER Cases 76-4 and 90-5.
Public Safety Paramount Vociferousness Obligation
the engineer has an responsibility to insist, however strongly and vociferously, that public officials and decision-makers take steps and corrective steps if necessary to see that this obligation is fulfilled
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who believes a public official, employer, or client is pursuing a course of action that endangers public health and safety to insist — however strongly and vociferously — that the decision-maker take corrective steps, going beyond mere notification or passive objection to active, persistent, and forceful advocacy for the public welfare, recognizing that the 'paramount' character of the public safety obligation requires more than a single quiet objection.
Public Safety Permit Refusal Non-Withdrawal Engagement Persistence Constraint
we believe it would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project because Engineer A had an obligation to stand by his position consistent with his obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare and refuse to issue the permit.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a regulatory capacity who has refused to issue a permit on public health and safety grounds must not withdraw from further work on the project as a means of avoiding the professionally compromising situation — requiring the engineer to remain engaged, stand by the professional safety position, and continue to represent the public interest, on the grounds that engineers have an essential role as technically-qualified professionals to 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest when public health and safety are at stake, and that withdrawal would abandon the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a regulatory capacity who has refused to issue a permit or approval on public health and safety grounds must remain engaged in the matter — submitting findings to superiors, documenting the basis for refusal, and standing by the professional safety determination — prohibiting withdrawal from further work on the project as a means of avoiding the conflict, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare requires continued engagement and advocacy for the safety position even after the employing agency has overridden the refusal and authorized issuance of the permit, as established by BER Case 92-4 and the principle that engineers must 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest when public health and safety are at stake.
Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X
The procedural and normative framework governing the conditions under which engineers may participate as witnesses or technical contributors in government-convened public safety standards hearings, including the ethical obligations, rights, and professional duties of engineers who possess relevant technical knowledge about products under regulatory review.
Public Sector Engineer Ordered to Expedite Permit Despite Compliance Concern State
He is told by a superior to move expeditiously on the permit and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues.
State in which a professional engineer employed in a government regulatory capacity has been explicitly directed by a superior to process a permit expeditiously and to avoid technical 'hang-ups,' while the engineer holds a documented professional belief that the permit as drafted does not meet applicable regulatory requirements — creating a direct conflict between the organizational directive for speed and the engineer's professional obligation to ensure regulatory compliance before permit issuance.
A licensed professional engineering role within a state or public agency specializing in fire protection systems, responsible for managing technical documentation such as as-built drawings, advising on bid document requirements, and ensuring that contractors have appropriate access to existing system information to support safe and compliant renovation work.
Public Sector Out-of-Competence Appointment Acceptance Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to decline acceptance of a public sector appointment or position whose duties and responsibilities fall substantially outside the engineer's domain of competence — even when the appointment is made by a legitimate authority and the position requires only oversight rather than direct preparation of engineering documents — recognizing that effective oversight of technical work requires domain competence and that accepting such a position without the requisite expertise renders the engineer unable to fulfill the position's core responsibilities in accordance with the NSPE Code.
Public Servant Engineer Heightened External Reporting Obligation
We believe this is particularly clear when the engineer involved is a public servant (city engineer and director of public works).
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public servant role — such as city engineer or director of public works — who identifies a public safety danger that internal authorities have refused to address, to fulfill a heightened obligation to report to external proper authorities (e.g., state regulatory bodies), beyond what would be required of a private engineer in equivalent circumstances; recognizing that the public servant engineer's institutional role, legal authority, and access to public safety information create a stronger and more clearly defined duty to escalate externally when internal channels fail.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency with specific assigned institutional responsibility for a safety-critical asset — such as a bridge or public infrastructure — to fulfill a heightened safety obligation that is compelled both by professional engineering ethics and by the engineer's status as a public employee, requiring more aggressive escalation and a broader range of corrective actions than would be required of a private engineer encountering the same risk incidentally.
Public Servant Engineer Heightened External Reporting Obligation State
we believe Engineer A had an ethical obligation under the Code to go considerably farther
State in which a licensed professional engineer holds a formal public-sector role (such as city engineer or director of public works) and has identified a pattern of ongoing legal violations posing danger to public health and safety — where the engineer's public-servant status elevates the ethical obligation to escalate beyond internal channels to external regulatory authorities (e.g., state officials) beyond what would be required of a private-sector engineer in otherwise comparable circumstances. The public trust embedded in the role transforms the general ethical right to report into a heightened, non-discretionary ethical obligation, and the engineer's failure to act is judged against the standard of what a competent public-servant engineer in that role would be expected to know and do.
Public Servant Engineer Heightened External Reporting Threshold Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public servant role — such as city engineer or director of public works — to recognize that their public servant status creates a heightened and more clearly defined obligation to report safety and legal violations to external proper authorities (including state regulatory bodies) compared to a private engineer, and that the public servant role makes it particularly clear that the engineer has not merely an ethical right but an ethical obligation to report to proper authorities and withdraw from further service when public safety endangerment is identified.
Public Servant Engineer Heightened Proper Authority Reporting Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving in a public servant role — such as city engineer or director of public works — bears a heightened obligation to identify and report to proper authorities (including state regulatory bodies) when public safety is endangered, beyond that applicable to private engineers, arising from the dual role as both a professional engineer and a public servant with specific custodial responsibility for public infrastructure and legal compliance — prohibiting the public servant engineer from treating internal reporting to non-compliant local officials as a discharge of this heightened obligation.
Public Service Engineer Absolute Conflict Prohibition Non-Disclosure-Cure Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in public service — as a member, advisor, or employee of a governmental body or department — to recognize that the conflict-of-interest prohibition applicable to public service engineers under Section 8(b) of the former NSPE Code (and its current equivalents) is absolute and mandatory, and that disclosure of the conflict to the employer or client under the general provisions of Section 8 and Section 8(a) does not excuse, cure, or condone the violation — distinguishing the public service prohibition from the general conflict-of-interest provisions that permit an 'unavoidable conflict' exception conditioned on full disclosure, and correctly applying the absolute prohibition without seeking refuge in disclosure-based remedies.
Public Service Engineer Absolute Conflict Prohibition Non-Waivability Principle
Section 8 and Section 8(a) recognize that a conflict of interest may be unavoidable in some circumstances, but no such exception is made for an Engineer engaged in public service.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that engineers engaged in public service — as members, advisors, or employees of governmental bodies — face a categorically absolute and mandatory prohibition against participating in considerations or actions regarding services they or their organization provide in private engineering practice, and that this prohibition admits of no exception, no disclosure-based cure, and no client-consent waiver, in contrast to the conditional conflict-of-interest provisions applicable to private-practice engineers where disclosure may sometimes suffice. The principle recognizes that public trust in governmental engineering processes demands a higher standard of structural integrity than private client relationships, making the public-service conflict prohibition non-negotiable regardless of the engineer's good faith or transparency.
Public Service Engineer Disclosure Non-Cure Structural Conflict Absolute Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in public service — as a member, advisor, or employee of a governmental body or department — to recognize that the general disclosure provisions of the ethics code (requiring disclosure of conflicts to employers or clients) do not excuse, cure, or provide an exception to the specific absolute prohibition on participating in governmental considerations or actions with respect to services the engineer provides in private practice; the prohibition is categorical and mandatory, and no amount of disclosure to any party restores the ethical permissibility of participation in governmental decisions about the engineer's own private work.
Public Service Engineer Section 8(b) Disclosure Non-Cure Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that the general conflict-of-interest disclosure obligations under NSPE Code Section 8 and Section 8(a) — which require engineers to inform their client or employer of any possible conflict of interest or any business connections, interests, or circumstances that may influence their judgment — do not excuse, cure, or condone a violation of Section 8(b)'s specific prohibition on public service engineers participating in considerations or actions with respect to services they provide in private practice; establishing that full disclosure of all pertinent circumstances to the client or employer is a necessary but wholly insufficient remedy for the structural conflict prohibited by Section 8(b), and that the engineer cannot treat compliance with the disclosure provisions as a substitute for compliance with the absolute prohibition, because Section 8(b) is specific in prohibiting the type of conflict of interest involved and does not condition compliance on disclosure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer serving in a part-time public advisory role has advised on and concurred in the selection of a contractor, conducted a performance review of that contractor, and then seeks to capture the successor design contract — thereby placing the engineer in the position of reviewing their own work — the resulting conflict of interest is irresolvable by disclosure alone, prohibiting the engineer from treating disclosure of further circumstances as a sufficient cure for the structural conflict, and establishing that the self-review potential created by the advisory-to-design transition cannot be mitigated through transparency measures short of complete withdrawal from one of the conflicting roles.
Public Service Engineer Unavoidable Conflict Exception Non-Applicability Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that the 'unavoidable conflict' exception recognized in NSPE Code Section 8 — which permits private-practice engineers to proceed with a conflicted engagement provided they fully disclose the circumstances to their employer or client — does not apply to engineers engaged in public service as a member, advisor, or employee of a governmental body or department; establishing that Section 8(b) imposes an absolute and mandatory prohibition on public service engineers participating in considerations or actions with respect to services they provide in private practice, and that no exception for unavoidable conflicts is available in the public service context, because the public trust dimension of governmental roles demands a stricter standard than the disclosure-based exception available to purely private practitioners.
Public Service Engineer Unavoidable Conflict Exception Non-Applicability Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in public service to recognize that the 'unavoidable conflict' exception available to engineers in private practice — which permits disclosure as a cure for otherwise impermissible conflicts when avoidance is genuinely impossible — does not apply to engineers serving in public governmental roles; for public service engineers, the conflict prohibition under Section 8(b) is absolute and admits no exception based on unavoidability, necessity, or disclosure, because the public trust inherent in governmental service demands a higher and non-waivable standard of undivided loyalty.
Public Testimony Safety Concern Dismissed State
State in which a licensed professional engineer has presented documented technical safety concerns at a public regulatory hearing — including evidence of site history, statistical risk data, and proximity hazards — and the regulatory body has acknowledged the testimony but proceeded to approve the project without requiring the identified safety concerns to be addressed, leaving the engineer's warnings unresolved and the risk unmitigated.
Public Transparency Obligated Mixed-Practice Engineer
A professional engineer who, when engaging in sub-professional or non-professional (business or commercial) activities alongside or instead of professional engineering services, bears a specific public-facing obligation to ensure that clients and the general public can clearly distinguish between the two categories of work being performed — protecting the public from confusion about the professional status and quality assurances attached to each type of service.
Public Water Authority Informed Decision Facilitation Obligation
Engineer B's report recommended to the MWC the need for appropriate water treatment prior to making the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead in excess of drinking water standards.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer advising a public water authority on infrastructure changes with public health implications to ensure that the authority's decision-makers have complete, accurate, and understandable information about the public health risks of proposed courses of action — including the specific populations at risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, and the consequences of deferring protective measures — so that the authority can make a genuinely informed decision rather than proceeding on incomplete or minimized risk information.
Public Welfare Expenditure Concern Without Safety Endangerment State
State in which an engineer holds documented concerns about unjustified or wasteful expenditure of substantial public funds — particularly in defense or other major public spending contexts — where the concern does not rise to the level of endangerment of public health or safety, such that the Code's mandatory withdrawal-and-report obligation is not triggered, but the engineer's personal conscience and the broader welfare dimension of professional ethics may still motivate discretionary escalation or public disclosure, with the recognized risk of employment loss.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which an engineer has documented and reported to an employer concerns about unjustified expenditure of public funds or unsatisfactory plans — where the concern does not involve danger to public health or safety — and the employer has rejected those reports, leaving the engineer with a discretionary (not mandatory) ethical right to pursue the matter further, including public disclosure, without a Code-mandated obligation to do so.
Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Corrupt Procurement Gain Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the public welfare benefits of major infrastructure projects — such as water systems serving impoverished or underserved populations — do not justify or excuse corrupt procurement practices used to obtain those projects, and to correctly apply the principle that ends do not justify means in professional ethics, even when the infrastructure project would deliver genuine public benefit.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that altruistic, praiseworthy, or benevolent motivations — including genuine desire to help impoverished communities or achieve efficient project outcomes — do not render ethically impermissible conduct ethical, and to correctly apply this principle when evaluating whether a proposed course of action is professionally permissible regardless of the actor's good intentions.
Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Corrupt Procurement Gain Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the public welfare benefit of major infrastructure projects — including water systems, transportation networks, and other public works — does not justify or excuse the use of corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain engineering contracts for those projects, prohibiting the engineer from invoking the social value of the project outcome as a utilitarian justification for corrupt procurement means, and establishing that the integrity of the procurement process is itself a component of public welfare that cannot be traded against project outcomes.
Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Corrupt Procurement Gain Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the public welfare served by major infrastructure projects (such as water systems) is undermined — not advanced — by corrupt procurement practices, and to refuse to participate in corrupt payment schemes even when the engineer believes the resulting project would benefit the public, recognizing that corrupt procurement harms the public interest by distorting resource allocation, enabling unqualified contractors, and eroding institutional integrity.
Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions
[Case 112] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client, employer, or political interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions
[Case 12] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client, employer, or personal financial interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions
[Case 132] Fundamental principle placing public safety and welfare above all other professional considerations, requiring engineers to act to protect the public even when doing so exceeds the contracted scope of work or conflicts with client interests.
[Case 132] Fundamental principle placing public safety and welfare above all other professional considerations, requiring engineers to act to protect the public even when doing so exceeds the contracted scope of work, conflicts with client interests, or requires resistance to public or political pressure
[Case 136] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions.
[Case 137] Fundamental principle placing public safety and welfare above all other professional considerations, requiring engineers to prioritize the protection of the public even when facing political pressure, employer directives, or client interests that conflict with that obligation.
[Case 137] Fundamental principle placing the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all other professional considerations, requiring engineers to act decisively when public safety is at risk regardless of political, community, or organizational pressure.
[Case 13] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties — including future water users and ecosystems — who have no direct voice in those decisions
[Case 150] Fundamental principle placing public safety and welfare above all other professional considerations, including employer loyalty and business continuity, requiring engineers to take affirmative steps to prevent harm to the public even when doing so conflicts with organizational interests.
[Case 157] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions.
[Case 16] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all other considerations, including personal friendships, employer loyalty, and financial interests
[Case 16] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client, employer, or personal loyalty interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions
[Case 175] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions.
[Case 177] Fundamental principle placing public safety and welfare above all other professional considerations, requiring engineers to prioritize the interests of the public over those of clients, employers, or themselves when these conflict
[Case 56] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all other professional considerations, including deference to agency authority or employer directives
[Case 58] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client, employer, or political interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions
[Case 59] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all other professional obligations, including client confidentiality, employer loyalty, and contractual duties, such that clear risks to public health, safety, and welfare generate a clear and overriding duty to report or intervene
[Case 5] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, including when engineering decisions affect historically underserved communities who have no direct voice in those decisions
[Case 6] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, including the integrity of public procurement processes that protect taxpayers and ensure fair access to public contracts
[Case 73] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client, employer, or stakeholder interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions.
[Case 78] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions.
[Case 86] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions or client conduct affects third parties and the broader environment.
[Case 88] Fundamental principle placing public safety and welfare above all other professional considerations, requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.
[Case 92] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above all other professional considerations, including employer loyalty, organizational hierarchy, and personal employment security. This principle is the first and highest obligation in the NSPE Code of Ethics and is grounded in the public trust rationale for professional engineering licensure.
[Case 94] Fundamental principle requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public above client or employer interests, particularly when engineering decisions affect third parties who have no direct voice in those decisions.
[proethica-intermediate] Requires contextual interpretation to balance against client confidentiality and employer loyalty when public safety is at risk.
Public Welfare Paramount Client Direction Declination Obligation
It is axiomatic that an engineer's primary ethical responsibility is to follow the mandate of 2(a) to place the public welfare over all other considerations.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who sincerely concludes — based on professional judgment and available technical data — that a client-directed design will actually be detrimental to the environmental health and welfare of the public to decline to follow the client's direction and refuse to complete, sign, or seal plans for that design, recognizing that the paramount public welfare mandate supersedes client loyalty when the engineer's honest professional judgment establishes that the design poses genuine public harm.
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
the present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee.
Capability to recognize when professional obligations to public health, safety, and welfare must override client loyalty and faithful agent duties, and to correctly prioritize public welfare as paramount in situations of direct conflict between client interests and public safety
[proethica-intermediate] Capability to recognize ethically salient features and dynamically assess environment (Anderson et al. 2006, Berreby et al. 2017)
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
Duty to escalate identified risks to public health and safety beyond the client relationship — to regulatory authorities, public bodies, or other appropriate parties — when the client refuses to act on disclosed risks that threaten the public welfare.
Publicly Advertised Constructability Meeting Available State
State in which a design engineer who requires contractor input for constructability improvement has access to a publicly advertised, open-invitation constructability meeting as an alternative to selective one-on-one consultation with a single potential bidder — such that the engineer can obtain the necessary technical input while preserving procurement equity, avoiding the appearance of favoritism, and serving the client's interest in maintaining the integrity of the public bidding process.
Publicly Advertised Constructability Meeting Design and Convening Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer designing a public infrastructure project to design, advertise, and convene a formal public constructability meeting — open to all interested contractors — as the ethically permissible mechanism for obtaining contractor input on constructability issues during the design phase, thereby simultaneously achieving design quality improvement, maintaining competitive procurement fairness, and avoiding the appearance of favoritism toward any single prospective bidder.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has selected a structural design approach involving unusual, constrained-access, or ergonomically challenging construction conditions to recognize the ethical opportunity — though not mandatory obligation — to proactively solicit constructability review, independent construction safety review, or contractor input on safety planning before construction commences, including the ability to identify appropriate parties from whom such input should be sought (contractor, construction safety specialist, independent reviewer) and to recognize that failure to solicit such input, while not an ethical violation when standard of care is met, represents a missed opportunity to more fully protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Publicly Advertised Constructability Meeting Sole Permissible Contractor Input Mechanism Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer designing a public infrastructure project determines that contractor constructability input is necessary to achieve the best design outcome, the sole ethically permissible mechanism for obtaining that input is a publicly advertised constructability meeting open to all interested contractors — prohibiting bilateral, informal consultation with any single prospective bidder as a substitute for the publicly advertised meeting, and establishing that the publicly advertised meeting simultaneously satisfies the faithful agent design quality obligation and the competitive procurement fairness obligation without creating an appearance of favoritism toward any particular contractor.
Purpose-to-Obstruct BER Precedent Purposive Interpretation Application Capability
In Case 75-15 we considered the meaning of 'maliciously or falsely' in determining whether the criticism of another engineer offended the code.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and professional ethics adjudicator to retrieve and apply the purposive interpretation of the non-disparagement prohibition established in BER Case 75-15 — specifically the principle that 'maliciously or falsely' are not necessary elements to find a violation of the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation when the purpose of the adverse comment is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of the other engineer — and to apply this expansive, purposive standard to evaluate whether competitive capability critiques constitute ethical violations even when the comments are not literally false or explicitly malicious.
Purpose-to-Obstruct Sufficiency Peer Critique Prohibition Activation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of professional ethics adjudicators to recognize that the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment is activated when the purpose of the adverse comment is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of the other engineer — and that this purposive standard is sufficient to establish a violation without requiring proof that the comments were made 'maliciously or falsely' in a narrow, legalistic sense; engineers must apply an expansive, purposive interpretation of the reputation-injury prohibition that focuses on the intent and effect of the adverse comment rather than on technical proof of malice or falsity.
Purpose-to-Obstruct Sufficiency for Peer Critique Prohibition Activation
Interpretive principle establishing that the ethics code prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation does not require proof of malice or falsity in the narrow legalistic sense — rather, the prohibition is activated whenever the purpose of the adverse comment is to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of the other engineer, treating obstructive purpose as a sufficient (not merely necessary) condition for ethical violation; this principle reflects an expansive, purposive interpretation of the code's 'maliciously or falsely' language over a narrow, literal reading
QBS Amendment Request Equal Treatment Conditioning Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm requesting permission to amend its qualification submission in a qualifications-based selection process to recognize that fairness and procurement integrity require conditioning its amendment request on the procuring authority extending the same amendment opportunity to all other competing firms, thereby preventing the request from conferring an unfair competitive advantage and preserving the spirit of open and equal procurement.
QBS Best-Qualified Firm Selection Law Permissive Amendment Interpretation Obligation
it would indeed be a peculiar result that a state or local law intended to have the client select the 'best qualified' firm be interpreted to preclude a procedure intended to present each 'firm' in its best light of technical and other professional qualifications.
Duty of a public agency administering a qualifications-based selection process, and of engineers analyzing the ethics of such a process, to interpret QBS laws — which contemplate selection of the 'best qualified' firm — as permitting procedural accommodations (such as allowing firms to amend qualification submissions in response to screening feedback) that present each competing firm in its best light of technical and professional qualifications, rather than interpreting such laws in a manner that would preclude procedures designed to achieve the very goal of identifying the most qualified firm, provided such accommodations are extended equally to all competing firms and are legally cleared.
QBS Equal Amendment Opportunity Extension Administration Capability
Capability of a public agency administering a qualifications-based selection process to recognize that when one competing firm is granted permission to amend its qualification submission, procurement fairness and equal treatment principles require extending the same amendment opportunity to all other competing firms, and to execute that equal extension in a timely and effective manner so that no firm gains an unfair competitive advantage from the accommodation.
QBS Equal Amendment Opportunity Extension to All Competing Firms Obligation
Duty of a public agency administering a qualifications-based selection process, when granting one competing firm permission to amend or supplement its qualification submission in response to screening committee feedback, to extend the same amendment opportunity to all other competing firms on equal terms, ensuring that no single firm gains a competitive advantage through access to a procedural accommodation unavailable to others, and that the equal treatment principle fundamental to fair public procurement is preserved.
QBS Joint Venture Competence Deficiency Mid-Process Cure Ethical Permissibility Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineering firm competing in a qualifications-based selection process that has proposed a joint venture, upon receiving screening committee feedback identifying competence deficiencies in the joint venture team, is ethically permitted — and under NSPE Code Section 6 (former) may be obligated — to restructure the joint venture team to cure those deficiencies, provided that: (1) the restructuring is openly disclosed to the procuring authority; (2) the firm formally requests authorization to submit a revised qualification statement; (3) the request is conditioned on equal amendment opportunity for all competing firms; and (4) the procuring authority obtains legal clearance before granting the request — establishing that the consulting-context flexibility to engage specialists and restructure teams to meet competence requirements extends to mid-process QBS joint venture restructuring when these conditions are satisfied.
QBS Joint Venture Legal Entity Unified Qualification Assessment Constraint
Legal and ethical constraint establishing that in a qualifications-based selection process governed by laws analogous to the federal Brooks Act, a joint venture formed for a single project constitutes a legal entity for that project and must be assessed as a unified firm for qualification purposes — prohibiting the disaggregation of joint venture partners into separate firms for qualification assessment, and establishing that the 'best qualified firm' standard applies to the joint venture as a whole, meaning that the joint venture's collective qualifications — including any specialists or experts engaged pursuant to Code Section 6 — constitute the relevant qualification baseline for selection purposes.
State in which the jurisdiction governing a public entity's procurement of professional engineering services has enacted qualification-based selection (QBS) laws at both state and local levels, codified within professional engineering licensure statutes, such that non-QBS contracting practices constitute not merely administrative irregularities but potential violations of professional licensure law with direct implications for the licensed engineers involved.
[proethica-intermediate] Legal compliance context constraining actions
QBS Law Best-Qualified Firm Permissive Procedure Interpretation Capability
Capability of a public agency administering a qualifications-based selection process, and of engineers and ethics reviewers analyzing QBS procurement decisions, to interpret QBS statutes — including the Brooks Act and analogous state and local laws — as permitting procedures designed to present each competing firm in its best light of technical and professional qualifications, recognizing that a law intended to select the 'best qualified' firm would produce a peculiar and self-defeating result if interpreted to preclude procedures that enable firms to demonstrate their highest qualification level, including through joint venture restructuring in response to screening feedback.
QBS Law Best-Qualified Firm Presentation Facilitation Interpretive Constraint
Ethical and legal interpretive constraint establishing that qualification-based selection laws — including state and local laws analogous to the federal Brooks Act — must not be interpreted in a manner that precludes procedures designed to present each competing firm in its best light of technical and professional qualifications, because such an interpretation would produce a result peculiar and contrary to the law's core purpose of selecting the 'best qualified' firm; prohibiting interpretations of QBS procedural rules that would systematically prevent the procuring authority from obtaining the most accurate and complete picture of each firm's qualifications, and establishing that the 'best qualified' selection mandate functions as an interpretive canon that favors permissive readings of procedural rules when strict readings would undermine qualification accuracy.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public agency engineer administering a qualifications-based selection process strike an appropriate balance between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to relevant public procurement rules and policies — establishing that while the ultimate goal of QBS is to secure the most qualified firm, this goal does not override the procedural integrity requirements of the procurement system, and that the balance must be struck in favor of strict rule adherence when procedural non-compliance would open the process to challenge or create a climate of tolerated non-adherence, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that the public procurement system's integrity is itself a public interest value that constrains discretionary leniency.
QBS Mandatory Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Upon Deficiency Identification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm or joint venture lead competing in a qualifications-based selection process to recognize that Code Section 6 creates an affirmative, mandatory ethical duty — not merely a permissive option — to upgrade the joint venture's qualifications through internal or external revisions when the client or screening committee indicates that additional technical support is required, and that failure to make a reasonable effort to upgrade constitutes an ethical violation; further recognizing that if upgrade is not feasible, the only ethically permissible alternative is to withdraw from further consideration.
QBS Most-Qualified Firm Selection Paramount Goal Maintenance Capability
Following these interviews, the agency is required to select the 'most qualified' firm for negotiation of a contract.
Capability of a public utility authority administering a qualifications-based selection process to maintain the paramount goal of selecting the most qualified firm for a large and complex engineering project throughout all procedural decisions — including when granting procedural accommodations — recognizing that procedural flexibility that preserves competitive fairness and results in the most qualified firm being selected serves the fundamental public interest purpose of QBS procurement law.
QBS Post-Feedback Team Restructuring Transparent Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm that restructures its joint venture team in response to screening committee feedback to openly and transparently disclose the nature and extent of that restructuring to the procuring authority when requesting permission to amend its qualification submission, including identifying the new partners added, the deficiencies they address, and the basis for the amendment request, so that the authority can make an informed decision about whether to grant the request.
QBS Procurement Administering Public Utility Authority
A public utility authority announced plans to build a large and complex addition to its power facilities, and publicly invited qualification statements
A public utility authority role that administers a qualifications-based selection process for engineering services under applicable state law and local ordinance, bearing obligations to evaluate all submitting firms fairly, conduct structured interviews, select the most qualified firm for negotiation, and make procedural decisions — such as whether to permit qualification statement amendments — in a manner consistent with procurement law, equal treatment of competitors, and the public interest.
QBS Procurement Authority Legal Clearance Before Mid-Process Exception Granting Constraint
The utility authority, after receiving advice that there was no legal impediment involved, granted the request of Firm A and a revised qualification proposal was submitted to it.
Procedural and legal constraint requiring that a public utility authority or public agency administering a qualifications-based selection process, before granting any competing firm permission to deviate from the standard submission procedure — including permission to amend a qualification statement after initial submission — must first obtain legal advice confirming that no legal impediment exists to the proposed procedural exception, prohibiting the authority from granting such exceptions on its own administrative judgment without legal clearance, and establishing that legal clearance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the exception to be ethically permissible.
QBS Procurement Authority Legal Clearance Before Procedural Exception Granting Obligation
Duty of a public utility authority or public agency administering a qualifications-based selection process, when presented with a request for a procedural exception or accommodation not explicitly provided for in the governing procurement law or ordinance — such as permitting a competing firm to amend its qualification submission after initial screening — to seek and obtain legal advice confirming no legal impediment exists before granting such a request, thereby ensuring that any procedural flexibility exercised is legally defensible and does not expose the procurement to successful legal challenge.
QBS Procurement Balance Public Interest vs. Strict Rule Adherence Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a public agency engineer administering a qualifications-based selection process strike an appropriate balance between the objective of selecting the most qualified engineering firm and strict adherence to relevant public procurement rules and policies — establishing that while the ultimate goal of QBS is to secure the most qualified firm, this goal does not override the procedural integrity requirements of the procurement system, and that the balance must be struck in favor of strict rule adherence when procedural non-compliance would open the process to challenge or create a climate of tolerated non-adherence, as established by BER Case 10-8 and the principle that the public procurement system's integrity is itself a public interest value that constrains discretionary leniency.
QBS Procurement Legal Clearance Before Exception Granting Capability
Capability of a public utility authority or public agency administering a qualifications-based selection process to recognize that granting a procedural exception — such as permitting one firm to amend its qualification submission after the initial submission period — requires obtaining legal advice confirming no legal impediment exists before granting the exception, thereby ensuring that the procedural accommodation is legally defensible and does not expose the procurement to successful legal challenge.
QBS Qualification Amendment Requesting Engineering Firm
A licensed professional engineering firm role in which a firm, after receiving feedback from a public agency screening committee during a qualifications-based selection process, openly requests permission to modify its qualification statement to cure identified deficiencies — including changes to its joint venture team composition — and does so transparently, requesting that all competing firms be afforded the same opportunity, thereby generating ethical questions about procurement fairness, equal treatment of competitors, and the integrity of the QBS process.
QBS Qualification Deficiency Proactive Cure and Equal Treatment Conditioned Amendment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm competing in a qualifications-based selection process, upon receiving public screening committee feedback identifying deficiencies in its qualification proposal, to proactively cure those deficiencies by restructuring its team or otherwise strengthening its qualifications, and — when requesting a formal amendment to its submission — to condition that request on the procurement authority extending the same amendment opportunity to all other competing firms, thereby preserving the competitive fairness and integrity of the QBS process.
QBS Qualification Deficiency Self-Recognition and Proactive Cure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm competing in a qualifications-based selection process to recognize, upon receiving public screening committee feedback, that its submitted qualification statement contains deficiencies in technical experience or specialized personnel coverage, and to proactively cure those deficiencies — including by restructuring a joint venture team or adding qualified partners — before a final selection decision is made, rather than passively accepting disqualification.
QBS Review Team Point of Contact Engineer
Engineer A is the point of contact on the City X QBS review team for this project
A licensed professional engineering role within a public agency who serves as the designated point of contact on a Qualifications-Based Selection review team for a public engineering procurement, bearing obligations to administer the QBS process impartially, enforce published submission requirements (including deadlines, locations, and procedures), protect procurement integrity, and treat all competing firms equitably — including decisions about whether to accept or reject late or misdirected submittals.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role within a municipal engineering department responsible for overseeing department staff, managing capital improvement programs, supervising private development projects, and ensuring compliance with procurement and contracting regulations.
QBS Screening Committee Actionable Qualification Feedback Delivery Capability
Capability of a public body or committee within a qualifications-based selection process to evaluate competing firms' qualification statements and deliver specific, actionable public feedback identifying deficiencies in technical experience and specialized personnel coverage, in a manner that enables firms to understand what improvements are needed and that creates a transparent public record of the basis for qualification assessments.
QBS Screening Committee Qualification Feedback Authority
on the basis of public comments made by the screening committee
A public body or committee role within a qualifications-based selection process that evaluates competing firms' qualification statements, conducts structured reviews, and provides substantive feedback to competing firms identifying technical deficiencies or areas requiring additional support — thereby triggering ethical obligations on the part of competing firms to respond to that feedback by upgrading their qualifications or withdrawing, and bearing its own obligations to provide equal opportunity to all competing firms when procedural accommodations are made.
QBS Submittal Deadline Enforcement Capability
Capability of a public agency QBS review team point of contact to recognize, assess, and correctly enforce published submittal deadline requirements — including the ability to identify when a Statement of Qualifications has been received after the published deadline, to determine that late submittals must be rejected regardless of the circumstances of misdirection or administrative error, and to apply this determination consistently and fairly across all competing firms in a QBS procurement process.
QBS Submittal Deadline Integrity and Equal Treatment Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring public agency engineers administering Qualifications-Based Selection processes to enforce published submittal deadlines uniformly and without exception for all competing firms, so that the integrity of the competitive selection process is preserved, all firms are treated equally, and no firm gains advantage through late submission — recognizing that the published deadline is a material term of the procurement that all firms relied upon in preparing and delivering their submittals
QBS Submittal Deadline Strict Enforcement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer administering a public Qualifications-Based Selection process to strictly enforce published submittal deadlines and location requirements — rejecting submittals that arrive late or at the wrong location — regardless of the apparent harmlessness of the procedural error, the prior performance record of the non-compliant firm, or sympathy for the firm's situation, recognizing that any deviation from strict enforcement calls the integrity of the procurement process into question and opens the process to challenge.
QBS Submittal Location Requirement Compliance Capability
Capability of a competing engineering firm participating in a public QBS process to correctly identify and comply with the published submittal location requirements — including the specific office, address, and recipient designated in the RFQ — and to recognize that delivery to any other office, individual, or location within the agency does not constitute timely or compliant submission, regardless of whether the misdirected submittal reaches an agency employee before or after the deadline.
Qualification-Based Selection Procurement Law
State and local statutory provisions codified within professional engineering licensure laws that mandate qualification-based selection (QBS) processes and request for qualifications (RFQ) procedures for awarding public engineering contracts, ensuring competitive and merit-based procurement
Qualification-Misrepresenting Competing Engineering Firm
the firm sought to alter its qualifications following its interview with the public utility in order to improve its position to secure the contract
A licensed professional engineering role in which a consulting firm or engineer, after an initial qualification interview or submission for a public or private contract, seeks to alter or inflate its stated qualifications in order to improve its competitive position, bearing obligations to represent qualifications honestly and to seek work only in areas where genuine educational background and experience exist, and to refrain from misrepresentation as a means of securing contracts.
Qualification-Prior-to-Commitment Procurement Sequencing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer in a public procurement authority role to recognize and enforce the correct temporal sequence of procurement: that consideration of qualifications, experience, and other relevant factors must precede — and cannot be bypassed by — any commitment to select a particular firm, and that promising selection before conducting such review is inconsistent with both the spirit and intent of professional ethics codes and applicable procurement law.
Qualification-Upgrading Joint Venture Lead Engineer
Firm A might be held in violation if it did not make a reasonable effort to upgrade the qualifications of the joint venture
A licensed professional engineering firm or engineer serving as the lead party in a joint venture competing in a qualifications-based selection process, who bears an affirmative ethical obligation — upon receiving feedback from a public screening committee indicating technical deficiencies — to either upgrade the joint venture's qualifications through internal or external revisions (e.g., adding specialist partners) or withdraw from further consideration, consistent with the duty to undertake only assignments for which the firm is qualified and to engage experts when the client's interests are best served.
Qualification Proposal Attribution Accuracy Capability
Capability to ensure that qualification proposals and solicitation materials accurately attribute projects to the correct employing firm and clearly identify the engineer's specific role and involvement — including placing attribution notices consistently throughout all project descriptions rather than only in introductory sections — so that clients are not misled about the origin of prior work experience, in compliance with state licensing board rules prohibiting misrepresentation in solicitation presentations.
Qualification Proposal Attribution Integrity
Engineer B's projects for a different firm are identified as a part of Engineer B's experience, identifying the prior employer and the associated client for each project. However, while this notice appears to indicate an intent to provide transparency, this notice was not included in all paragraphs of the lengthy individual descriptions of those projects.
Professional principle requiring engineers and engineering firms that include projects completed under prior employment in qualification proposals or marketing materials to provide clear, consistent, and complete attribution of the prior employer and the engineer's specific role throughout all descriptions of those projects, not merely in a prefatory notice, so that prospective clients are not misled about the firm's independent accomplishments or the engineer's unconditional ownership of prior work
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers (and other professionals) to disclose their use of AI-assisted tools in generating professional work products, including the nature and extent of AI involvement, so that clients, reviewers, and the public can assess the provenance, reliability, and limitations of those products
Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and their employing firm to ensure that presentations and solicitation materials incidental to the solicitation of employment do not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures, or past accomplishments — including refraining from presenting prior-employer project experience in a manner that could reasonably lead prospective clients to attribute that experience unconditionally to the current firm or engineer without adequate disclosure of the prior employment context.
Professional norms governing the honest and accurate representation of a firm's or engineer's qualifications, experience, and capabilities when seeking professional engagements, prohibiting misrepresentation or overstatement of competence to secure contracts
Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use
Use of the title, 'engineer,' conveys substantial education, examination, and experience, and, in many states, a license to practice. 'Engineer' titles used by individuals working for state agencies tends to convey the impression that they are licensed professional engineers, which may cause confusion among the public.
Relational principle requiring that firms, agencies, and individuals use engineering titles only in ways that accurately represent the holder's actual qualifications — including licensure status, educational credentials, and examination completion — so that clients, the public, and professional peers are not misled about the competence and accountability of persons performing engineering-related work
Qualification Upgrade or Withdrawal Obligation Upon Client-Identified Deficiency
Firm A had no ethical choice but to upgrade its qualifications through either internal or external revisions in its proposal, or eliminate itself from further consideration.
Domain-specific principle establishing that when a client or the client's authorized representative (such as a screening committee) publicly identifies a deficiency in a competing firm's qualifications during a qualifications-based selection process, the firm has an ethical obligation either to make a reasonable effort to cure that deficiency — through internal reorganization or external specialist engagement — or to withdraw from further consideration, and that remaining in the process without addressing the identified deficiency while aware of its materiality constitutes an ethical violation
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.a. is very clear: 'Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from falsifying their own qualifications and to refrain from permitting misrepresentation of their own or their associates' qualifications — including refraining from allowing firm advertising or official documents to list an engineer intern as a PE, or to list non-degreed personnel with engineering titles — and to take affirmative corrective action upon discovering such misrepresentation, even when the misrepresentation was initially inadvertent.
Qualified Engineer Civic Public Commentary Responsibility Constraint
Those engineers who have a particular qualification in the field of engineering involved may be said to even have a responsibility to present public comment and suggestions in line with the philosophy expressed in Section 2(b) of the Code.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who possesses particular qualification in the engineering field relevant to a public infrastructure decision — including through prior firm participation in a directly connected project — may be said to have a responsibility, not merely a permission, to present public comment and constructive suggestions on that infrastructure decision, grounding this responsibility in the philosophy that engineering exists to serve the public interest and that public discussion of engineering projects with direct and substantial impact on citizens' daily lives is desirable; prohibiting the characterization of such qualified civic commentary as ethically impermissible, and establishing that the engineer's specialized knowledge creates an affirmative civic responsibility to contribute to informed public deliberation, subject to the substantive restrictions on the manner and basis of such commentary.
Qualified Engineer Civic Public Commentary Responsibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who possesses particular qualification in the engineering field relevant to a public infrastructure or policy matter — such as highway routing — to present public comment and constructive suggestions on that matter in line with the professional responsibility to seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and to work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of the community, recognizing that such participation is not merely permitted but rises to a professional responsibility for engineers with relevant domain expertise.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the purpose of professional ethics codes is to elevate to a mandatory professional duty the conduct that all public-spirited and civic-minded citizens would engage in voluntarily — meaning that actions which are merely permissible for ordinary citizens (such as reporting deceptive practices to appropriate authorities) become mandatory professional obligations for engineers when those actions relate to public safety, health, and welfare, and that this elevation of civic duty to professional duty is the foundational rationale for the engineer's reporting and disclosure obligations.
Qualified Engineer Civic Public Commentary Responsibility Self-Activation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who possesses particular qualification in the engineering field relevant to a public infrastructure decision — such as highway routing — to recognize that this qualification creates not merely a right but an affirmative responsibility to present public comment and constructive suggestions in civic forums, including the press, consistent with the philosophy that engineers with relevant expertise serve the public interest by contributing informed professional perspective to public debates that directly and substantially affect the daily life of the citizenry.
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source
A structured professional methodology for estimating and communicating the likelihood and magnitude of potential harm to public health or safety, particularly when quantitative data is incomplete or unavailable
[proethica-intermediate] Structured approaches for ethical analysis
estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve
Technical capability to accurately estimate quantities of construction materials, earthwork, and other work items in engineering design documents, including applying appropriate calculation methods, safety factors, and field condition adjustments to produce quantity estimates that are sufficiently accurate to enable construction within budget and without significant change orders or field revisions.
Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Through Covert Employer-Detriment Activity Obligation
Another issue related to the conduct of Engineer A is whether Engineer A violated Section III.7. by competing with Engineer B using 'questionable methods.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from engaging in methods of competition that are 'questionable' under NSPE Code Section III.7, specifically including: (1) covertly soliciting an employer's current clients while still employed without disclosing such activity to the employer; (2) engaging in conduct that the engineer knew or should have known was problematic and dubious even if not certain it constituted an ethical violation; and (3) using the employer's client relationships to advance a competing enterprise while simultaneously benefiting from the employment relationship. The obligation requires engineers to apply a 'knew or should have known' standard to their competitive conduct — not merely a subjective certainty standard — and to refrain from conduct that raises a reasonable possibility of ethical violation even in the absence of certainty.
Questionable Competition Methods Prohibition Through Faithful Agent Breach
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer who violates the faithful agent and trustee duty — particularly through covert competitive solicitation of an employer's current clients without disclosure — simultaneously engages in 'questionable methods of competition' under the ethics code's fair competition provisions; the principle recognizes that the same conduct can constitute both a loyalty violation and a competition ethics violation, and that an engineer who knew or should have known that conduct was ethically problematic cannot escape the competition violation by claiming uncertainty about the loyalty violation.
Quid Pro Quo Safety Concession Non-Acceptance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role to recognize when an institutional or political authority is offering a resource benefit — such as authorization to hire additional staff — as consideration for the engineer's concurrence with a safety-compromising policy or ordinance, to identify this arrangement as an impermissible quid pro quo that cannot be accepted regardless of the apparent benefit, and to refuse the safety-compromising element while continuing to pursue the legitimate resource need through proper channels.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is offered a politically-motivated trade — such as resource allocation in exchange for concurrence with a safety-compromising ordinance or policy — to recognize the offer as an impermissible 'Faustian bargain' that would require righting a wrong with another wrong, and to refuse concurrence with the safety-compromising element of the bargain while continuing to advocate through proper channels for the legitimate resource need, understanding that public health and safety cannot be traded against administrative or political benefits.
Quid Pro Quo Safety Concession Non-Acceptance Obligation
The chairman indicates that he is quite sympathetic to Engineer A's concerns and would be willing to issue an order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role to refuse to accept any arrangement in which the engineer's concurrence with a safety-compromising measure — such as a grandfathering ordinance reducing code enforcement standards — is offered or accepted as consideration for a beneficial administrative outcome — such as authorization to hire additional staff — recognizing that public safety obligations are non-negotiable and cannot be traded as currency in administrative bargains, regardless of the genuine value of the benefit obtained.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role who is presented with a political bargain — in which concurrence with a safety-compromising measure (such as grandfathering buildings under less rigorous code requirements) is offered in exchange for a beneficial administrative outcome (such as additional inspection staff) — to refuse the bargain and to make plain to the political authority that trading one public safety wrong for another increases risk of grave damage to public health and safety, recognizing that public safety obligations cannot be traded against political or administrative concessions regardless of the net benefit calculus.
Quid Pro Quo Safety Standard Concession Acceptance State
Engineer A agrees to concur with the chairman's proposal
State in which a professional engineer in a public role has accepted a political bargain — agreeing to endorse or concur with a policy that reduces or exempts certain structures from current safety code requirements — in exchange for receiving resources (such as additional staff) needed to fulfill their primary safety mandate, thereby having actively compromised the public safety standard they are professionally obligated to uphold in exchange for operational benefit.
Rapid Emergency Infrastructure Closure Execution Capability
Engineer A had barricades and signs erected within the hour on a Friday afternoon.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency to execute an immediate, decisive closure of safety-critical infrastructure upon receiving credible safety notification — including mobilizing physical barricades and signage within hours of notification — and to maintain that closure against subsequent vandalism or removal of closure measures by reinstalling more permanent barriers, demonstrating both the decisiveness to act without delay and the persistence to sustain the protective action.
Reasonable Currency Definition and Calibration Capability
The Board believes that the definition of what is 'current' must be reasonable as engineers cannot be expected to incorporate each and every new and innovative technique or parameter that has not been fully tested or peer reviewed.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly define and calibrate what constitutes 'reasonable currency' with technical developments, design trends, and practice standards — including the ability to distinguish between (a) fully peer-reviewed and adopted standards that must be followed, (b) innovative techniques and parameters not yet fully tested or peer-reviewed that need not be immediately incorporated, and (c) emerging methods that have become part of the body of technical knowledge and should be adopted. Enables engineers to calibrate their currency obligations proportionally rather than treating every new publication as a mandatory standard.
Reasonable Currency Standard Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to maintain currency with technical developments, design trends, and practice standards to a reasonable degree — defined as incorporating methods and parameters that have been sufficiently tested, peer-reviewed, and integrated into generally accepted professional practice — without being required to adopt each and every new or innovative technique or parameter that has not yet achieved the status of a recognized standard. The obligation is satisfied when the engineer follows established standards applicable at the time of practice; it is heightened when newly published parameters have achieved the status of 'standards' in the relevant domain.
Reasonable Period Inaction Escalation Trigger Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that when an engineer or firm representative has acknowledged an error in promotional or professional materials and explicitly promised correction, but fails to implement that correction within a reasonable period — assessed contextually, with six months constituting a clear breach — the reporting engineer is no longer bound to await further voluntary correction and is obligated to escalate the matter to a higher organizational authority, prohibiting indefinite passive acceptance of an acknowledged but uncorrected misrepresentation on the basis of a prior promise alone.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that when a licensed engineer or engineer intern discovers that firm advertising, official documents, or agency records misrepresent their own or associates' qualifications — including listing unlicensed personnel under engineering titles or listing an EI as a PE — the engineer must report the misrepresentation to the responsible party and, if not corrected within a reasonable time after actual knowledge is established, escalate the matter to appropriate authority, prohibiting indefinite passive acceptance of known credential misrepresentation after initial notification has failed to produce correction.
Reasonable Timing Compliance in Peer Review Incumbent Notification
Relational principle establishing that the professional obligation to notify an incumbent engineer that their work is under peer review does not require instantaneous disclosure upon engagement, but must be fulfilled within a reasonable period of time following the establishment of the review relationship — with reasonableness assessed contextually based on the nature of the review, the time elapsed, and whether the incumbent's professional rights were prejudiced by any delay
Reasonableness Standard for Knowledge Currency in Engineering Practice
Professional principle establishing that the obligation to remain current with technical developments in engineering practice is bounded by a reasonableness standard: engineers are not required to incorporate every new or innovative technique, parameter, or method that has not been fully tested or peer-reviewed, but must follow methods that have been incorporated into generally accepted practice and constitute recognized standards. The threshold between 'emerging literature' and 'established standards' is the operative ethical boundary for currency obligations.
Recruited Former-Employer Staff Engineer
A licensed professional engineer currently employed by a firm who is solicited by a former colleague or competitor to leave and join a new or competing firm, bearing obligations of honest dealing with both the current employer and the recruiting party, and whose anticipated departure may be misrepresented to third parties.
Recurring Information Gap Systemic Process Initiation Capability
Capability of a public agency engineer to recognize when a recurring pattern of information requests — such as contractors repeatedly seeking as-built drawings before or after bid openings — signals a systemic gap in standard procurement processes, and to respond by initiating a formal institutional process to address that gap prospectively, such as standardizing inclusion of as-built drawings in future bid packages, rather than continuing to address individual requests through informal channels.
Recurring Pre-Bid Information Request Systemic Reform Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when a public agency engineer recognizes a recurring pattern of contractors requesting material technical documents — such as as-built drawings — before bid submission, establishing that the engineer must initiate a formal institutional process to include those documents in future bid packages rather than continuing to respond informally on a request-driven basis, prohibiting passive continuation of an informal sharing practice that creates information asymmetry among bidders and fails to serve the agency's procurement integrity obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a public agency engineer who recognizes that existing technical documents — such as as-built drawings — would materially improve bid quality and design outcomes must initiate a formal institutional process to include those documents in future bid packages, prohibiting passive continuation of a practice that omits useful information from bid documents when the engineer has both the knowledge and the institutional standing to advocate for systemic improvement through proper channels.
Reduced-Scope Public Service Marketing Incentive State
the marketing technique suggests that Firm A may be offering developers less than the full range of services required to perform the services adequately but sufficient enough to cause the work to be approved by the city
State in which a firm holding a public review or approval authority role is suspected or found to be offering developers a commercially attractive but substantively inadequate scope of public-benefit services — sufficient to secure approval but less than fully adequate — as a marketing technique to attract private clients, thereby subordinating the completeness of public-authority services to private commercial interests.
Registered Engineer Subordinate Plan Preparer
registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans
A licensed (registered) professional engineer working within a large firm under the general direction of a chief engineer, who prepares engineering plans without affixing their own seal, relying on the chief engineer to seal the work product on their behalf.
Registered vs Non-Registered Subordinate Sealing Obligation Differentiation Capability
Engineer A is the Chief Engineer within a large engineering firm, and affixes his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered engineers working under his general direction who do not affix their seals to the plans.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who supervises both registered (licensed) and non-registered (graduate) engineers to recognize and correctly apply any differential obligations that attach to sealing plans prepared by each category — including understanding that plans prepared by non-registered graduate engineers carry heightened responsible charge obligations because those engineers cannot independently certify their own work, and that the sealing engineer bears full professional accountability for non-registered subordinate work in a manner that may differ from work prepared by independently licensed subordinates who could in principle affix their own seals.
Registration Board Complaint Subject Engineer
whether Engineer B had engaged in activity which might or might not constitute a violation of the state registration law
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who conducted a legitimate peer review or inspection of another engineer's work becomes the subject of a formal complaint filed with a state registration board by the engineer whose work was reviewed, bearing obligations to demonstrate that the review was conducted objectively, without malicious intent, and in accordance with professional codes governing inter-engineer review relationships.
Regulated-Party Fee-Payment Public Review Impartiality Non-Compromise Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a private engineering firm is retained by a public authority to perform review or inspection services and the regulated party (rather than the public authority) pays the firm's fees for those services, the firm's obligation of impartiality and faithful agency to the public authority is not diminished or compromised by the regulated party's status as fee-payer — prohibiting the firm from allowing the financial relationship with the regulated party to influence the rigor, scope, or outcome of the public review or inspection function.
Regulatory-Minimum-Only Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who determines that compliance with the applicable regulatory minimum standard — such as a 25-year storm design standard based on historical data — is insufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare given current scientific understanding of climate change and sea level rise, to disclose that insufficiency to the client and to regulatory authorities, and to recommend design standards or analyses that go beyond the regulatory minimum to adequately protect the public.
Regulatory-Minimum Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and disclose that compliance with the applicable regulatory minimum standard — such as a 25-year fresh-water storm design requirement based on historical data — is insufficient to protect public safety when current climate science and emerging professional evaluation procedures indicate that the regulatory standard does not capture actual risk, including the ability to communicate this insufficiency to clients and regulatory authorities even when the regulatory standard has not yet been formally updated.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when applicable local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect current climate science — including changes in precipitation intensities, recurrence intervals, and sea level rise — and to identify the resulting gap between regulatory compliance and actual risk, including the ability to apply emerging climate-informed evaluation procedures from professional conferences and technical literature to assess whether regulatory-compliant designs are nonetheless inadequate to protect public welfare.
Regulatory Adequacy Determination Constraining Further Action State
Engineer A calls the State Board of Professional Engineers, apprises them of the situation, and asks what more could and should be done
State in which a professional engineer, having proactively sought guidance from a regulatory body (e.g., State Board of Professional Engineers) about whether additional action is required to discharge a public safety obligation, receives a formal determination that the engineer's existing actions (e.g., written notification to the client) are sufficient — creating a tension between the regulatory body's closure determination and the engineer's continuing personal ethical concern for public safety.
Regulatory Adequacy Determination Non-Preclusion of NSPE Ethical Threshold Constraint
The Board's response is that Engineer A fulfilled his professional obligation by notifying the insurance company, in writing, of the defect.
Ethical constraint establishing that a State Board of Professional Engineers' determination that an engineer has fulfilled minimum professional obligations by notifying the retaining client in writing does not preclude — and may not be used to justify abandoning — the engineer's independent ethical obligation under the NSPE Code to hold public safety paramount, where the systemic nature of the defect and the inadequacy of client-only notification create a residual public safety risk that the regulatory minimum does not fully address.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer has fulfilled all formal reporting obligations — including reporting to the client, providing written documentation, and escalating to the relevant state regulatory authority — and the regulatory authority has nonetheless approved the project with a deferred safety measure, establishing that the engineer's continuing obligation to escalate further is bounded by proportionality to the residual risk and the availability of higher authorities with jurisdiction, prohibiting both passive abandonment of concern when residual public safety risk remains material and disproportionate escalation that exceeds what the gravity of the remaining risk warrants, and requiring the engineer to assess whether the regulatory approval with deferred implementation adequately addresses the risk before determining whether further escalation is ethically required.
Regulatory Agency Engineer Employer Loyalty Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a state regulatory agency to recognize the boundary between legitimate employer loyalty — faithfully serving the agency's lawful mission — and impermissible employer loyalty that would require the engineer to issue permits or approvals that violate applicable environmental law, understanding that loyalty to the employing agency does not extend to facilitating regulatory violations and that the agency's legitimate interests are best served by accurate, law-compliant permit decisions.
Regulatory Agency Engineer Permit Issuance Certification Non-Deception Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a regulatory agency role who issues a construction or operating permit implicitly certifies that the permitted activity meets applicable regulatory requirements — prohibiting the engineer from issuing such a permit when the engineer holds a professionally grounded belief that the plans fail to meet those requirements, on the grounds that permit issuance under such circumstances constitutes a deceptive representation of regulatory compliance to the public and to the regulated entity, regardless of whether a superior has directed the issuance.
Regulatory Approval of Deferred Safety Measure State
State in which a regulatory authority with jurisdiction over a public health matter has formally approved a project or operational change that a licensed professional engineer has documented as requiring concurrent safety measures, but has approved implementation of those safety measures on a deferred multi-year timeline — thereby institutionalizing the risk period identified by the engineer and raising questions about whether the engineer's reporting obligation has been satisfied or whether further escalation is warranted.
Regulatory Authority Adequacy Assessment Capability
The current case goes beyond that, posing the question as to what an engineer's ethical obligations are if the 'appropriate authority' fails to act to adequately protect public health and safety in the opinion of the engineer.
Capability to assess whether a regulatory authority's response to a reported public health and safety risk constitutes adequate protective action — including evaluating whether the authority's approval conditions (such as a five-year implementation timeline) adequately protect public health, whether residual risks remain after regulatory action, and whether the engineer's professional obligations require further escalation beyond the initial regulatory report — while recognizing the limits of the engineer's authority to substitute personal judgment for regulatory determinations.
Regulatory Authority Inaction Escalation Boundary Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing the boundary of a licensed professional engineer's formal reporting obligations when the designated 'appropriate authority' has received clear notification of a public health and safety risk but has nonetheless approved a project or failed to act adequately — establishing that clear, complete notification to the appropriate regulatory authority satisfies the engineer's professional ethical obligation, and that subsequent escalation steps beyond that threshold are personal rather than professional choices, while prohibiting the inference that the engineer is ethically required to pursue indefinite escalation through political, media, or public channels as a professional duty.
Regulatory Authority Inaction on Reported Safety Risk State
State in which a licensed professional engineer has fulfilled their reporting obligation by clearly communicating a documented public health or safety risk to the appropriate regulatory authority, but that authority has failed to act adequately to address the risk in the engineer's professional judgment — creating a secondary ethical question about whether further action beyond the formal reporting obligation is warranted, and whether such further action constitutes a professional duty or a personal citizen choice.
Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a material risk to public welfare from a proposed project — and whose client has directed them to forgo the analysis needed to quantify that risk — to evaluate whether the preliminary risk finding is sufficiently serious to require proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority independent of the client's authorization, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare may require disclosure to regulators even when the client has not authorized the underlying analysis and has directed the engineer to proceed without it.
Regulatory Body Override of Engineering Judgment State
in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter
State in which a regulatory or administrative body has overruled the professional engineering judgment of licensed engineers regarding a safety or technical matter, and the engineers must determine whether their duty to report has been satisfied by formal presentation or whether the gravity of the public safety concern obligates them to escalate to a higher authority.
omission of key safety features required by local regulations
Local, state, or regional regulatory mandates specifying required safety features, design elements, or technical specifications that engineering design documents must satisfy
Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.
Technical and normative capability to verify that engineering design documents, plans, and specifications comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, codes, and standards, including identifying required safety features, dimensional requirements, and regulatory mandates that must be incorporated into professional deliverables before submission.
[proethica-intermediate] Technical competencies specific to professional roles and activities (Kong et al. 2020, Stenseke 2024)
Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation
Duty of a licensed engineer to verify that all engineering design documents, plans, and specifications comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations and safety standards before submitting those documents to clients or public authorities, including when those documents are generated with AI-assisted drafting tools.
Regulatory Compliance Verification in Stormwater Design
an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers designing stormwater management systems to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that their designs comply with applicable regulatory requirements — including municipal requirements that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development conditions — and to ensure that design documents accurately represent compliance before submission for approval
Regulatory Compliance Verification in Traffic Engineering Design
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers involved in traffic engineering infrastructure design or ordinance development to verify that proposed changes comply with applicable state laws — including statutory requirements for engineering studies before implementing traffic infrastructure changes — and to formally object when proposed changes violate those requirements
Regulatory Compliance with Residual Environmental Risk State
Engineer C publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and pollute the nearby ground water
State in which a professional engineer has designed a project that complies with applicable state and local environmental laws and regulations, but where residual environmental risks — such as methane gas migration or groundwater contamination — remain foreseeable under the approved design, creating tension between regulatory compliance as a sufficient ethical floor and the engineer's broader obligation to protect public welfare beyond minimum legal requirements, and where the ethical permissibility of proceeding turns on whether the design represents a reasonable professional judgment balancing societal needs against unavoidable environmental degradation.
Regulatory Constraint Accurate Representation in Advisory Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer providing advisory analysis of project delivery methods or procurement options to a public agency client accurately and completely represent all regulatory constraints imposed by the applicable funding source — including entity separation requirements, eligibility restrictions, and procedural mandates — prohibiting advisory memos that omit, mischaracterize, or fail to disclose material regulatory constraints that would affect the client's ability to implement a recommended delivery method, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.3.a and III.2.b and the principle that objective advisory analysis must be grounded in complete and accurate regulatory representation.
Regulatory Constraint Complete Representation in Advisory Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer providing advisory analysis of project delivery methods or procurement options to a public agency client to accurately and completely represent all applicable regulatory and funding-agency constraints governing the available options — including eligibility requirements, entity-separation requirements, and any conditions attached to specific delivery methods — so that the client's decision is made with full awareness of the regulatory landscape and not on the basis of a selectively or inaccurately described regulatory framework.
Regulatory Domain Certification Request Beyond Competence State
State in which a professional is formally requested by an authority to certify compliance with a specific, detailed regulatory domain (e.g., physical security, arms/ammunition/explosives regulations) for which they lack the requisite training or knowledge, creating an irreconcilable tension between institutional authority demands and professional competence obligations.
Regulatory Domain Competence Prerequisite for Compliance Certification
Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge in these areas
Professional virtue principle establishing that a licensed engineer's authority to certify compliance with a regulatory framework is bounded by the engineer's actual competence in the subject matter of that regulatory framework — not merely by the engineer's general PE licensure or institutional role. When a regulatory framework involves specialized technical domains (e.g., physical security, arms storage, explosive safety) outside the engineer's training and expertise, the engineer lacks the professional basis to certify compliance regardless of institutional assignment, role title, or organizational pressure. The certification act is a professional attestation requiring genuine domain knowledge, not a ministerial administrative function.
Regulatory Domain Compliance Certification Competence Prerequisite Obligation
certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to possess — through education, training, or demonstrated experience — substantive competence in the specific regulatory domain before certifying that a facility, system, or equipment complies with that domain's regulations, recognizing that general PE licensure does not authorize compliance certification across all regulatory domains and that cross-referenced, detailed regulatory frameworks (such as Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosives regulations) constitute specialized domains requiring domain-specific expertise.
Regulatory Engineer Non-Withdrawal After Permit Refusal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer in a regulatory agency role who has refused to issue a permit or approval on public health and safety grounds to remain engaged in the matter — standing by the professional position, submitting findings formally to superiors, and continuing to represent the public interest — rather than withdrawing from further work on the project, recognizing that withdrawal would abandon the engineer's paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare and that continued documented objection serves the public interest even when the superior ultimately overrides the refusal.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer in a regulatory role who refuses to issue a permit or approval they believe would violate applicable regulations or endanger public health and safety to remain engaged in the matter — submitting findings to superiors and standing by their professional position — rather than withdrawing from further work on the project, recognizing that withdrawal would abandon the engineer's obligation to protect the public and that the engineer's continued presence and documented objection serves the public interest.
Regulatory Engineer Permit Issuance Professional Certification Non-Compromise Obligation
Engineers have a fundamental obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties (Code Section I.1.)
Duty of a licensed professional engineer assigned to issue a construction permit in a regulatory agency role to treat the act of permit issuance as a professional certification that the proposed plans meet applicable regulatory requirements — including environmental law standards such as Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission limits — and to refuse to issue that permit when the engineer holds a professionally grounded belief that the plans fail to meet those requirements, recognizing that issuing a non-compliant permit constitutes a false professional certification that exposes the public to harm and the engineer to license jeopardy, and that no superior's directive to expedite or avoid technical objections can override this certification integrity obligation.
Regulatory Findings Formal Upward Submission Obligation
Engineer A refused to issue the permit and submitted his findings to his superior.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer in a regulatory agency who refuses to issue a permit or approval on safety or legal compliance grounds to formally document and submit the technical findings supporting that refusal to the appropriate superior or department authority, rather than simply declining to act, so that the decision-making record is complete, the engineer's professional position is documented, and the superior or department has the full technical basis for any override decision they may make.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed engineer intern or subordinate engineer who discovers and reports a safety deficiency to communicate all material facts to the supervising licensed professional engineer — including not only the current defect but also any historical pattern of missed inspections, prior non-reporting, or systemic failures that bear on the severity, duration, and root cause of the identified risk — without omitting information that would materially alter the supervisor's understanding of the situation or the appropriate corrective response.
Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who identify that applicable regulatory standards or design codes have not been updated to reflect current scientific understanding — including climate change, sea level rise, or updated precipitation data — to proactively disclose the resulting risk gap to clients, regulators, and affected parties, rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection
[Case 88] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who identify that applicable regulatory standards or design codes have not been updated to reflect current scientific understanding — including climate change, sea level rise, or updated precipitation data — to proactively disclose the resulting risk gap to clients, regulators, and affected parties, rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection.
Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation Obligation
Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies safety concerns about a product or system that falls outside the scope of existing national or industry safety standards — such that no regulatory framework yet addresses the specific risk — to treat the absence of applicable standards as heightening rather than diminishing the professional obligation to escalate safety concerns to appropriate authorities, including government regulatory bodies conducting standards hearings, recognizing that the regulatory gap means the engineer's specialized knowledge may be the only available mechanism for informing public safety decision-making in the domain.
Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who identify safety concerns about a product or system that falls outside the coverage of existing national or industry standards to escalate those concerns through available channels — including internal recommendations, and participation in regulatory proceedings — rather than treating the absence of applicable standards as a justification for inaction, recognizing that regulatory gaps create heightened rather than diminished professional responsibility to protect the public
Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the absence of national, governmental, or industry standards specifically addressing a new product or system heightens rather than diminishes the professional obligation to escalate identified safety concerns — including understanding that the lack of applicable standards creates a regulatory gap that amplifies the duty to report concerns to appropriate authorities, and that standard safety testing compliance does not substitute for addressing unique safety concerns that fall outside existing standards.
Regulatory Guideline Non-Controlling Technical Input Environmental Design Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer designing a project with significant environmental impact — such as a landfill expansion — must consult applicable technical data published by relevant public authorities and technical experts, including federal regulatory guidelines such as EPA solid waste disposal criteria, but must not treat those guidelines as either technically correct for the specific project or as controlling authority that displaces the engineer's independent professional judgment, prohibiting both the failure to consult available regulatory guidance and the uncritical adoption of that guidance as a substitute for site-specific professional analysis, as established by BER Case No. 79-2 and the EPA Solid Waste Disposal Guidelines (Federal Register, March 26, 1979).
Regulatory Guideline Technical Data Consultation Before Environmental Design Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing a project with significant environmental impact — such as a landfill expansion — to consult applicable technical data published by relevant public authorities and technical experts in the relevant field of knowledge, including federal, state, and local regulatory guidelines, before finalizing the design, recognizing that such guidelines establish governing criteria that must inform professional judgment even when they do not mechanically resolve the design question and even when case-by-case analysis remains necessary.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer practicing in a specialized or hazard-sensitive domain to actively monitor and incorporate newly published technical standards, design methods, and peer-reviewed literature relevant to that domain — particularly where updated methods have been developed in response to known hazard conditions — so that designs reflect the current state of professional knowledge rather than only the methods known at the time of the engineer's initial training or prior project experience. This obligation is defeasible where newly published standards have not yet permeated professional practice to the degree that a reasonably diligent engineer would be expected to have encountered them, but the engineer bears the burden of demonstrating good-faith currency efforts.
Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Affirmative Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained and compensated by a private industry client to testify at a governmental or regulatory hearing to affirmatively disclose, at the outset of testimony, the financial relationship between the engineer and the retaining party — including the identity of the compensating party, the nature of the consulting relationship, and the fact that attendance costs are being paid by the industry client — so that the regulatory body can appropriately assess the objectivity and independence of the testimony received.
Regulatory Hearing Financial Relationship Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who testifies at a governmental or regulatory hearing — particularly on a subject matter in which the engineer holds a financial relationship with an interested industry party — to affirmatively disclose to the hearing body and the public record that the engineer's attendance and testimony are funded by or on behalf of a private industry client, so that the regulatory body can appropriately weigh the testimony in light of the engineer's financial interest and so that the public record is not distorted by the appearance of independent expert opinion where none exists.
[Case 145] Professional principle requiring engineers who testify at governmental or regulatory hearings to affirmatively disclose any financial relationship — including consulting fees, travel reimbursement, or other compensation — with any party that has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding, regardless of whether the engineer characterizes the testimony as personal rather than organizational, so that the regulatory body and public can assess the independence and objectivity of the testimony
Regulatory Non-Response to Engineer Safety Notification State
State in which an engineer has made a good-faith safety notification to a regulatory or governmental authority and received no response, leaving the safety risk unaddressed by the authority with jurisdiction, and requiring the engineer to determine whether and how to escalate further.
Regulatory Non-Response to Safety Notification State
The county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call.
State in which a licensed professional engineer has formally notified a regulatory or governmental authority (such as a county building official) of a documented structural safety concern, and that authority has failed to respond, acknowledge, or take any action — leaving the safety risk unaddressed and creating an obligation on the engineer to escalate to supervisory or alternative authorities rather than treating the initial notification as sufficient discharge of their safety obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a licensed professional engineer has fulfilled their reporting obligation by clearly communicating a documented public health or safety risk to the appropriate regulatory authority, but that authority has failed to act adequately to address the risk in the engineer's professional judgment — creating a secondary ethical question about whether further action beyond the formal reporting obligation is warranted, and whether such further action constitutes a professional duty or a personal citizen choice.
Regulatory Permit Deadline Non-Exculpation for Safety Suppression Constraint
XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a regulated entity's time-bounded regulatory deadline — such as a 60-day permit application window — does not exculpate or justify the suppression of completed engineering findings that establish the entity's discharge or activity will violate established environmental standards, prohibiting the engineer from treating the client's regulatory deadline pressure as a reason to withhold, delay, or suppress adverse technical findings, and establishing that temporal urgency on the client's side does not diminish the engineer's obligation to disclose safety-adverse findings promptly.
Regulatory Permit Deadline Pressure State
State in which a regulated entity operates under a formal, time-bounded regulatory directive to apply for a permit within a specified period, creating time pressure that shapes the scope and urgency of engineering consulting services retained to support the permit application, and that may incentivize the client to suppress unfavorable findings that would jeopardize permit approval.
[proethica-intermediate] Time pressure state affecting decision priorities
Regulatory Permit Issuance Environmental Law Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer assigned to issue a construction permit in a regulatory agency role to refuse to issue that permit when the engineer has a professionally grounded belief that the proposed plans fail to meet applicable environmental law requirements — such as Clean Air Act sulphur dioxide emission standards — even when directed by a superior to expedite the permit and avoid technical objections, recognizing that the act of issuing a permit constitutes a professional certification that the plans meet regulatory requirements and that issuing a non-compliant permit would expose the public to harm and the engineer to license jeopardy.
Regulatory Permit Issuance Environmental Law Non-Compliance Refusal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer assigned to issue construction permits in a regulatory agency role to refuse to issue a permit when the engineer holds a professionally grounded belief — based on technical analysis of the proposed plans — that issuance would violate applicable environmental law or public health standards, including the ability to maintain that refusal under supervisory pressure to expedite and 'avoid technical hang-ups', and to document the basis for refusal for formal upward submission.
Regulatory Permit Issuance Integrity Obligation
Engineer A, an environmental engineer employed by the state environmental protection division, is ordered to draw up a construction permit for construction of a power plant at a manufacturing facility.
Domain-specific principle establishing that a licensed engineer in a regulatory agency who is assigned to issue a construction or operating permit bears a non-delegable professional obligation to certify only that the permit application meets applicable regulatory requirements as determined by the engineer's own professional judgment — and must refuse to issue any permit the engineer believes, in good faith, would violate applicable law or endanger public health, regardless of supervisory direction to the contrary.
Regulatory Permit Non-Compliant Issuance License Revocation Risk Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who issues a construction or operating permit that the engineer believes violates applicable environmental or safety statutes — such as the Clean Air Act — faces the risk of suspension or revocation of their engineering license by the state registration board, prohibiting the engineer from treating institutional pressure or superior directives as a shield against personal professional liability for permit issuance that violates regulatory law.
Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal as Intermediate Escalation Constraint
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a client refuses to authorize detailed safety analysis of a foreseeable public welfare risk — requiring that a licensed professional engineer, before withdrawing from the project, propose to the client that the engineer's professional concern be included in an engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies and the public for consideration, establishing this report inclusion proposal as a mandatory intermediate escalation step between client discussion and project withdrawal, and prohibiting the engineer from treating client refusal of detailed analysis as a direct trigger for immediate withdrawal without first offering this intermediate disclosure pathway.
Regulatory Report Submission Escalation Step Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been refused authorization by a client to conduct a recommended safety analysis to propose, as an intermediate graduated escalation step, that the engineer submit a concern report or technical finding directly to the applicable regulatory authority — without conducting the full analysis — so that the regulatory authority is informed of the identified risk and can independently determine whether to require the analysis, thereby fulfilling the engineer's disclosure obligation while preserving the client relationship as long as possible before withdrawal.
Regulatory Report Submission Proposal as Escalation Step Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been unable to obtain client agreement to conduct recommended safety analysis, and as a graduated escalation step before withdrawal, to propose to the client that the engineer document the identified public health, safety, or welfare concern in a written engineering report for submission to and consideration by regulatory agencies and the public — recognizing that this intermediate step preserves the client relationship while fulfilling the engineer's obligation to ensure that regulatory decision-makers have access to material safety information.
Regulatory Reporting Threat Proportionality to Internal Exhaustion Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's threat to report a safety concern to an external regulatory agency is ethically permissible only after the engineer has (a) made an initial internal report, (b) allowed a reasonable period for internal response, (c) re-escalated upon learning of continued inaction, and (d) received only an open-ended non-committal response — prohibiting the use of regulatory reporting threats as a first-resort coercive tactic while affirming their permissibility as a final internal escalation lever when internal channels have been substantially exhausted.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has identified a safety concern in an employer's product from threatening external regulatory reporting to management as a coercive tactic before exhausting all available internal escalation pathways — including determining what internal steps are being taken, exploring internal mechanisms for further recourse, and confirming that no meaningful action is being taken — establishing that external reporting threats are premature and ethically impermissible when internal escalation pathways remain available and unexplored.
Regulatory Reporting Threat as Internal Escalation Lever State
State in which a professional engineer, having exhausted or nearly exhausted internal escalation channels, explicitly threatens to report a safety concern to an external regulatory authority as a final lever to compel organizational corrective action, creating a transitional state between internal advocacy and external whistleblowing.
State in which applicable local development regulations and national design codes have not yet been updated to reflect current scientific understanding of changing climate conditions — including sea level rise, altered precipitation intensities, and shifting storm recurrence intervals — such that strict regulatory compliance produces designs that are technically legal but foreseeably inadequate to protect public safety under projected future conditions, creating tension between the engineer's obligation to comply with applicable codes and the obligation to protect public welfare beyond minimum regulatory requirements.
Regulatory Standard Exceedance Confirmed State
City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
State in which an independent technical review has confirmed through modeling and analysis that a completed engineering design produced outcomes that exceed the quantitative regulatory limits established by applicable subdivision or stormwater regulations, establishing an evidentiary basis for design non-compliance and triggering obligations of disclosure, remediation, and accountability.
Regulatory Standards Vacuum Heightened Escalation Permissibility Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards specifically addressing a new consumer product — creating a regulatory standards vacuum — does not eliminate the engineer's ability to escalate safety concerns to regulatory authorities, but simultaneously constrains the form of that escalation by requiring that the engineer clearly communicate the absence of applicable standards, the basis for the professional concern, and the distinction between standard testing compliance and the identified residual risk, prohibiting the engineer from presenting concerns as violations of non-existent standards while permitting and encouraging participation in regulatory proceedings designed to develop those standards.
Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Autonomous Vehicle Ethics State
State in which a professional engineer is tasked with making recommendations about the ethical decision logic of an autonomous vehicle system in the absence of established national, governmental, or industry-specific standards governing how such systems must allocate harm in unavoidable crash scenarios — leaving the engineer without a regulatory floor or ceiling against which to benchmark the recommendation, and placing the full burden of ethical determination on professional judgment, general engineering ethics principles, and public welfare obligations rather than specific code compliance.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a new consumer or industrial product has been developed and is undergoing or has completed safety evaluation, but no applicable national, governmental, or industry-specific safety standards yet exist to govern that product or its potential impact — leaving the engineer and company without a regulatory floor or ceiling against which to benchmark safety, and placing the full burden of safety determination on professional judgment, general testing protocols, and ethical obligation rather than specific code compliance.
Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Novel Product State
State in which a new consumer or industrial product has been developed and is undergoing or has completed safety evaluation, but no applicable national, governmental, or industry-specific safety standards yet exist to govern that product or its potential impact — leaving the engineer and company without a regulatory floor or ceiling against which to benchmark safety, and placing the full burden of safety determination on professional judgment, general testing protocols, and ethical obligation rather than specific code compliance.
Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation Obligation
both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose subdivision stormwater design is found — through independent analysis or actual post-construction evidence — to have failed to comply with applicable municipal regulatory requirements (such as post-development runoff not exceeding pre-development conditions), to design and implement a workable corrective design that brings the project into compliance with those regulatory requirements and eliminates the public harm caused by the non-compliant original design.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a stormwater design engineer to ensure that engineered systems adequately protect surface water watersheds used as public drinking water sources, including accounting for cumulative and future risk increases from development-induced stormwater flows.
Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring government agency engineers who receive confidential and proprietary technical information submitted by private companies for regulatory approval to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure or competitive exploitation — both during and after their public employment — recognizing that the regulatory submission process depends on submitting companies' trust that their proprietary information will be used solely for the regulatory purpose for which it was submitted and not disclosed to competitors
Regulatory Submission Confidentiality Protection by Government Engineer Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a government agency who receives confidential and proprietary technical design information from private companies in the course of a regulatory approval process to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure or use — including refraining from using it for the benefit of a subsequent private employer who is a competitor of the submitting company — recognizing that the government agency's receipt of confidential submissions creates a trust relationship with the submitting company that the engineer is obligated to honor both during and after public employment.
Regulatory Testimony Affiliation Disclosure Standard
Engineer A never stated in his testimony that he works for coal bed methane companies
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to fully and accurately disclose all relevant affiliations, employment relationships, and financial interests when providing technical testimony before regulatory or quasi-judicial bodies, including the obligation not to create false impressions of neutrality or government affiliation when retained by a private party.
Regulatory Violation Competitive Motivation Contamination Risk State
As a business pursuit, engineers compete with one another for clients in order to maximize individual and firm profits.
State in which a professional engineer who has discovered a competitor's regulatory non-compliance faces the ethical risk that their decision to report — or the manner in which they report — may be motivated or perceived to be motivated by competitive self-interest rather than genuine public protection or professional integrity obligations, creating a condition requiring the engineer to consciously distinguish and separate legitimate reporting duties from competitive advantage-seeking, and to structure any reporting action in a manner that demonstrates the primacy of professional obligation over competitive interest.
Regulatory and Funding Constraint Completeness in Advisory Analysis
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who provide advisory analyses of project delivery methods, procurement structures, or other regulated choices to identify and accurately represent all constraints imposed by applicable funding agencies, regulatory bodies, or governing statutes — including constraints that affect the comparative viability of different options — and to ensure that their advisory product reflects the full regulatory landscape rather than a selectively filtered version of it.
Relevance-Conditioned Adverse Impact Disclosure Obligation at Public Hearings
Duty of a licensed professional engineer presenting a project at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a private client to disclose known adverse public welfare impacts — such as anticipated increases in traffic, noise, and air pollution — if and only if those impacts constitute 'relevant and pertinent information' as determined by the engineer's objective professional judgment; with the understanding that: (1) if the engineer's professional judgment determines the impacts are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is obligatory; (2) if the engineer in good faith determines they are not relevant and pertinent, disclosure is not required; (3) the relevance determination must be made objectively and not driven by client interest in suppressing adverse information; and (4) the engineer must answer all direct questions about such impacts completely and honestly regardless of the relevance determination.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private client to present a development project at a public regulatory hearing to disclose known adverse public welfare impacts of the project — including traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution — when and only when the engineer's professional judgment determines that such impacts are 'relevant and pertinent' to the subject matter of the hearing; with the understanding that: (1) if the engineer determines the impacts are relevant and pertinent, disclosure is mandatory; (2) if the engineer in good faith determines they are not relevant and pertinent, disclosure is not required; (3) the relevance determination must be made objectively and not driven by client interest in suppressing adverse information; and (4) the engineer must answer all direct questions about such impacts completely and honestly regardless of the relevance determination.
Relevance-Pertinence Professional Judgment Disclosure Trigger Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer presenting technical findings at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a client is obligated to disclose known adverse impacts — including traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts of a proposed development — if and only if those impacts meet the threshold of being 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter as determined by the engineer's professional judgment, prohibiting both automatic non-disclosure of all adverse information regardless of relevance and automatic mandatory disclosure of all known adverse information regardless of relevance, and establishing that the professional judgment determination of relevance and pertinence is the operative trigger for the disclosure obligation, as established by NSPE Code objectivity provisions and BER precedent on selective testimony at public hearings.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer presenting technical findings at a public regulatory hearing on behalf of a client is not automatically obligated to volunteer all potentially adverse information — including information about increased traffic, noise, or air pollution — when the engineer has exercised professional judgment that such information is not 'relevant and pertinent' to the specific hearing purpose, and when the engineer would have provided the information if directly questioned, prohibiting the characterization of selective professional judgment about relevance as an ethical violation when the omitted information is subsequently presented by other witnesses at the same hearing.
Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings
The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer presenting at a public hearing — on behalf of a client — to exercise professional judgment about which information is 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter, and to volunteer only that information which the engineer's professional judgment identifies as relevant and pertinent, without being required to volunteer all information the engineer possesses about the project, provided that the engineer answers all direct questions completely and honestly and does not affirmatively mislead the hearing body.
Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
Professional principle establishing that an engineer presenting at a public hearing is not ethically required to volunteer information about project impacts that, in the engineer's professional judgment, is not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter or the questions posed — while retaining the obligation to provide complete and truthful answers to all questions actually asked, and recognizing that other witnesses and participants in the public process may supply information the presenting engineer did not volunteer
[Case 94] Professional principle establishing that an engineer presenting at a public hearing is not ethically required to volunteer information about project impacts that, in the engineer's professional judgment, is not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing's subject matter or the questions posed — while retaining the obligation to provide complete and truthful answers to all questions actually asked, and recognizing that other witnesses and participants in the public process may supply information the presenting engineer did not volunteer.
Reliability Equivalence Disclosure in Energy System Advisory Reports
Note that 'equivalent' as used to this point in the discussion has not addressed reliability.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who evaluate energy system replacement options to explicitly address and disclose reliability differences between alternatives — not merely energy production equivalence — when reliability differences have material implications for public welfare, grid stability, or organizational continuity, so that decision-makers are not misled by superficially equivalent performance metrics
Reliability Equivalence Qualification Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who reports that a proposed energy system produces 'equivalent' output to an existing system must explicitly qualify that equivalence finding by disclosing any material reliability differences between the systems — including the absence of on-demand generation capability and the dependence on grid reliability — prohibiting the presentation of energy equivalence as a complete or unqualified finding when the proposed system is materially less reliable than the system it replaces, as established by NSPE Code completeness and objectivity provisions and the principle that partial equivalence findings create misleading impressions of full functional equivalence.
Reliability Equivalence Qualification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a proposed energy system replacement produces equivalent energy output at similar cost to the existing system to explicitly qualify that equivalence finding in any advisory report by clarifying that 'equivalent' energy production does not mean equivalent reliability — and to affirmatively disclose that the proposed system is less reliable than the existing system in ways that affect both the organization's operations and the broader electric grid — so that decision-makers are not misled by an unqualified equivalence conclusion into believing the systems are interchangeable in all material respects.
Reliability Equivalence Qualification in Energy Advisory Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a proposed energy system replacement produces equivalent energy output at similar cost to an existing system, to recognize that 'equivalence' in energy quantity does not imply equivalence in reliability, and to explicitly qualify advisory findings by clearly distinguishing between energy quantity equivalence and operational reliability equivalence — including communicating that a solar-without-storage system is not reliability-equivalent to a dispatchable fossil-fueled generator — so that decision-makers are not misled by superficially equivalent performance metrics.
Remediation Monitoring Obligation Post-Client-Confrontation
Professional principle requiring engineers who have confronted a client about a discovered violation and received the client's assurance of remediation to actively monitor the remediation process until the engineer is sufficiently satisfied that the violation has been fully cured in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, rather than treating the client's assurance as a discharge of the engineer's professional obligation.
Renewable Energy Transition Risk Assessment Standard
Professional norms and analytical standards governing the obligation of engineers to assess and disclose systemic risks associated with transitioning from conventional to renewable energy sources, including grid stability impacts, storage limitations, and effects on public utility reliability, particularly when capital constraints preclude full mitigation measures such as battery storage.
Repeat Litigation Client Manufacturing Company
A corporate client stakeholder role in which a manufacturing company retains the same licensed professional engineer across multiple separate and unrelated litigation matters over time — including patent litigation — bearing obligations to disclose the nature of each engagement and subject to scrutiny regarding the appearance of partiality or improper influence over the retained expert's independence.
Repeated Criminal Conduct During Supervised Probation While Employed as Engineer State
State in which a professional engineer, having already been convicted of a criminal offense and placed under supervised probation, commits additional criminal acts (such as fraudulent check-writing) during the probationary period while actively employed as an engineer — a compounded integrity violation state that intensifies ethical scrutiny because the engineer's continued professional employment did not deter further dishonest conduct, and because the pattern of repeated offenses strengthens the inference that the engineer's character is incompatible with the trust obligations of the profession.
Repeated Criminal Dishonesty During Professional Employment Aggravated Violation Constraint
while so employed he engaged in the writing and cashing of fraudulent checks
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer who commits additional acts of criminal dishonesty — including fraud, check forgery, or financial deception — while already under court-supervised probation for a prior criminal conviction and while actively employed as an engineer incurs an aggravated ethics violation that is more serious than either the original conviction or a single isolated act of misconduct — prohibiting the treatment of probationary-period fraud as equivalent in severity to a single prior offense, and establishing that the pattern of repeated dishonest conduct while holding professional status constitutes a heightened threat to the profession's integrity and public trust, as established by BER Case 75-5.
Repeated Exam Failure Regulatory Bar State
State in which a professional candidate has failed a licensure examination a threshold number of times such that the licensing board imposes additional prerequisites — such as supplemental experience, new references, or remedial coursework — before the candidate may sit for the examination again, creating a materially extended and uncertain path to licensure that was not disclosed to the employer at the time of hire and that may render the candidate unable to satisfy a contractual or positional licensure requirement within the agreed timeframe.
Replacement Consultant Contradicting Assessment Non-Deception Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineering firm retained to replace a discharged engineer on a project — particularly one where the client discharged the prior engineer following a safety dispute — must not produce a report that contradicts the prior engineer's documented safety findings through selective omission, insufficient investigation, or misleading framing, prohibiting the replacement consultant from providing a report that creates a false impression of safety or insufficient risk evidence when the prior engineer's documented analysis established a credible and specific public health risk, and establishing that the replacement consultant's obligation to hold paramount public safety supersedes any implicit or explicit client expectation that the replacement report will validate the client's decision to proceed.
Replacement Consultant Objective Contradiction Resistance Capability
XYZ Consultants was obligated, upon being retained by MWC to replace Engineer B, to provide an objective and technically complete report addressing the public health and safety risks
Capability of a consulting engineering firm retained to replace a discharged engineer to recognize and resist client pressure to produce a report that contradicts or undermines the prior engineer's safety findings — including understanding that the obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare requires objective and technically complete reporting even when the commissioning client expects or desires a contradicting conclusion, and that providing a report designed to justify the client's prior decision rather than objectively assess the technical merits constitutes a violation of professional ethics obligations.
Supervisor B, one of the principals of XYZ Engineering and not a professional engineer, reviews the reports and asks Engineer A to make changes
A non-licensed, non-engineer principal or supervisor within an engineering firm who reviews signed and sealed professional engineering reports and directs or effectuates unauthorized alterations to those reports — changing technical conclusions without factual or technical basis — and thereafter transmits the altered reports to clients as if they represent the licensed engineer's professional findings, bearing obligations to refrain from interfering with the professional independence of licensed engineers and from misrepresenting engineering conclusions to clients and the public.
the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
A corporate client stakeholder role that, upon receiving adverse verbal findings from a retained consulting engineer indicating that the client's operations fail to meet established regulatory or safety standards, terminates the engineering contract, instructs the engineer not to produce a written report, and subsequently misrepresents the situation to a regulatory authority at a public hearing — generating a direct conflict with the engineer's paramount public safety obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A client role in which a corporate or organizational client, upon receiving adverse verbal findings from an engineer indicating potential violations of established safety or regulatory standards, terminates the engineering contract and explicitly instructs the engineer not to produce a written report, thereby generating a conflict between the engineer's duty of confidentiality and loyalty to the client and the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
A public agency client role in which a government body, upon receiving verbal notification of a potentially safety-relevant structural defect discovered incidentally by a sub-consultant, instructs the prime consultant and sub-consultant to exclude that finding from the formal written report on the grounds that it falls outside the contracted scope of work, thereby generating a conflict between institutional risk management interests and the paramount public safety obligations borne by licensed engineers.
Engineer A hears from residential property owners whose homes he had inspected
A residential property owner stakeholder role whose hurricane-damaged home was inspected and assessed by a licensed professional engineer who documented hurricane-related damage in a signed and sealed report, but whose insurance claim was subsequently denied because the report was altered without the engineer's knowledge or consent by a non-engineer supervisor to indicate pre-existing structural conditions, bearing standing to receive notification from the engineer of the unauthorized alteration and to seek redress through appropriate channels.
Reporting Engineer Obligated to Challenge Unlicensed Practice
Engineer A is working in association with B
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer working in association with an unlicensed individual who is performing engineering review and directing changes to signed and sealed documents bears affirmative obligations under the NSPE Code to refuse to aid or abet unlawful practice and to report the violation to appropriate professional bodies.
[Case 56] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer working in association with an unlicensed individual who is performing engineering review and directing changes to signed and sealed documents bears affirmative obligations under the NSPE Code to refuse to aid or abet unlawful practice of engineering and to report the violation to appropriate professional bodies.
Reporting Motivation Purity Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to examine and confirm that a decision to report a peer's professional misconduct is grounded in pure professional duty and public interest — rather than competitive self-interest, personal animus, or other improper motivations — and to recognize that disinterested motivation (absence of competitive relationship and personal acquaintance) strengthens the ethical legitimacy and professional integrity of the reporting act.
Researcher Bias-Motivated Ambiguous Data Omission State
a few of the aspects of the data were at variance and not fully consistent with the conclusions contained in the engineer's report
State in which a professional engineer conducting research or preparing a technical report, convinced of the soundness of their conclusions, omits ambiguous or contradictory data on the grounds that its inclusion would distort or detract from the essential thrust of the report — substituting subjective confidence in the conclusion for the objective obligation to present all material data, including data at variance with the primary findings, and thereby violating the duty of truthfulness and objectivity in professional reports.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer has prepared and submitted a report or evaluation that intentionally or negligently omits material technical information — such as contradictory test data, equipment failures, or methodological differences — that would materially alter the conclusions drawn, resulting in a report that is factually incomplete and misleading even if individual statements within it are technically accurate.
Reserved Jurisdiction Question Definitive Resolution Obligation
In Case No. 62-14 . . . we noted in that case: 'We do not consider at this time whether this application would hold if the violation pertained to conduct not related to engineering practice.'
Obligation of a professional ethics reviewing body that has explicitly reserved a jurisdictional question in prior cases — specifically, whether personal misconduct unrelated to engineering practice falls within the ethics code — to definitively resolve that question when a case directly raises it, rather than again reserving it, and to state the resolution clearly so that engineers and the public can rely on a settled standard; the body must not indefinitely defer resolution of a foundational jurisdictional question that has been twice reserved.
Reserved Jurisdictional Question Definitive Resolution Capability
Capability of a professional ethics reviewing body to recognize when a jurisdictional question has been explicitly reserved in prior cases — left undecided with a noted caveat — and to definitively resolve that question when a case directly raises it, rather than reserving it again; including the ability to synthesize the accumulated precedent record, identify the moment at which the question is squarely presented, and issue a clear, authoritative ruling that closes the open question and provides prospective guidance to practitioners and disciplinary bodies.
Resident Engineer Civic-Elevated Public Environmental Safety Challenge Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is also a resident of the community affected by a proposed infrastructure or waste management design to treat their civic concern about environmental and public health risks — including methane gas migration and groundwater contamination — as a mandatory professional ethical duty rather than merely a permissible civic act, and to bring those concerns forward publicly through appropriate channels (public forums, regulatory bodies, or professional communications) in a manner grounded in established technical facts and professional judgment, recognizing that the professional ethics code elevates what would otherwise be a voluntary civic act into a professional obligation.
Resident Engineer Civic-Elevated Technical Challenge Formulation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is also a resident of the community affected by a proposed infrastructure project to recognize that their dual status as a professional engineer and an affected community member elevates their civic challenge from a lay objection to a professionally grounded technical challenge — including the ability to: (1) ground the public challenge in established technical facts and professional engineering analysis rather than lay concern, (2) invoke professional engineering credentials to give the challenge appropriate technical weight, (3) distinguish the civic advocacy role from the professional engineering role while leveraging both, and (4) ensure the challenge is directed at the technical and environmental soundness of the design rather than at the professional conduct of the engineers who produced it.
Resident Engineer Civic Role Public Environmental Challenge Fact-Grounding Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who publicly challenges the environmental soundness of another engineer's design — in the engineer's capacity as a town resident and civic actor — must ground that public challenge in established technical facts and completed professional analysis, prohibiting the engineer from presenting unverified environmental concerns as established professional findings in public forums, and establishing that the engineer's dual status as a professional engineer and town resident does not relax the factual grounding requirement for public technical criticism, as established by NSPE Code Section 12 and BER Case Nos. 63-6 and 65-9.
Resident Engineer Public Controversy Challenger
Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a resident of the affected community publicly challenges the technical and environmental soundness of a design prepared by other engineers, raising concerns about public health risks such as methane migration and groundwater contamination at public forums, bearing obligations to raise concerns accurately, on a high level of professional deportment, and to escalate unresolved safety concerns to appropriate authorities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is also a community resident publicly challenges the technical adequacy or environmental soundness of a design prepared by other engineers at public hearings or regulatory proceedings, bearing obligations to raise concerns accurately and on a high level of professional deportment, to escalate unresolved safety concerns to higher regulatory authorities, and to provide complete and objective technical information to protect public welfare.
Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is also a community resident publicly challenges the technical adequacy or environmental soundness of a design prepared by other engineers at public hearings or regulatory proceedings, bearing obligations to raise concerns accurately and on a high level of professional deportment, to escalate unresolved safety concerns to higher regulatory authorities, and to provide complete and objective technical information to protect public welfare.
Residential Construction Client Granting Site Access
Engineer A is hired by Homeowner to design a retaining wall system to stabilize a rear yard
A homeowner client role that retains an engineer for a specific residential improvement project and separately grants that engineer incidental access to other areas of the property (e.g., garage storage), thereby creating conditions under which the engineer may observe safety hazards unrelated to the contracted scope, and bearing standing to receive engineer notifications of observed hazards.
Resignation Non-Cure of Structural Adversarial Conflict Principle
In the present case, the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
Relational principle establishing that mere cessation or termination of an engineer's engagement with one party in an adversarial proceeding is insufficient to cure the ethical conflict created by that engagement — because the engineer retains in memory and judgment the confidential information, documents, and strategic knowledge acquired during the prior engagement, making truly independent analysis for the opposing party impossible regardless of formal disengagement
Resignation as Prerequisite for Adverse Advocacy Permissibility Principle
if he chose to oppose that position on behalf of an adverse party, he could ethically do so by first resigning from his role as advisor to the county
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who simultaneously serves as an advisor to one party in a public policy or adversarial proceeding may only ethically advocate for an opposing party's position by first resigning from the advisory role — resignation being the necessary and sufficient condition to clear the structural conflict that makes simultaneous dual-side participation impermissible, because continued advisory status while advocating for an adverse party creates an irreconcilable appearance of being on both sides of a dispute
Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from yielding their professional safety determinations to public pressure, political pressure, or community sentiment — including petitions, rallies, or elected body pressure — when the engineer has determined that a genuine danger to public safety exists, recognizing that the engineer's professional judgment on safety matters is not subject to democratic override.
[Case 112] Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from yielding their professional safety determinations to public pressure, political pressure, or community sentiment — including elected body votes or citizen group advocacy — when the engineer has determined that a genuine danger to public safety exists, recognizing that the engineer's professional judgment on safety matters is not subject to democratic override
[Case 112] Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from yielding their professional safety determinations to public pressure, political pressure, or community sentiment — including petitions, rallies, or elected body pressure — when the engineer has determined that a genuine danger to public safety exists, recognizing that the engineer's professional judgment on safety matters is not subject to democratic override
[Case 132] Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from yielding their professional safety determinations to public pressure, political pressure, or community sentiment when the engineer has determined that a genuine danger to public safety exists.
[Case 132] Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from yielding their professional safety determinations to public pressure, political pressure, or community sentiment — including petitions, rallies, or elected body pressure — when the engineer has determined that a genuine danger to public safety exists, recognizing that the engineer's professional judgment on safety matters is not subject to democratic override
[Case 137] Professional virtue principle prohibiting engineers from yielding their professional safety determinations to public pressure, political pressure, or community sentiment — including petitions, rallies, or elected body pressure — when the engineer has determined that a genuine danger to public safety exists.
a new resort that will be located in a semi-arid region of the southwestern United States
A private development client role that commissions multi-discipline engineering and design services for a resort project in an environmentally sensitive semi-arid region, bearing authority over project scope and design decisions, and subject to obligations of environmental compliance and consideration of sustainable development principles.
Resource Acquisition Safety Standard Non-Compromise Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from agreeing to reduce, suspend, or conditionally apply professional safety standards — including endorsing grandfathering ordinances, relaxing code enforcement, or concurring with reduced inspection rigor — as a condition of, or in exchange for, receiving resources (staffing, budget, equipment) necessary to adequately perform a public safety function, establishing that the need for resources, however genuine and urgent, does not justify compromising the safety standards whose enforcement the resources are intended to support.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency role from concurring with a politically-motivated proposal — such as a grandfathering ordinance exempting specified buildings from current code requirements — as a condition of receiving resources necessary to adequately perform a public safety function, establishing that the logic of political trade-offs does not apply to engineering safety standards and that 'righting a wrong with another wrong' causes grave damage to public health and safety, as established by BER Case 98-5 and the principle that engineers must hold public health and safety paramount regardless of political inducements.
Resource Constraint Non-Excuse for Competence Prerequisite Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the unavailability of institutional resources — including training funds, time, or organizational support — does not excuse the engineer from the professional obligation to possess substantive competence before certifying, sealing, or approving work in a technical domain, and to correctly conclude that resource constraints shift the appropriate response from 'proceed without competence' to 'decline and escalate to a qualified expert.'
Resource Unavailability Non-Excuse for Competence Certification Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that the institutional unavailability of training funds or other resources that would enable a professional engineer to acquire competence in a required technical domain does not excuse the engineer from the obligation to decline certification work in that domain — prohibiting the engineer from treating resource constraints as a justification for performing or certifying work outside their competence, and establishing that the competence requirement is not contingent on the availability of institutional support for competence development.
Responsibility Disclaimer Non-Equivalence to Genuine Project Withdrawal Constraint
we do not believe, Engineer A's decision to assume no responsibility for the plant and beds constitutes a 'withdrawal from further service on the project'
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's unilateral declaration that she 'assumes no responsibility' for a safety-critical system or project does not constitute a genuine 'withdrawal from further service on the project' as required by the NSPE Code when public safety is endangered — prohibiting the engineer from treating a verbal or written disclaimer of responsibility as a substitute for actual cessation of involvement and formal reporting to proper authorities, and establishing that genuine withdrawal requires both actual disengagement from the project and reporting to proper authorities.
Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
Capability to maintain active, substantive engagement in the engineering process from conception to completion when bearing responsible charge, including personally making or directly supervising engineering decisions, providing experienced-based quality assurance review, engaging in critical discussions, and ensuring that no plan or document is sealed without genuine direction and control over its preparation — as distinguished from mere post-hoc review of completed work.
Responsible Charge Active Engagement Constraint
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer in responsible charge be actively engaged in the engineering process from conception to completion — including personally making or directly supervising all engineering decisions — prohibiting the practice of reviewing drawings or documents after preparation without involvement in the design and development process as a substitute for genuine responsible charge, as established by NSPE Position Statement No. 10-1778 and state licensure law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has suffered a medical event — such as a stroke — that materially impairs their ability to actively direct, review, and control engineering work from affixing their professional signature and seal to engineering documents, establishing that reviewing drawings after preparation without involvement in the design and development process does not satisfy the definition of Responsible Charge, and that continued sealing under such conditions constitutes both an ethical violation and a violation of state licensure law.
Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation
Duty of a licensed engineer bearing statutory responsible charge over engineering work product to conduct an active, substantive, and technically adequate review of all deliverables — including those generated with AI assistance — sufficient to identify errors, omissions, and regulatory non-compliance before applying a professional seal or submitting deliverables to clients or public authorities.
Responsible Charge Boundary Violation by Peer Engineer State
Engineer A made minor changes to design documents prepared and revised by Engineer B without consulting Engineer B
State in which a licensed professional engineer makes changes to engineering documents sealed by another licensed engineer without that engineer's knowledge, consultation, or approval — and without having exercised responsible charge (direct control or personal supervision) over the work being modified — even when the modifying engineer is technically competent in the relevant domain, thereby violating the professional certification process regardless of technical capability or management pressure.
the National Council of Engineering Examiners Model Law, which is endorsed by this Board and reads as follows: responsible charge--the term 'responsible charge' as used in this act shall mean 'direct control and personal supervision of engineering work.'
A formal regulatory or model-law definition of 'responsible charge' specifying the required level of direct control and personal supervision an engineer must exercise over engineering work in order to ethically and legally seal documents prepared by subordinates
Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Capability
The Board concluded that it was unethical for the Chief Engineer to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or that he had not checked and reviewed in detail.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who affixes their professional seal to engineering plans, reports, analyses, or similar documents to conduct a detailed, substantive review of those documents before sealing — including personally verifying design adequacy, checking calculations, reviewing specifications, and ensuring that the documents reflect competent professional engineering judgment — rather than relying solely on general direction, supervision, or confidence in subordinates as a substitute for detailed review.
Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who affixes their professional seal to engineering plans, reports, analyses, or similar documents to have either personally prepared those documents or to have conducted a detailed, substantive review of those documents sufficient to constitute responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision) — and to refrain from sealing documents prepared by others under general direction or supervision alone, without detailed review — recognizing that the professional seal certifies personal accountability for the technical content and that general supervisory involvement without detailed review is insufficient to satisfy the responsible charge requirement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed engineer bearing statutory responsible charge over engineering work product to conduct an active, substantive, and technically adequate review of all deliverables — including those generated with AI assistance — sufficient to identify errors, omissions, and regulatory non-compliance before applying a professional seal or submitting deliverables to clients or public authorities.
Responsible Charge Direct Control Personal Supervision Non-Registered Work Sealing Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of engineering firms to ensure that when engineering work is performed by non-registered graduate engineers, that work is performed under the direct control and personal supervision — not merely general direction — of a registered professional engineer who will affix their seal to the resulting documents, recognizing that the lower licensure status of the preparers heightens rather than diminishes the sealing engineer's obligation to exercise genuine responsible charge, and that the firm bears an independent ethical obligation to structure its work assignments so that non-registered personnel are never placed in a position where their work is sealed without the requisite direct control and personal supervision having been exercised.
Professional principle requiring that a licensed engineer bearing statutory responsible charge over engineering work maintains active, substantive engagement in the creation, review, and verification of that work — not merely nominal oversight — such that the engineer can genuinely vouch for its technical adequacy and compliance with applicable standards
[Case 158] Professional principle requiring that a licensed engineer bearing statutory responsible charge over engineering work maintains active, substantive engagement in the creation, review, and verification of that work — not merely nominal oversight — such that the engineer can genuinely vouch for its technical adequacy and compliance with applicable standards.
[Case 58] Professional principle requiring that a licensed engineer bearing statutory responsible charge over engineering work maintains active, substantive engagement in the creation, review, and verification of that work — not merely nominal oversight — such that the engineer can genuinely vouch for its technical adequacy and compliance with applicable standards, and cannot discharge this obligation by promising to 'sign off' on work the engineer has directed to be done improperly
Responsible Charge Integrity Non-Delegation to Unauthorized Party Obligation
Signed and sealed engineering documents signify that the documents in question were either actually drafted by the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them or were prepared under the 'responsible charge' (direct control and personal supervision) of the professional engineer whose signature and seal accompany them.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of engineering firms to ensure that signed and sealed engineering documents are modified only by the engineer who originally prepared them or by an engineer who exercises responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision) over the modification — and to refrain from permitting, directing, or acquiescing in modifications made by any party who did not prepare the original documents and does not exercise responsible charge over the modification — recognizing that any such unauthorized modification thoroughly compromises the integrity and veracity of the professional seal and the responsible charge process.
Responsible Charge Integrity and Seal Authority Principle
Professional principle establishing that a licensed engineer's signature and seal on engineering documents certifies that the documents were either personally prepared by that engineer or prepared under their direct control and personal supervision (responsible charge), and that any subsequent modification of sealed documents by any party who did not prepare or exercise responsible charge over those documents fundamentally compromises the integrity and veracity of the professional certification process
[Case 137] Professional principle establishing that a licensed engineer's signature and seal on engineering documents certifies that the documents were either personally prepared by that engineer or prepared under their direct control and personal supervision, and that structural assessments conducted by unlicensed individuals cannot be treated as equivalent to sealed engineering certifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring that a licensed engineer bearing statutory responsible charge over engineering work maintains active, substantive engagement in the creation, review, and verification of that work — not merely nominal oversight — such that the engineer can genuinely vouch for its technical adequacy and compliance with applicable standards
Responsible Charge Non-Delegation of Policy Compliance Obligation
Engineer W tells Engineer Intern D, 'I'll sign off on it.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer bearing responsible charge over a subordinate's design work to refrain from using a promise to 'sign off' on a design revision as a substitute for the engineer's own independent determination that the revision complies with applicable agency policy — recognizing that responsible charge requires active, substantive engagement with the policy compliance of all design decisions, and that a promise to seal a policy-violating design does not discharge the responsible charge obligation but instead compounds the ethical violation.
Responsible Charge Policy Compliance Active Review Capability
Engineer W is the senior DOT engineer responsible for this project. Engineer W delegates the project to Engineer Intern D.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer bearing responsible charge over a subordinate's design work to conduct an active, substantive review of that work for compliance with applicable agency policies — including cost-allocation policies — rather than delegating policy compliance judgment to the subordinate and then offering to 'sign off' on whatever design the subordinate produces, recognizing that responsible charge requires genuine engagement with policy compliance rather than post-hoc ratification.
Responsible Charge Standard Clarification Active State
Were we to decide BER Case 86-2 today, we would conclude that it was not unethical for the engineer in that instance to seal plans that were not personally prepared by him as long as those plans were checked and reviewed by the engineer in some detail
State in which a professional ethics body has issued a clarification or modification of a prior ruling on responsible charge standards, establishing that an engineer need not personally prepare every drawing or document but must conduct a sufficiently detailed check and review of work prepared under the engineer's direction and control. This state reflects a settled but recently clarified normative standard that governs what level of supervisory engagement satisfies the ethical and legal requirements for sealing engineering documents.
Responsible Charge Supervisory Seal Authorization State
State in which a licensed professional engineer signs and seals engineering documents prepared by others working under that engineer's active direction and control, where the engineer has maintained supervisory oversight sufficient to constitute responsible charge under licensure standards — making the sealing ethically and legally permissible, in contrast to situations where the seal is affixed without adequate supervision.
Responsible Charge Verification Constraint
applied their seal consistent with state law
Regulatory and legal constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who affixes their seal to engineering work product — including AI-generated documents — must have exercised active, substantive review and direction over that work product sufficient to establish genuine responsible charge, prohibiting sealing of documents reviewed only cursorily or superficially.
Restricted-Use Infrastructure Enforcement Gap State
State in which a public infrastructure asset — such as a parkway restricted to noncommercial vehicles — is subject to a legal use restriction that is being systematically violated by third parties without adequate enforcement, creating a persistent gap between the legal design parameters of the infrastructure and its actual use conditions, such that engineering work designed for the legally intended use profile may be inadequate or unsafe under actual observed conditions.
Restricted-Use Infrastructure Illegal Third-Party Use Scaffolding Design Safety Constraint
Safety and ethical constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer is tasked with designing temporary inspection or construction scaffolding on a restricted-use public infrastructure asset — such as a noncommercial parkway — where the engineer has personally observed that the restriction is routinely violated by third parties whose illegal use creates a foreseeable collision hazard to scaffolding workers, establishing that the engineer must account for the foreseeable illegal use in the scaffolding design parameters and must not design to the legal restriction alone when actual observed conditions demonstrate that the restriction is not enforced, prohibiting the engineer from treating the posted restriction as a complete safety basis for the design when personal observation establishes that commercial vehicles regularly traverse the restricted route.
Resume-Deceived Prospective Engineering Employer
the method by which prospective employees communicate their credentials, qualifications, experience, etc. to prospective employers
An organizational role borne by a firm or hiring authority that evaluates engineering job applicants based on submitted resumes, and who may be materially misled by intentionally false, exaggerated, or misleading representations of qualifications, credentials, or individual contributions — bearing a legitimate interest in accurate self-representation by applicants so that engineering responsibilities are entrusted only to those genuinely qualified to perform them.
Resume Competitive Employment Context Ethical Stakes Recognition Capability
An employment resume is in many senses a written description of the professional achievements and qualifications of the individual whose name appears at its heading
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize the heightened ethical stakes of resume misrepresentation in the professional employment context — understanding that the resume is the primary screening mechanism by which prospective employers evaluate applicants, that it creates the first and often determinative impression of an engineer's qualifications, and that misrepresentation in this context directly undermines the employer's ability to make informed hiring decisions about engineering competence — thereby appreciating why the NSPE Code's protections against qualification misrepresentation are particularly important in the employment-seeking context.
Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing a resume or professional qualification document to refrain from using the intense competitive pressure of the employment market as a justification for misrepresenting, exaggerating, or intentionally obscuring material facts about the nature, scope, or authorship of prior work — recognizing that while competitive employment pressure is acknowledged as real and significant, it does not constitute an ethical defense for intentionally misleading a prospective employer about the engineer's individual contributions to jointly-designed or team-produced work products.
Resume Emphasis Permissible Boundary Non-Deception Constraint
Defeasible ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who rewrites or restructures a resume to emphasize certain experience and de-emphasize other experience does not violate the duty of non-deception provided the emphasis does not cross into exaggeration or misrepresentation — permitting selective emphasis as an accepted form of professional self-presentation analogous to sales technique, but prohibiting any framing that would deceive a prospective employer about the engineer's actual competence to perform the responsibilities being sought, as established by NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness and non-deception and BER Case No. 72-11, which held that the purpose of the non-deception provision in the resume context is to protect prospective employers from being deceived about an applicant's competence for important engineering decisions.
Resume Experience Balance Proportionality Misrepresentation Constraint
John Doe had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for twelve years, during which time he had been assigned to the performance of highly technical and complex engineering design work.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who restructures a resume to seek employment in a role different from their primary career specialty must preserve accurate proportionality in the representation of their experience balance — prohibiting the systematic de-emphasis of a dominant category of experience (e.g., twelve years of technical design work) and the simultaneous elevation of a minor or incidental category (e.g., minor managerial and administrative functions) to the point where the resume creates a materially false impression about the engineer's actual competence profile; distinguishing between permissible selective emphasis of genuine qualifications and impermissible distortion of the relative weight and character of experience categories that are pertinent to the employer's hiring decision.
Resume Experience Emphasis Reframing State
Doe devised a new resume, which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function
State in which a professional, facing repeated rejection due to a resume that accurately but unfavorably represents their experience profile, restructures the resume to emphasize a legitimate but minor aspect of their background — such as managerial experience — while de-emphasizing a dominant aspect — such as technical design work — in order to qualify for positions in an adjacent role, without making affirmatively false statements, creating a threshold ethical question about whether selective emphasis constitutes deception or permissible self-presentation.
Resume Implication-Based Intentional Deception Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing a resume or professional qualification statement to recognize when a statement — though not explicitly false — is intentionally constructed to create a misleading impression in the mind of a prospective employer, specifically distinguishing between unintentional inaccuracies (which are not per se unethical) and intentionally designed misleading implications (which violate NSPE Code Section II.5.a), and to refrain from the latter category of artful implication-based deception even under competitive employment pressure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer, firm principal, or ethics reviewer to distinguish between (a) inadvertent oversight without malicious intent — where a firm fails to update marketing materials due to logistical inattention rather than purposeful deception — and (b) intentional misrepresentation with the deliberate purpose of enhancing firm qualifications, recognizing that while both may warrant corrective action, only the latter satisfies the dual-element test for an ethics code violation under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, and to calibrate the ethical finding and corrective obligation accordingly.
Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from making implications on a resume, brochure, or professional qualification document that are intended to obscure the truth from a prospective employer — recognizing that the prohibition on misrepresentation under NSPE Code Section II.5.a. encompasses not only explicit false statements but also intentional implications designed to create a false impression, such as implying sole personal responsibility for work that was in fact performed through joint team effort, even when no literally false statement is made.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who participated as one member of a multi-engineer team in the design of products, systems, or projects to refrain from implying on a resume, qualification statement, or professional profile that the engineer was personally and solely responsible for work that was in fact the product of joint team effort — recognizing that even without an explicit false statement, intentional implication of sole authorship through selective framing or omission of team context constitutes a misrepresentation designed to obscure the truth from a prospective employer, and violates the engineer's professional obligation of honesty in all professional representations.
Resume Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
A licensed or credentialed engineer who, while seeking new employment after a layoff or career transition, crafts a resume that materially misrepresents or disproportionately emphasizes certain experience categories (e.g., managerial vs. technical) in a manner that may mislead prospective employers about the engineer's actual qualifications, bearing obligations of honesty and accuracy in self-representation under professional codes.
Resume Omission Materiality Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing a resume or qualification statement for employment purposes to independently assess whether an omission — specifically the failure to disclose co-designers, team membership, or collaborative credit — is material to the prospective employer's evaluation of the engineer's qualifications, applying the standard that an omission is material when a reasonable prospective employer would consider the omitted information significant in assessing the engineer's actual competence, role, and suitability for the position.
Resume Role-Balance Accurate Proportional Representation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer preparing a resume to accurately represent the proportional balance of different types of experience — particularly the ratio of technical design work to managerial and administrative work — ensuring that the overall impression conveyed to a prospective employer reflects the actual distribution of responsibilities across the engineer's career, rather than inverting or distorting that balance through selective de-emphasis and strategic amplification.
Resume Selective Emphasis Misrepresentation Prohibition
Engineer Doe, after failing to find work, rewrote his resume to emphasize minor managerial experience and downplay engineering background
Professional honesty principle prohibiting engineers from crafting resumes, qualification statements, or professional profiles that, through selective emphasis, strategic omission, or misleading framing, create a materially false impression of the engineer's role, contributions, or qualifications — even when every individual statement is literally accurate; the ethical standard requires that the overall portrait conveyed by a resume or qualification document correspond to the engineer's actual experience and contributions
Resume Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is crafting a resume or professional qualification statement to remain within the permissible boundary of selective emphasis — understood as highlighting genuine qualifications and downplaying less relevant experience for a targeted position — without crossing into misrepresentation, exaggeration, or intentional obscuring of material facts that a prospective employer would need to make an informed hiring decision. The permissible zone of emphasis is defined by whether the employer is protected from being deceived as to the engineer's actual competence for the role sought; emphasis that does not deceive the employer about competence is permissible, while emphasis that creates a false impression of qualifications the engineer does not possess crosses into prohibited misrepresentation.
Resume Selective Emphasis vs. Misrepresentation Boundary Discrimination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer crafting a resume or professional qualification statement to correctly distinguish between permissible selective emphasis — highlighting genuine experience and downplaying less relevant experience as an accepted sales technique — and impermissible misrepresentation or exaggeration that deceives a prospective employer about the engineer's actual competence, role, or qualifications, drawing on BER Case 72-11's recognition that emphasis of minor managerial experience to obtain a managerial role may be condoned as a degree of emphasis rather than exaggeration, while understanding the boundary at which such emphasis crosses into deception.
Resume Team Contribution Sole Authorship Misrepresentation Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who participated as one member of a multi-engineer team in the design of products, systems, or projects to refrain from implying on a resume, qualification statement, or professional profile that the engineer was personally and solely responsible for work that was in fact the product of joint team effort — recognizing that even without an explicit false statement, intentional implication of sole authorship through selective framing or omission of team context constitutes a misrepresentation designed to obscure the truth from a prospective employer, and violates the engineer's professional obligation of honesty in all professional representations.
Retained-Engineer Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Constraint Principle
While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, we do not think this would be feasible under the facts.
Domain-specific principle establishing that when an engineer is retained by a contractor or client for a sole and exclusive purpose — such as designing a specific structural element — the engineer cannot discharge the competence obligation by sub-delegating that very task to a third-party specialist, because such sub-delegation would render the original retention meaningless and raise fundamental questions about the value and purpose of the retaining arrangement. The principle constrains the otherwise permissible consulting-practice flexibility of retaining specialists, applying a feasibility and purpose test: sub-delegation is impermissible when it would entirely hollow out the retained engineer's assigned function.
Retained Advocate Chapter Presentation Full Disclosure and Complete Answer Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who appears before a professional society chapter in the dual capacity of retained client advocate and chapter member to: (1) affirmatively explain the full circumstances of the retainer relationship, including who retained the engineer and for what purpose; (2) present the technical findings honestly and without material omission; and (3) answer all questions put to the engineer by chapter members completely and truthfully — recognizing that the chapter's ability to exercise independent judgment on whether to endorse the engineer's position depends entirely on the completeness and honesty of the information provided.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as a faithful agent for a private client in a public regulatory hearing context to recognize the permissible boundary of client-favorable selective emphasis: the engineer may legitimately highlight project benefits and present the project in its best light, but must not suppress, distort, or affirmatively misrepresent material facts about adverse public welfare impacts — with the key ethical test being whether the presentation, taken as a whole, would leave the regulatory body with a materially false impression of the project's net public welfare effects, rather than merely an incomplete one that other witnesses or the board's own inquiry can supplement.
Retained Advocate Member Dual-Role Transparency Disclosure Capability
Engineer B, a partner in the same firm as Engineer A, appears before the local chapter of the state society of which he is a member, explains the circumstances of the project, answers all questions asked of him
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously occupies the role of retained advocate for a private client and dues-paying member of a professional society chapter to proactively disclose both roles — including the identity of the retaining client, the nature of the engagement, and the financial relationship — before or at the outset of any presentation to that chapter, so that chapter members can appropriately weigh the presentation with full knowledge of the presenter's dual status and potential conflict of interest.
Retained Advocate Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Conflict Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who is a dues-paying member of a professional society chapter and simultaneously a retained advocate for a private client may not solicit that chapter's public endorsement of a technical position that directly serves the client's interest without fully disclosing the retainer relationship, and that even with full disclosure, the solicitation creates an appearance of impropriety that the chapter must independently evaluate — prohibiting the engineer from leveraging professional society membership to amplify client advocacy in a manner that exploits the chapter's institutional credibility for private client benefit.
Retained Engineer Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is both a dues-paying member of a professional society chapter and a retained advocate for a client position to recognize that soliciting the chapter's public endorsement of a technically grounded engineering conclusion — by appearing before the chapter, fully explaining the project circumstances, and answering all questions — is ethically permissible, provided the engineer: (1) discloses the retainer relationship and client identity; (2) presents findings honestly and completely without suppressing material adverse information; (3) answers all questions truthfully; and (4) does not misuse the membership relationship to bypass the chapter's independent judgment or to obtain an endorsement through improper influence.
Retained Engineer Public Hearing Advocacy-Objectivity Balance Principle
Professional principle establishing that an engineer retained by a private developer to present a project before a public regulatory body occupies a hybrid role — simultaneously serving as the client's professional representative and as a technically responsible professional whose statements carry independent credibility before the public body — and that this dual character requires the engineer to present information truthfully and without deception, while permitting the engineer to emphasize favorable aspects of the project, provided the engineer does not suppress material adverse information that is relevant and pertinent to the regulatory decision and would not otherwise reach the decision-maker through the public hearing process.
Retained Engineer Selective Emphasis Environmental Benefit Non-Deceptive Presentation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a private developer to present a project at a public regulatory hearing to ensure that selective emphasis on the project's environmental benefits — such as conversion of industrial waterfront to parkland — does not, in context, create a materially false or deceptive impression about the project's overall public welfare effects, recognizing that while the engineer may legitimately highlight benefits consistent with the client's interests, the presentation must not be structured so as to affirmatively mislead the regulatory body about the existence or magnitude of known adverse impacts such as increased traffic, noise, and air pollution.
Retained Expert Impugning Opposing Engineer Prohibition Constraint
As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality's expert witness.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding from producing a technical report that serves no evident engineering purpose except to impugn the professional reputation or conclusions of the opposing engineer — establishing that a report structured primarily to discredit the opposing engineer, rather than to provide objective technical analysis, constitutes a violation of the NSPE Code prohibition against maliciously or falsely injuring the professional reputation of another engineer, and that the adversarial retention context does not authorize the production of a report whose primary function is reputational injury rather than technical illumination.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from attempting to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of another engineer — including through critical commentary made in a competitive procurement context where the critiquing engineer stands to benefit from the reputational damage caused — establishing that the prohibition applies regardless of whether the engineer believes the criticism to be truthful, when the criticism is offered without full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances and in a context structured to benefit the critiquing engineer competitively, as established by NSPE Code Section III.7 and BER Case 01-1.
Retained Legislative Witness Client-Advocacy Boundary Self-Calibration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a client (public agency or private company) to testify before a legislative committee to correctly calibrate the permissible boundary between legitimate client-favorable advocacy — including selective emphasis on supporting data and criticism of opposing analyses — and impermissible conduct such as misrepresentation, suppression of material contrary evidence, or personal attacks on opposing engineers, recognizing that the engineer's primary duty to the public and to the legislative body constrains but does not eliminate the engineer's role as a retained advocate for the client's technical position.
Retained Legislative Witness Data Completeness and Factual Grounding Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a legislative committee as a retained witness for a client must submit voluminous and complete engineering data in support of the position advocated, and must ground all technical opinions in established facts and completed professional analysis — prohibiting the submission of incomplete, selectively curated, or factually unsupported data to a legislative body, and establishing that the completeness and factual grounding obligations apply with equal force regardless of which party retained the engineer or which technical position the engineer advocates, as established by NSPE Canon 7 and the principle that engineers must be informed as to the facts before publicly expressing technical opinions.
Retained Legislative Witness Engineer Data-Submission Completeness Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who testifies before a legislative committee as a retained witness for a client (public agency or private company) to submit voluminous, complete, and technically rigorous engineering data in support of the engineer's position, ensuring that the legislative body has access to the full evidentiary basis for the engineer's conclusions rather than selective summaries, so that the legislature can make an informed policy decision on matters of public welfare such as water supply, flood control, and electric power production.
Retainer Relationship Disclosure to Peer Body Before Endorsement Solicitation Obligation
We also assume that there is no question concerning compliance with Section 4(a) regarding disclosure of the party on whose behalf Engineers A and B are stating a position on a matter of public policy.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who appears before a professional society chapter to solicit endorsement of a technical position to affirmatively disclose, prior to or at the outset of the presentation, that the engineer has been retained by a private interest group with a particular point of view on the matter — including the identity of the retaining party and the nature of the retainer — so that chapter members can exercise independent professional judgment with full awareness of the engineer's advocacy role and potential personal interest in the outcome.
Retaining Attorney Expert Witness Licensure Verification Capability
Capability of an attorney who retains a licensed professional engineer as a forensic expert or consultant to verify whether the retained engineer holds the licensure required by the jurisdiction in which the expert opinion or testimony will be offered — including understanding applicable state licensing statutes governing expert witness qualifications, proactively inquiring about the retained expert's licensure status in the relevant jurisdiction, and taking corrective action (such as obtaining a licensed expert or facilitating licensure) when a licensure gap is identified.
Retired Inspector Unlicensed Engineering Practice Determination and Reporting Obligation
Engineer A also should have determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that a retired inspector — who is not a licensed engineer — has been directed by a non-engineer official to examine safety-critical infrastructure and whose assessment has been used to justify reopening closed infrastructure, to determine whether those activities constitute the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and if so, to report the activity to the state engineering licensure board.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that an unlicensed individual has been directed to perform what may constitute the practice of engineering — such as a retired bridge inspector conducting a structural assessment used to justify reopening a closed bridge — to determine whether that activity constitutes the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and if so, to report the activity to the state engineering licensure board, so that the public is protected from unqualified engineering assessments being used to make safety-critical infrastructure decisions.
Retired Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Conducting Structural Assessment
a retired bridge inspector, who was not an engineer, examine the bridge
A retired bridge inspector without a professional engineering license who is directed by a non-engineer public official to conduct a structural assessment of a condemned bridge and whose findings are used to justify reopening the structure with a weight restriction, thereby engaging in unlicensed engineering practice and triggering reporting obligations for licensed engineers who observe the conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A retired bridge inspector without a professional engineering license who is directed by a non-engineer public official to conduct a structural assessment of compromised bridge infrastructure and whose findings are used to justify reopening the structure, thereby engaging in unlicensed engineering practice and triggering reporting obligations for licensed engineers who observe the conduct.
Retroactive Disclosure Career Jeopardy State
State in which a professional who has withheld personal information (such as a medical condition or disability) throughout their employment history now contemplates voluntary disclosure, where the act of disclosure itself — rather than the underlying condition — creates a risk of adverse professional consequences, including employer bias, career limitation, or termination, because the disclosure reveals the prior non-disclosure and may be interpreted as a breach of trust or deceptive conduct, even if the original non-disclosure was legally and ethically permissible.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional has made a legally or ethically permissible choice not to disclose information that would have been prudent to disclose — such as prior exam failures or past difficulties — and that non-disclosure, while not constituting an ethical violation, has created a materially weakened professional and relational position with the employer, such that if the undisclosed risk materializes (e.g., another exam failure), the professional faces amplified consequences including potential employment termination without the goodwill or negotiating position that full prior disclosure would have established.
Retrofitted Code Compliance Installation Defect Disclosure Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint arising when a mandatory code-compliance retrofit — such as a sprinkler system required by a newly enacted municipal ordinance — is installed in a manner that violates applicable installation standards, requiring that any licensed professional engineer with relevant credentials who observes the defective installation must disclose the deficiency to the property owner and the responsible installer, prohibiting silence on the grounds that the retrofit was the builder's responsibility rather than the engineer's contracted scope.
Retrofitted Code Compliance Installation Defect State
City passes an ordinance requiring a sprinkler system in residences with less than eight feet between them
State in which a mandatory code-compliance retrofit — required by a newly enacted ordinance applicable to projects not yet receiving occupancy permits — has been installed in a manner that introduces a new safety hazard (such as freeze exposure of sprinkler piping through an unheated space), such that the retrofit itself, intended to improve safety, creates a distinct and foreseeable risk of system failure or harm.
Review-Recommendation Non-Decision Dual-Role Permissibility Boundary Constraint
The Board found that Engineer A did not actually participate in 'decisions' with respect to services solicited or provided by him or his organization in private or public engineering practice but rather reviewed, recommended, formulated, and oversaw plans.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that under the amended NSPE Code Section II.4.d, a licensed professional engineer serving simultaneously in multiple public advisory and administrative roles (such as county engineer, city engineer, airport authority project administrator, and block grant administrator) does not violate the conflict-of-interest prohibition when the engineer's activities are limited to reviewing, recommending, formulating, and overseeing plans — rather than actually participating in 'decisions' with respect to services solicited or provided by the engineer or the engineer's organization — establishing that the critical distinction between permissible dual-role advisory activity and impermissible conflict-of-interest participation turns on whether the engineer exercises final decision-making authority or merely provides recommendations to decision-making bodies, as established by BER Case 82-4.
Review-Recommendation Non-Decision Dual-Role Permissibility Boundary Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving simultaneously in multiple public agency roles (county engineer, city engineer, airport authority administrator, block grant administrator) and providing private consulting services to recognize and apply the distinction between permissible activities — reviewing, recommending, formulating, and overseeing plans without making final decisions — and impermissible activities — actually participating in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by the engineer or the engineer's organization — and to structure dual-role engagements so that the engineer's activities remain within the review-and-recommendation category rather than crossing into decision-making authority over matters in which the engineer has a private interest.
Review-Recommendation vs Decision Dual-Role Permissibility Boundary Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving simultaneously in multiple public agency roles (county engineer, city engineer, airport authority project administrator, city block grant administrator) and providing private consulting services to recognize and correctly apply the distinction between 'reviewing, recommending, formulating, and overseeing plans' — which may be permissible under amended Code provisions — and actually 'participating in decisions' with respect to services solicited or provided by the engineer in private practice — which constitutes a prohibited conflict of interest — and to structure dual-role activities so that the engineer does not cross from the permissible review-recommendation function into the prohibited decision-making function.
Review-and-Recommendation Versus Decision-Making Distinction in Conflict Analysis
Engineer A did not actually participate in 'decisions' with respect to services solicited or provided by him or his organization in private or public engineering practice but rather reviewed, recommended, formulated, and oversaw plans
Domain-specific principle establishing that for purposes of conflict of interest analysis in public engineering roles, there is a material ethical distinction between an engineer who makes formal decisions on behalf of a public body and an engineer who reviews, recommends, formulates, or oversees plans without making final decisions — with the latter category potentially permissible even where the former would constitute a prohibited conflict, because the decision-making authority is the locus of the conflict risk
Review Without Malicious Intent Confirmed State
State in which a reviewing engineer has conducted an assessment of a prior engineer's work and there is no showing — based on available information — that the review was undertaken with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of the original engineer. This state distinguishes legitimate professional criticism resulting in adverse findings from maliciously motivated attacks on a peer's reputation, and determines that the reviewing engineer's conduct falls within the bounds of permissible professional review rather than the category of conduct prohibited by professional codes barring false or malicious injury to another engineer's reputation.
Reviewed Engineer Consent Refusal Override Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when an engineer whose work is subject to a legitimately commissioned peer review — particularly one triggered by confirmed design errors in prior work — refuses to consent to that review, establishing that such refusal does not extinguish the client's right to commission the review or the reviewing engineer's authority to proceed, and constraining the reviewed engineer from treating consent refusal as an absolute veto over a legitimately ordered peer review when public safety concerns provide independent justification for the review.
State in which the engineer whose work is subject to peer review has been notified of the review but has explicitly withheld or refused consent to the peer review proceeding, creating tension between the reviewed engineer's assertion of control over evaluation of their work and the client's authority to commission independent review of work product delivered under contract.
State in which an engineer whose work is subject to peer review, having been notified of the review, refuses or fails to cooperate with the peer reviewer, despite known design defects in prior work and obligations to take responsibility for professional actions, acknowledge errors, and act in the best interests of the client and public — making non-cooperation an ethical violation rather than a permissible exercise of professional discretion.
Reviewed Engineer Technical Comment Opportunity Preservation Obligation
the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit...comments or explanations for...technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing comments or suggestions for the benefit of the client
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to review another engineer's work for the same client to ensure that the reviewed engineer has an opportunity to submit comments or explanations for technical decisions made in the original design, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design before framing comments or suggestions for the benefit of the client — recognizing that the purpose of the peer notification requirement under NSPE Code Section III.8.a. is not merely procedural courtesy but substantively serves the quality and completeness of the review itself.
Reviewing Engineer Competence Boundary Recognition Failure State
State in which an engineer assigned to review another engineer's work product lacks the technical competence to perform an adequate review — and fails to recognize that limitation or fails to escalate to a supervisor for reassignment to a competent reviewer — resulting in approval of deficient work product that the reviewing engineer was not qualified to evaluate, constituting a Code violation not for the incompetence itself but for the failure to recognize and address it.
Reviewing Engineer Concurrence-Based Reporting Discharge Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer who independently discovered peer misconduct (Engineer R) is in a position where another engineer (Engineer A) has taken the lead in reporting to the State Board — establishing that the discovering engineer's independent reporting obligation may be discharged through formal concurrence in the lead engineer's report, but prohibiting the discovering engineer from treating the other engineer's anticipated or possible report as a complete substitute for independent action when it is uncertain whether the lead engineer will in fact report, and requiring the discovering engineer to independently report if the lead engineer fails to do so.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint arising when multiple licensed professional engineers have independently discovered or been informed of the same peer licensee's violations — establishing that when one engineer (such as the referring engineer) takes the lead in reporting to the State Board, the other discovering engineer's independent reporting obligation may be discharged through concurrence in that report, but prohibiting the discovering engineer from treating the other engineer's anticipated report as a complete substitute for independent action when it is uncertain whether the lead engineer will in fact report.
Reviewing Engineer Employment Acquisition Through Predecessor Criticism State
State in which a reviewing engineer obtains a professional engagement — specifically an inspection and assessment assignment — in a context where the new owner's decision to retain the reviewing engineer is informed by or connected to dissatisfaction with the original engineer's work, raising the ethical question of whether the reviewing engineer's criticism of the predecessor's design constitutes an improper method of obtaining employment or a legitimate exercise of professional judgment.
Reviewing Engineer Self-Interest Disclosure in Post-Occupancy Inspection Constraint
Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who conducts a post-occupancy inspection and recommends remedial work — where the engineer stands to benefit commercially from the recommended remediation (e.g., by being retained to design and oversee the recommended higher-capacity equipment installation) — must disclose this potential self-interest to the client, and must ensure that the recommendation is grounded in genuine technical necessity rather than commercial self-interest; the constraint establishes that the appearance of self-serving recommendations in post-occupancy inspection reports creates an ethical obligation of heightened transparency and objectivity.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is a direct competitor for an upcoming contract from providing critical evaluative opinions about the incumbent engineer's specific professional decisions to the client authority who holds procurement influence — when the engineer is fully aware that answering in a critical perspective would serve as a pretext to gaining competitive advantage — establishing that awareness of competitive self-interest does not merely require disclosure but affirmatively prohibits substantive critical participation, as established by NSPE Code Sections III.6 and III.7 and BER case precedent on competitor disparagement in procurement contexts.
Revolving Door Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who transitions from a senior public agency role with contracting authority over private AE firms to a position at one of those firms to proactively disclose the nature and extent of their prior public authority relationship to all relevant stakeholders — including the municipality, the new employer, and prospective clients — so that conflicts of interest arising from the revolving door transition can be identified, evaluated, and appropriately managed.
Revolving Door Conflict Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize when a transition from a senior public agency role with contracting authority to a private firm that benefited from that authority creates a conflict of interest — including identifying the specific relationships, contract histories, and authority patterns that constitute a revolving door situation — and to correctly classify the ethical and professional obligations triggered by that recognition, including disclosure, recusal, and employment acceptance integrity obligations.
Revolving Door Conflict Temporal Assessment Capability
Unlike Case 14-8 where the transition literally happened in the midst of the project for which the Board was rendering an opinion, in the present case the transition is implied to have been earlier, possibly many years ago.
Capability to assess whether the elapsed time since transitioning from a private firm to a public agency role is sufficient to extinguish or diminish conflict of interest obligations — including applying temporal thresholds (e.g., less than one year versus multiple years) to determine whether recusal, disclosure, or other remedial action is required when reviewing former employer work products, drawing on BER precedent such as Case 14-8 to calibrate the temporal analysis.
Revolving Door Employment Acceptance Integrity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a senior public agency role with contracting authority over private AE firms to refrain from accepting employment at a private AE firm that has benefited from contracts awarded or supervised during the engineer's public tenure, unless and until a sufficient cooling-off period has elapsed or adequate conflict-of-interest safeguards have been established and disclosed, so that the engineer's public authority is not converted into private competitive advantage.
The City does not include 'revolving door' provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees
Municipal or governmental policies, contractual provisions, or regulatory frameworks that restrict or govern the movement of senior public officials or employees into private-sector roles where they may exploit relationships, insider knowledge, or influence developed during public service, particularly in contexts involving procurement and contract award authority
Engineer D who resigned the position as City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality, and shortly thereafter accepted the position of 'associate' at Firm AE&R, a consultant with whom Engineer D would have regularly interacted during tenure with the City
State in which a former high-level government official or public-sector engineer has left public employment and accepted a position with a private firm with which they regularly interacted, contracted, or had procurement authority during their public tenure, creating ongoing ethical obligations regarding objectivity, confidentiality, and fair dealing even in the absence of a formal legal revolving-door prohibition.
Engineer D announced plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicated that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm
A senior licensed professional engineering role held by a public official who transitions from a municipal engineering leadership position to private employment with a firm that conducted business with the municipality during their tenure, generating ethical obligations regarding conflicts of interest, public trust, and the spirit of professional conduct codes even absent explicit contractual prohibitions.
BER Case 23-3 discussed Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, who worked as the City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality... Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announced Engineer D as a newly hired associate. AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer
Ethical constraint prohibiting or limiting a licensed professional engineer who previously held a public agency role with procurement or contract authority from immediately joining or representing private firms that conducted substantial business with that agency during their tenure, arising from the spirit of ethics codes requiring purity of enterprise and avoidance of dishonor to the profession, even in the absence of explicit contractual revolving door provisions.
Revolving Door Government-to-Competitor Employment Conflict Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer transitions from a government agency role — in which the engineer held regulatory approval authority and received confidential proprietary submissions from private companies — to employment with a private firm that is a direct competitor of those submitting companies, establishing that this revolving door transition creates a structural conflict of interest that constrains the engineer's permissible scope of work at the new employer, requires immediate disclosure of the conflict to the new employer, and prohibits the engineer from participating in work that would exploit or be adverse to the interests of the companies whose confidential information the engineer accessed in the regulatory role, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4 and BER Cases 82-6 and 85-4.
Professional principle requiring engineers who transition from public agency roles with contracting authority to private firms that were subject to that authority to abstain from leveraging insider relationships, privileged information, or positional influence to benefit their new private employer, thereby protecting the integrity of public procurement and public trust in government engineering functions
members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
A licensed professional engineering role held by a public official who previously worked for a private engineering firm that now submits design documents for review and approval by that official, generating ethical obligations regarding conflicts of interest, recusal, and the appearance of impropriety even when the transition occurred well before the current project.
Revolving Door Recusal Obligation Assessment Capability
Capability held by a public agency engineer who previously worked for a private firm to assess whether their prior employment relationship with that firm creates a conflict of interest requiring recusal from reviewing, approving, or overseeing that firm's work products submitted to the public agency — including the ability to identify the applicable professional ethics provisions governing such conflicts, assess the appearance of impropriety, and take appropriate remedial action including recusal or disclosure to supervisory authority.
Revolving Door Regulatory Gap Navigation Capability
Capability to recognize when formal institutional safeguards — such as revolving door provisions, cooling-off period clauses, or conflict-of-interest policies — are absent from employment contracts or agency regulations, and to apply professional ethics codes and general principles of honorable conduct to fill that regulatory gap, maintaining ethical standards that exceed the minimum required by formal rules when those rules are silent or inadequate.
Righting-Wrong-With-Wrong Recognition and Communication Capability
Engineer A should make it plain and clear to the chairman that 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' does grave damage to the public health and safety (See Code Section III.1.b.)
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed course of action — even one motivated by genuine public benefit — constitutes 'righting a wrong with another wrong,' and to articulate this principle clearly to institutional authorities, explaining that two concurrent wrongs do not produce a net ethical right and that the integrity of professional and regulatory standards cannot be compromised even to remedy a separate deficiency.
Capability to clearly and completely communicate identified or estimated risks — including preliminary, qualitative, or uncertain risks — to clients in a timely and ethically complete manner, including during project interruptions or transitions
Risk Imminence Comparative Case Calibration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to compare the imminence, breadth, and severity of a current safety risk against prior BER precedent cases — specifically distinguishing between situations requiring a 'full-bore' multi-authority escalation campaign (imminent, widespread danger as in BER 00-5) versus situations requiring a more limited, graduated escalation (real but non-imminent, localized danger as in BER 07-10 and the present scaffolding case) — and to correctly calibrate the scope, urgency, and intensity of the professional response accordingly.
Risk Imminence and Breadth Calibrated Escalation Scope Capability
In reaching its conclusion, the Board distinguished BER Case 00-5 from BER Case 07-10, noting that the facts and circumstances of BER Case 07-10 were different in several respects from those in BER Case 00-5.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety risk to calibrate the scope, intensity, and breadth of the escalation campaign proportionately to the assessed imminence and potential breadth of the danger — distinguishing between situations requiring a full-bore multi-authority campaign (imminent, widespread risk) and situations requiring a more limited, graduated escalation (real but non-imminent, localized risk) — and to correctly apply that calibration to determine the appropriate level of response in each case.
Risk Management Team Convening and Coordination Capability
Capability to recognize when a confirmed or acknowledged design error with public safety or property damage implications requires convening a multi-party risk management response — including identifying the appropriate internal and external stakeholders (firm risk management team, client, insurer, regulatory authority), initiating the convening process, and coordinating collective deliberation about fault allocation, corrective design, and remediation strategy, consistent with professional obligations under NSPE Code III.1.a and III.8.
Risk Mitigation Option Exploration Before Deployment Recommendation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer serving on an engineering risk assessment team who has identified safety concerns about a proposed system must explore all available additional potential technical options that could mitigate the identified risks before recommending deployment — prohibiting the engineer from recommending deployment without first exhausting available risk mitigation alternatives, and establishing that the obligation to explore mitigation options is a prerequisite to any deployment recommendation when unresolved safety concerns exist.
Risk Severity Threshold Intervention Scope Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that the scope and intensity of a licensed professional engineer's intervention obligation upon observing a potential safety risk is calibrated to the severity and imminence of that risk — establishing that clearly hazardous conditions (such as sparking wires or carbon monoxide release) trigger a broader intervention duty including notification of public authorities, while potential risks of lower imminence (such as freeze risk causing sprinkler inoperability and property damage) trigger a narrower duty limited to written notification of the client, prohibiting both over-intervention (treating all potential risks as imminent public safety emergencies) and under-intervention (treating all potential risks as outside the scope of professional obligation).
Risk Threshold Calibration Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes a potential safety deficiency to calibrate the applicable reporting obligation to the nature, imminence, and severity of the identified risk — distinguishing between conditions that pose clear and immediate threats to public health, safety, and welfare (triggering a mandatory public welfare paramount reporting duty) and conditions that pose indirect, contingent, or property-damage-level risks (triggering a faithful agent and project success notification duty to the client) — and to fulfill the appropriate level of obligation based on that calibrated assessment, without either over-escalating conditions that do not rise to the public welfare threshold or under-reporting conditions that do.
Risk Threshold Calibration in Public Safety Reporting
Professional principle requiring engineers to calibrate their public safety reporting obligations to the nature, imminence, and severity of the identified risk, distinguishing between (a) clear and imminent risks to life safety that unambiguously trigger mandatory reporting, (b) risks to property and system functionality that trigger faithful agent notification obligations, and (c) speculative or de minimis risks that do not independently generate reporting duties — and to apply the appropriate obligation to each category
[Case 73] Professional principle requiring engineers to calibrate their public safety reporting obligations to the nature, imminence, and severity of the identified risk, distinguishing between clear and imminent risks to life safety, risks to property and system functionality, and speculative or de minimis risks — and to apply the appropriate obligation to each category.
Role-Differentiated Safety Escalation Scope Principle
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that the scope, intensity, and reach of an engineer's public safety escalation campaign must be calibrated not only to the imminence and breadth of the risk, but also to the engineer's professional role relationship to the hazard — such that an engineer with specific assigned institutional responsibility for a public asset (e.g., a public employee bridge engineer) bears a broader and more intensive escalation obligation than an engineer who encounters the hazard incidentally or as a private individual without assigned responsibility, even when the underlying safety concern is genuine in both cases.
Rolling Blackout Risk Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, while conducting technical analysis of an energy system replacement proposal, learns from qualified utility resource planners that the proposed system change may increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events, to include that risk prominently and completely in any board report or advisory document prepared for organizational decision-makers, so that the decision-makers can evaluate the proposal with full awareness of its potential systemic grid impacts and public welfare consequences.
Route Alternative Complete Comparative Analysis Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to specify a road route to present all workable route alternatives completely and objectively — including the shortest route requiring eminent domain of a historic property, longer routes avoiding the property, and any hybrid alternatives — with a full comparative analysis of travel time savings, property impacts, historic resource consequences, cost, and public welfare tradeoffs, so that the client can make a fully informed route selection decision rather than receiving only the engineer's preferred option.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a public agency to evaluate and specify the alignment or route for a public transportation infrastructure project, bearing obligations to identify technically optimal solutions, consider impacts on private property and historic resources, advise the client of all viable alternatives including those requiring eminent domain or property acquisition, and balance engineering efficiency with community and property-owner interests.
Route Selection Multi-Criteria Comparative Analysis Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained by a public agency to specify a road route to conduct and present a systematic multi-criteria comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives — including evaluation of travel time savings, construction cost, land acquisition requirements, historic property impacts, environmental impacts, and community effects — and to present the results of that analysis in a manner that enables informed decision-making by the public agency client, without privileging any single criterion over others without explicit client direction.
Routine Practice Non-Justification for Confidentiality Breach Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a habitual, customary, or routine professional practice — such as routinely copying inspection reports to real estate firms as a matter of professional courtesy or standard operating procedure — does not constitute ethical justification for breaching client confidentiality, and to correctly apply the principle that the existence of a routine practice does not transform an ethically impermissible disclosure into a permissible one, thereby requiring the engineer to evaluate each disclosure against the confidentiality obligation rather than relying on custom or habit as a defense.
Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for the design of rural roadway infrastructure, including geometric design, quantity estimation, and preparation of construction documents, bearing obligations to ensure designs are technically sound, quantities accurately calculated, and construction-period issues foreseeable and addressed in design.
Rural Roadway Design Technical Competence
County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season.
Technical capability to design rural roadway infrastructure in accordance with applicable geometric design standards, quantity estimation methods, drainage requirements, and construction administration practices — including accurate calculation of earthwork quantities, pavement design, horizontal and vertical alignment, and field revision management — sufficient to produce a design that can be constructed within budget and without significant field revisions.
SOQ Amendment and Modification Procedure Standard
Professional norms, procedural rules, and ethical obligations governing whether and under what conditions a firm may amend or modify its statement of qualifications after initial submission in a qualification-based selection procurement process, including the conditions under which such modifications are permissible, the obligation to extend equal amendment opportunity to all competing firms, and the ethical implications of requesting mid-process changes to a qualification proposal.
SOQ Submittal Deadline Compliance Standard
Professional norms, procedural rules, and ethical obligations governing the enforcement of statement of qualifications submittal deadlines in qualification-based selection procurement processes, including the conditions under which late submittals may or must be rejected, the obligations of public agency engineers to treat all competing firms equitably, and the ethical implications of accepting or forwarding a late submittal received in the wrong office.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional norms, ethical obligations, and regulatory standards governing the equitable treatment of all bidders in public engineering procurement processes, including the obligation to provide all material information — such as existing drawings, site conditions, and technical documentation — to all prospective bidders simultaneously and prior to bid submission, so that bids are prepared on a consistent informational basis.
Safety-Concern-Dismissing Design Authority
A management or organizational authority role within a design firm that, upon receiving notification from a production firm's engineers of safety-critical deficiencies in its engineers' plans and specifications, dismisses those concerns, asserts the adequacy of the original design, and directs the production firm to proceed with manufacturing — thereby prioritizing organizational confidence in its own engineers over independent safety findings and generating a conflict between commercial interests and public safety obligations.
Safety-Critical Software Design Engineer
Engineer A was employed by a software company and was involved in the design of specialized software in connection with the operations of facilities affecting the public health and safety
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is employed by a software company to design specialized software for facilities or systems affecting public health and safety (e.g., nuclear, air quality control, water quality control), bearing obligations to conduct thorough safety testing, monitor emerging draft standards, prepare technical reports on testing results and new standards, and recommend additional testing to the employer when new procedures may reveal safety concerns—even when such testing is costly and commercially inconvenient—so that the employer can make an informed decision in furtherance of public health, safety, and welfare.
Safety-Critical Software Informed Employer Decision Enablement Obligation
Engineer A would be well advised to prepare a technical report explaining the current testing analysis and results, as well as referencing the new testing procedure that had been recently reported in the professional literature, so that the engineer's employer could make an informed decision regarding additional testing
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a software company to design safety-critical software — particularly software affecting nuclear, air quality, or water quality facilities — who becomes aware of new draft testing standards that the software may not meet, to prepare a technical report explaining current testing results and referencing the new testing procedures reported in professional literature, so that the employer can make a fully informed decision about the need for additional testing in furtherance of public health, safety, and welfare.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been engaged to evaluate an energy system replacement proposal and has determined that the proposed system — while producing equivalent energy at similar cost — will not be as reliable as the existing system and will decrease the reliability of the entire local electric power system, to present that reliability differential prominently and completely in a written report to the organizational board, so that the board can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with the proposed replacement, invest in storage capacity, or maintain the existing generation capability.
Safety-Critical Software New Draft Standard Ethical Balancing Capability
Engineer A's ethical obligations in Case 96-4 involved balancing a variety of ethical and other business considerations and making a recommendation based solely on technical finding (and not business considerations) to permit the company to make an informed decision about the need for additional testing in furtherance of the public health, safety, and welfare.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in safety-critical software design to recognize when awareness of a newly emerging draft testing standard — not yet formally adopted — creates an ethical obligation to balance technical findings, business pressures, and public welfare considerations, and to correctly determine that the technical recommendation must be made solely on technical grounds while business and financial considerations are addressed separately and transparently to enable informed employer decision-making.
Safety-Discovering Manufacturing Review Engineer
The engineers of Company 'B' in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations and technical deficiencies
A professional engineering role in which engineers employed by a production or manufacturing firm, upon reviewing plans and specifications received from a design firm, identify miscalculations and technical deficiencies that render the equipment potentially unsuitable for its intended use and hazardous to persons in proximity, escalate those findings to their employer's officials, and face employer instructions to proceed with production despite unresolved safety concerns — generating a conflict between employer loyalty and paramount public safety obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A professional engineering role in which a group of engineers, believing that certain machinery or industrial processes are unsafe, exercise their ethical right to refuse participation in the processing or production of the product in question, accepting the likely consequence of loss of employment as the cost of upholding their professional obligation to public safety.
Safety-Domain Cross-License Integrity Heightened Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm
Ethical constraint establishing that when a professional engineer's non-engineering license revocation arose from misconduct in a safety-critical domain (such as fire protection, structural contracting, or electrical work), the materiality of that revocation for employment application disclosure purposes is heightened — requiring the engineer to recognize that a prospective engineering employer would consider the revocation especially material given the overlap between the safety-critical contracting domain and the engineer's professional responsibilities, and prohibiting the engineer from treating the revocation as a private matter unrelated to professional fitness.
Safety-Domain Integrity Violation Heightened Materiality State
State in which a professional engineer's integrity-relevant misconduct (such as a contractor license revocation) is rendered especially material to employer or client disclosure obligations because the misconduct occurred in a domain directly related to public safety — specifically, where the engineer's contractor work involved fire protection or life-safety systems, making the integrity violation not merely a character issue but a direct indicator of potential risk to the safety, health, and welfare of the public that the engineer is now employed to protect.
Safety-Finding-Omitting Sub-Consultant Bridge Inspector
Engineer A notices an apparent pre-existing defective condition in the wall close to where the accident involving Police Officer B occurred.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer retained as a sub-consultant for a narrowly scoped bridge inspection observes an out-of-scope structural defect with potential public safety implications, verbally reports it to the prime consultant chain, but then — at the direction of the client — omits the finding from the final written report and fails to escalate to any independent public authority, bearing obligations to document safety-relevant findings in formal reports and to escalate to appropriate authorities when the client suppresses safety-critical information.
Safety-Implicated Permit Refusal Engagement Non-Withdrawal Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a regulatory capacity who has refused to issue a permit or approval on public health and safety grounds must remain engaged in the matter — submitting findings to superiors, documenting the basis for refusal, and standing by the professional safety determination — prohibiting withdrawal from further work on the project as a means of avoiding the conflict, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare requires continued engagement and advocacy for the safety position even after the employing agency has overridden the refusal and authorized issuance of the permit, as established by BER Case 92-4 and the principle that engineers must 'stick to their guns' and represent the public interest when public health and safety are at stake.
Safety-Inclusive Project Success Interpretation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the concept of 'project success' — as used in NSPE Code Section III.1.b, which requires engineers to inform clients when they believe a project will not be successful — encompasses not merely structural and economic success but also success from a safety standpoint, and to apply this safety-inclusive interpretation when advising clients about project viability and the consequences of refusing safety-critical recommendations.
Safety-Inclusive Project Success Interpretation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to interpret the concept of 'project success' — as used in NSPE Code Section III.1.b's requirement to advise clients when a project will not be successful — to encompass not only structural and economic success but also safety success for the public, such that the engineer must advise the client when the project as planned will not achieve its safety objectives, even if it may be technically or economically completed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of an engineer to advise clients or employers when the engineer believes a project will not be successful, where 'success' encompasses not only structural and economic outcomes but also safety outcomes for the public.
Company 'B' in reviewing the plans and specifications came to the conclusion that they included certain miscalculations
An employer authority role within a production or manufacturing firm that receives escalated safety concerns from its own engineers regarding deficiencies in externally-prepared plans and specifications, relays those concerns to the originating design firm, and upon receiving dismissal from that firm, instructs its engineers to proceed with production of potentially hazardous equipment — thereby prioritizing contractual compliance and business relationships over the safety findings of its own professional engineering staff.
A private product manufacturing company stakeholder role that employs engineers in product design and safety testing, bears authority over product development decisions including the scope of safety testing, and rejects engineer recommendations for additional safety testing on grounds of cost and schedule, thereby generating a conflict between the engineer's paramount public safety obligations and the employer's commercial interests.
Safety-Suppressing Non-Engineer Municipal Administrator
City Administrator C has told Engineer A that 'we will face the problem when it comes'
A non-licensed municipal administrative official who serves as direct supervisor to a city engineer, actively suppresses the engineer's internal and external safety escalation efforts regarding known infrastructure hazards, reassigns engineering responsibilities to an unlicensed technician to circumvent the engineer's professional judgment, and threatens or imposes employment sanctions to enforce silence — thereby generating conflicts between institutional authority and the engineer's professional obligations to the public.
Safety Closure Enforcement Failure State
On the following Monday, the barricades were found dumped in the river, and the 'Bridge Closed' sign was found beyond the trees by the roadway.
State in which physical safety barriers erected by a licensed engineer to protect the public from a known structural hazard have been removed, destroyed, or circumvented by members of the public or unknown parties, and no adequate enforcement mechanism has been activated to restore or maintain the closure — such that the structure remains accessible to the public despite the documented safety risk, and the responsible engineer must determine whether and how to escalate enforcement.
Safety Code Grandfathering Concurrence Refusal Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public building inspection or code enforcement role to recognize when a proposed ordinance or policy would grandfather specified buildings under older, less protective code requirements — thereby reducing the level of public health and safety protection — and to refuse to concur with such grandfathering, even when the refusal may result in loss of institutional benefits or resources, understanding that newer, more rigorous code requirements exist specifically to enhance public safety and cannot be selectively waived through political accommodation.
Safety Code Grandfathering Concurrence Refusal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public building inspection or code enforcement role to refuse to concur with, endorse, or facilitate any ordinance, policy, or administrative measure that would exempt specified buildings from current, more rigorous safety code requirements by grandfathering them under older, less protective standards — recognizing that such exemptions directly reduce the level of public safety protection the code was enacted to provide, and that the engineer's professional concurrence lends unwarranted technical legitimacy to a safety-compromising measure.
Safety Code Integrity Non-Negotiability Principle
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that building codes, safety standards, and inspection requirements enacted to protect public health and safety may not be selectively suspended, grandfathered, or traded away as consideration in political or budgetary negotiations — even when the engineer faces genuine resource constraints and the negotiated outcome appears to offer compensating benefits, because the integrity of safety codes as a system of public protection is not subject to case-by-case political bargaining
Safety Consequence Communication to Employer Before Production Obligation
They also met the requirements of Section 2 in pointing out the consequences to be expected from proceeding under the original plans and specifications
Duty of engineers employed in a production or manufacturing role who have identified miscalculations and technical deficiencies in plans and specifications received from a designing firm, to point out to their employer the specific consequences to be expected from proceeding under those plans and specifications — including the risk of endangering persons in proximity to the equipment — so that the employer has full awareness of the safety implications before deciding whether to relay concerns to the designing firm or instruct continuation of production.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who recommends a course of action — such as specialized analysis or public disclosure — that a client is reluctant to authorize, to communicate to the client not only the public welfare rationale for the recommendation but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to the client of declining to pursue the recommended course of action, so that the client can make a fully informed decision about whether to authorize the work with complete awareness of the consequences of refusal.
Sales Technique Analogy Resume Emphasis Ethical Permissibility Constraint
This is an established and accepted form of sales technique in which the seller proclaims all of the virtues of his product and conveniently ignores its less desirable features.
Defeasible ethical constraint establishing that selective emphasis of genuine qualifications on a professional resume is an accepted and ethically permissible form of professional self-presentation, analogous to established sales technique in which a seller proclaims the virtues of a product while not highlighting its less desirable features; permitting engineers to structure resumes to highlight genuine strengths and de-emphasize genuine weaknesses, provided the emphasis does not cross into deliberate factual untruth about former employment or deceive the prospective employer about the engineer's actual competence for the role; establishing that the analogy to sales technique is subject to the constraint that the 'product' being sold must genuinely possess the virtues being proclaimed — i.e., the engineer must have some real competence in the emphasized area.
Same-Domain Concurrent Public-Private Employment Conflict Prohibition
As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients—which the facts suggest Engineer A in fact did.
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from simultaneously serving as a government employee in a specific technical domain and performing private consulting work in that same domain for private clients, because the identity of subject matter makes it virtually impossible to maintain independent judgment, avoid preferential treatment, or prevent the exploitation of government-derived knowledge and authority for private commercial benefit — regardless of whether the government employer and private client are nominally aware of the dual role
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle prohibiting engineers from simultaneously occupying public governmental roles and private consulting roles when the two roles create actual or apparent conflicts of interest — including situations where the engineer's governmental responsibilities intersect with, overlap, or could influence the subject matter of the private consulting work — even when the specific domains appear distinct, because linkages between domains may compromise the engineer's independent judgment in either role
Same-Domain Federal Government Private Consultant Engineer
As an employee of the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane division of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A had a clear conflict of interest that would make it virtually impossible for him to work as a part-time consultant in this same area for private clients
A licensed professional engineering role in which a federal government employee simultaneously performs private consulting work in the identical technical domain as their government employment — such as a U.S. DOE coal bed methane division engineer consulting privately for coal bed methane companies — bearing the most severe conflict-of-interest obligations, including a near-absolute prohibition on private practice in the same subject-matter area, obligations to avoid using government resources or credentials to benefit private clients, and obligations to clearly distinguish official governmental capacity from private consulting capacity in all public representations including testimony and presentations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer simultaneously holds a government employment position and performs private consulting work in a related or overlapping domain, bearing obligations to avoid conflicts of interest between the two roles, to act as a faithful agent to both employers, to avoid use of public resources for private work, and to refrain from leveraging governmental authority or relationships to benefit private clients or vice versa.
Same-Domain Federal Government Private Consulting Non-Engagement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a federal governmental agency in a specific technical domain to refrain from simultaneously performing private consulting services for private clients in the same substantive domain — recognizing that such exact-domain overlap makes it virtually impossible to maintain objectivity, creates an irreconcilable breach of the faithful agent duty owed to the governmental employer, and cannot be cured by disclosure alone — distinguishing this from the interrelated-domain conflict (which is defeasible) by the heightened severity of same-domain exact overlap.
Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Employment Conflict State
State in which a professional engineer simultaneously holds a government position with substantive authority or expertise in a specific technical domain (e.g., coal bed methane, traffic engineering) and performs private consulting work in that same or closely overlapping technical domain for private clients — creating a structural conflict of interest so severe that the dual roles are virtually impossible to reconcile with faithful agency obligations, because decisions, knowledge, and credibility developed in the government role directly advantage or compromise the private role and vice versa.
Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Abstention Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency in a specific technical domain to recognize that simultaneously operating a private consulting practice serving industry clients in that same domain creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest — including the ability to identify when the governmental role and private consulting role are so substantively overlapping that they cannot be ethically maintained simultaneously — and to correctly determine that abstention from one role or the other is required.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency to recognize when a proposed private consulting engagement — even in a domain that appears distinct from the engineer's governmental responsibilities — creates a foreseeable conflict of interest due to interrelated subject matter, shared municipal relationships, or overlapping spheres of influence, and to correctly decline such engagements on ethical grounds, including the ability to identify indirect linkages between governmental and private domains that create appearance concerns even when direct subject matter overlap is absent.
Same-Domain Government-Private Dual Role Conflict Non-Engagement Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a governmental agency in a specific technical domain to refrain from simultaneously performing private consulting services for regulated industry clients in the same or substantially overlapping domain — particularly when the governmental role involves regulatory, advisory, or policy functions affecting that industry — recognizing that the dual role creates an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest that compromises the engineer's objectivity in both roles and creates the appearance of governmental endorsement of private industry positions.
Same-Facts Different-Conclusions Ethical Permissibility Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle — established through BER Cases 63-6, 65-9, and 79-2 — that equally qualified engineers can ethically reach different professional conclusions when analyzing the same set of known physical facts, that such differences reflect the inherent complexity and subjectivity of engineering judgment rather than ethical failure, and that the existence of honest disagreement between engineers does not imply that any party acted unethically or incompetently.
Same-Matter Adversarial Consent Prerequisite Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation to recognize that accepting retention by the opposing party in the same matter requires the informed consent of the original client and all interested parties — including the ability to identify that the same-matter constraint is distinct from the unrelated-matter permissibility rule, to understand that the consent prerequisite cannot be waived unilaterally by the engineer, and to refrain from accepting adverse retention in the same proceeding absent such consent, consistent with NSPE Code obligations regarding former client trust and loyalty.
Same-Matter Adverse Contractor Retainer Declination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has completed or terminated a forensic engagement on behalf of one party in an adversarial claim — specifically the U.S. government in a dam failure investigation — to decline any subsequent retainer offered by the opposing party (the contractor filing the claim) in the same matter, recognizing that the opposing party's motivation for seeking the engineer's retention is the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information and the perceived advantage that access confers, and that acceptance of such a retainer constitutes a per se ethical violation regardless of the engineer's subjective belief in their ability to provide independent analysis.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been terminated by one party in adversarial litigation and subsequently approached by the opposing party to recognize — and act upon the recognition — that the opposing party's motivation for retention is likely the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information and the engineer's perceived ability to provide a favorable report, and to decline such retention on that basis, even if the engineer subjectively believes they could provide an independent analysis.
Same-Matter Cross-Side Forensic Retention Absolute Bar Constraint
Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who was retained by one party in an active adversarial proceeding — and who, in the course of that retention, gained access to confidential information, documents, case strategy, and specialized knowledge belonging to that party — is absolutely prohibited from accepting retention by the opposing party in the same matter, regardless of whether the original engagement was terminated, whether the engineer's fee was paid in full, whether the new engagement is framed as 'independent and separate,' or whether the engineer subjectively believes he can render an objective report; establishing that the same-matter identity of the proceeding, combined with the prior confidential access, creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that cannot be cured by any disclosure, consent of the new client alone, or good-faith belief in independence, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and NSPE Code Sections II.4.b and III.4.b.
Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Prohibition State
the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand
State in which an engineer who has been retained by one party in an active legal or quasi-legal proceeding, and has thereby gained cooperative access to that party's confidential information, is subsequently approached to provide services for the opposing party in the same proceeding — creating an absolute ethical prohibition on accepting the cross-side engagement that cannot be resolved by terminating the prior relationship, offering a 'separate and independent' analysis, or relying on the engineer's subjective belief in their own impartiality.
Sanitary System Capacity Warning Engineer
Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds
A licensed professional engineering role held by a city engineer or director of public works who identifies and reports inadequate capacity in municipal wastewater or sanitary disposal infrastructure, particularly during coincident peak-load and weather events, bears obligations to escalate warnings through internal and external channels when supervisors suppress action, and must notify state pollution control authorities when overflow conditions become imminent under applicable law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role held by a city engineer or director of public works with statutory responsibility for environmental compliance reporting (e.g., wastewater overflow to state pollution control authorities), bearing an obligation to escalate known legal violations to appropriate state regulatory authorities when municipal supervisors and elected officials have demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law and have failed to act on internal reports.
Sanitary System Hydraulic Capacity Assessment Capability
Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the plant and beds to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible solutions
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess the hydraulic capacity of a municipal sanitary system — including disposal plant and disposal beds — relative to anticipated peak loading conditions such as combined industrial discharge from food processing plants during canning season and elevated stormwater infiltration during rainy season, and to identify when system capacity is insufficient to handle potential overflow volumes, quantify the overflow risk, and formulate technically sound remediation options for presentation to decision-makers.
Sanitary System Overflow Proactive Capacity Warning Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer responsible for a municipal sanitary system to proactively identify and formally communicate to supervisory authorities the inadequate capacity of disposal infrastructure to handle foreseeable peak loads — such as the coincidence of canning season industrial discharge and rainy season stormwater — before the crisis materializes, including offering specific remedial solutions, and to persist in that communication despite employer resistance.
Scaffolding Alternative Configuration Presentation for Traffic Hazard Mitigation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer designing temporary scaffolding on an active restricted roadway to identify, develop, and present to supervisors alternative scaffolding configurations — such as designs with greater setback from the travel lane, enhanced protective barriers, reduced footprint, or phased construction approaches — that would mitigate the identified risk from illegally operating vehicles, enabling informed decision-making by the employer about how to proceed with the design.
Scaffolding Clearance and Traffic Hazard Integration Design Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer designing temporary inspection or construction scaffolding on active roadways to identify, analyze, and incorporate foreseeable traffic hazard conditions — including illegally operating oversized or commercial vehicles — into scaffolding clearance, setback, and protective feature specifications, ensuring that the scaffolding design accounts for realistic traffic conditions rather than only legally permitted vehicle types.
Scaffolding Design Alternative Presentation for Traffic Hazard Mitigation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing temporary scaffolding on a restricted roadway — where the engineer has identified a foreseeable risk from illegally operating prohibited vehicles — to identify and present to the responsible supervisor alternative scaffolding configurations that would reduce or eliminate the identified risk, such as designs with greater setback from the travel lane, protective barriers, or reduced construction footprint, before finalizing a design that does not account for the hazard.
Scaffolding Design Commercial Vehicle Clearance Safety Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing temporary inspection and construction scaffolding on a roadway with restricted vehicle access to account in the design for the foreseeable risk that prohibited vehicle types — such as commercial vehicles on a noncommercial parkway — may nonetheless illegally traverse the roadway, and to design the scaffolding with sufficient clearance, setback, or protective features to protect construction workers and the public from that foreseeable illegal traffic, or to formally recommend design alternatives that mitigate the risk.
Schedule Pressure Non-Excuse Deliverable Completeness Self-Regulation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that deadline or schedule pressure — whether contractual, client-imposed, or self-imposed — does not constitute a valid professional justification for delivering materially incomplete or inadequate design drawings, specifications, or other sealed documents, and to regulate professional conduct accordingly by either (a) delivering only complete and adequate documents, (b) formally disclosing incompleteness to the client before or at delivery, or (c) seeking a schedule extension rather than delivering deficient work without disclosure.
Schedule Pressure Non-Excuse for Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer who, under schedule or deadline pressure, delivers incomplete drawings, specifications, or other professional work products is not thereby excused from the obligation to disclose that incompleteness to the client, approving authority, and other affected parties — recognizing that the existence of external time pressure, however real, does not transfer to others the engineer's professional responsibility to communicate the limitations of what has been delivered
Schedule Pressure Non-Excuse for Incomplete Deliverable Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the principle that deadline or schedule pressure imposed by a client, employer, or contract does not constitute an ethical justification for delivering sealed engineering documents known to be materially incomplete without disclosing that incompleteness — and to either request a deadline extension, deliver partial work with explicit disclosure of its limitations, or decline to seal documents that are not professionally adequate, rather than delivering incomplete work under seal while concealing its deficiencies on the grounds that the deadline could not be met otherwise.
Schedule Pressure Sealed Deliverable Incompleteness Non-Excuse Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a contractually imposed or externally imposed delivery deadline does not excuse or justify a licensed professional engineer from signing, sealing, and delivering drawings, specifications, or other professional work product that the engineer knows to be materially incomplete, deficient, or unbuildable — prohibiting the engineer from treating schedule pressure as a defense for non-disclosure of known incompleteness and requiring that the engineer either deliver complete work product or formally disclose the incompleteness to the client before or at the time of delivery.
School Bus Avoidance Pattern Safety Inference and Formalization Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to observe and interpret the behavioral pattern of school bus operators prudently avoiding a weight-restricted bridge as corroborating evidence of the bridge's dangerous condition, to formally document and commend this avoidance behavior, and to institutionalize it through formal written directives or agreements with school transportation authorities — thereby creating an evidentiary record and a protective protocol that reinforces the engineer's safety determination.
School Bus Operator Weight-Restricted Bridge Avoidance Commendation and Formalization Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a public agency who observes that school bus operators are prudently avoiding a weight-restricted bridge — indicating awareness of the risk — to formally document and commend this practice, ensure it is institutionalized through official routing directives, and use the observed avoidance behavior as additional evidence of the bridge's unsafe condition when escalating to authorities.
Scope-Bounded Public Safety Obligation Principle
As a general rule, an engineer cannot be expected to take on personal or professional responsibility for each and every potential health and safety risk they may be exposed to during the course of a day, which are essentially unrelated to the services for which the engineer is being professionally engaged.
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that while engineers bear a paramount obligation to protect public safety, that obligation is bounded by the professional scope of the engineer's engagement, such that an engineer cannot be held to an unlimited personal and professional duty to investigate, report, or remediate every potential safety hazard incidentally observed during the course of professional work that is unrelated to the services for which the engineer is engaged — recognizing that imposing such unbounded responsibility would expose engineers to unlimited liability and thrust them into an unreasonable and never-ending scope of activities beyond what the ethics code intends.
Scope-Limited Sub-Consultant Engineer with Incidental Safety Observation
Engineer A's scope of work was solely to identify any pavement damage on the bridge
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained as a sub-consultant with a narrowly defined scope of work and, while performing that work, observes a condition outside the contracted scope that may implicate public safety, bearing obligations to verbally report the observation to the prime consultant or client, document findings in field notes, and monitor whether corrective action is taken — but not necessarily to include speculative findings in formal reports or independently escalate to public authorities before the prime consultant has had reasonable opportunity to act.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained to inspect a residential or commercial property for a specific contracted scope (e.g., fire protection systems, structural assessment) and, while performing that work, observes conditions outside the contracted scope—such as frozen pipe risks or inoperable sprinkler systems—that may pose risks to the client's property or public safety, bearing obligations under the faithful agent and project success provisions of the NSPE Code to advise the owner in writing of those risks, without a corresponding duty to investigate further or recommend mitigation alternatives.
Scope-Limited Sub-Consultant with Incidental Safety Observation
Engineer A's scope of work was solely to identify any pavement damage on the bridge and report the damage to VWX for further review and repair.
Scope-of-Work Limitation as Incomplete Ethical Defense
Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for the omission of material technical findings from a professional report when those findings were within the engineer's technical knowledge and observation, were material to the report's conclusions, and their omission would mislead the report's recipients — recognizing that while scope limitations may define the boundaries of required investigation, they do not authorize the suppression of findings already made within that investigation.
[Case 100] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not fully discharge an engineer's public safety obligations when the engineer has incidentally observed a condition that poses a material risk to public safety — particularly when that condition is connected to a known fatal incident — such that the scope limitation may excuse the engineer from investigating or remediating the condition but does not excuse omission of the observation from professional documentation or failure to escalate when the client suppresses the finding.
[Case 132] Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for the omission of material technical findings from a professional report when those findings were within the engineer's technical knowledge and observation, were material to the report's conclusions, and their omission would mislead the report's recipients — recognizing that while scope limitations may define the boundaries of required investigation, they do not authorize the suppression of findings already made within that investigation
[Case 132] Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for the omission of material technical findings when those findings were within the engineer's technical knowledge and observation and were material to public safety.
[Case 72] Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for the omission of material technical findings from a professional report when those findings were within the engineer's technical knowledge and observation, were material to the report's conclusions, and their omission would mislead the report's recipients
[Case 78] Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for the omission of material technical findings from a professional report when those findings were within the engineer's technical knowledge and observation, were material to the report's conclusions, and their omission would mislead the report's recipients.
[Case 84] Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for the omission of material technical findings from a professional report when those findings were within the engineer's technical knowledge and observation, were material to the report's conclusions, and their omission would mislead the report's recipients
[Case 86] Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for an engineer's failure to act on material observations — including environmental law violations — made in the course of professional proximity to a client's property, when those observations are within the engineer's technical knowledge and implicate public welfare obligations that supersede contractual boundaries.
Scope-of-Work Non-Exculpation for Material Evidence Omission Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from invoking a contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting material evidence from a professional report or technical evaluation — establishing that when an engineer becomes aware of material facts bearing on the conclusions of a report, the contractual scope does not excuse the omission of those facts, and that the engineer's obligation to produce complete and non-misleading reports supersedes the contractual scope limitation.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse Material Omission Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a valid professional justification for omitting material evidence from a technical report, and to correctly identify that invoking scope-of-work as an excuse for failing to review or include material findings — such as pile driving records indicating piles driven to essential refusal — constitutes an ethical violation of the obligation to issue objective and complete professional reports.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Adjacent Third-Party Safety Observation Obligation
In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the contractual scope-of-work limitation — which covers only construction observation services for a specific client on a specific project — does not excuse the engineer from the obligation to act upon observed safety issues on an adjacent third-party property, and that the absence of any contractual relationship with the affected property owner does not diminish the engineer's professional obligation to protect public welfare through appropriate disclosure and escalation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained for a specific contracted scope (fire origin and cause investigation) to recognize that the contractual scope-of-work limitation does not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose structural instability observed during the investigation, and to act on that observation consistent with public welfare obligations notwithstanding the scope limitation.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from invoking a contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting material evidence from a professional report — particularly when that evidence is readily available and directly relevant to the conclusions being drawn — recognizing that a scope-of-work clause defines contractual deliverables but does not relieve the engineer of the ethical obligation to include all material facts necessary for a complete and non-misleading professional opinion, and that using scope-of-work as a post-hoc excuse for selective omission constitutes a violation of professional honesty and completeness obligations.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Evidence Omission in Forensic Reports
Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not excuse a forensic engineer from consulting or reporting on material evidence — such as primary pile driving records — that is readily available and directly relevant to the engineer's adverse conclusions, when the engineer's deliberate or negligent disregard of that evidence results in a materially incomplete and misleading forensic report
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle establishing that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a complete ethical defense for the omission of material technical findings from a professional report when those findings were within the engineer's technical knowledge and observation, were material to the report's conclusions, and their omission would mislead the report's recipients — recognizing that while scope limitations may define the boundaries of required investigation, they do not authorize the suppression of findings already made within that investigation.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Material Forensic Evidence Omission Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert to refrain from invoking a contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting material evidence from a forensic report — particularly when that evidence (such as pile driving records) is readily available and directly relevant to the conclusions being drawn — recognizing that a scope-of-work clause defines contractual deliverables but does not relieve the engineer of the ethical obligation to include all material facts necessary for a complete and non-misleading professional forensic opinion, and that using scope-of-work as a post-hoc excuse for selective omission constitutes a violation of professional honesty and completeness obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from invoking a contractual scope-of-work limitation as justification for omitting material evidence from a professional report — particularly when that evidence is readily available and directly relevant to the conclusions being drawn — recognizing that a scope-of-work clause defines contractual deliverables but does not relieve the engineer of the ethical obligation to include all material facts necessary for a complete and non-misleading professional opinion, and that using scope-of-work as a post-hoc excuse for selective omission constitutes a violation of professional honesty and completeness obligations.
Scope-of-Work Non-Excuse for Safety Disclosure Recognition Capability
Engineer A could not invoke the fire origin and cause investigation scope as justification for omitting or ignoring the structural instability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a contractual scope-of-work limitation — such as a contract limited to fire origin and cause investigation — does not constitute a valid professional justification for omitting or ignoring a structural safety concern observed incidentally during the contracted work, and to correctly identify that the paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare overrides scope-of-work constraints when a genuine safety risk is observed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a contractual scope-of-work limitation does not constitute a valid professional justification for omitting material evidence from a technical report, and to correctly identify that invoking scope-of-work as an excuse for failing to review or include material findings — such as pile driving records indicating piles driven to essential refusal — constitutes an ethical violation of the obligation to issue objective and complete professional reports.
Scope-of-Work Non-Shield for Structural Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained for a specific contracted scope (fire origin and cause investigation) to recognize that the contractual scope-of-work limitation does not shield the engineer from the obligation to disclose structural instability observed during the investigation, and to act on that observation consistent with public welfare obligations notwithstanding the scope limitation.
Scope Completion Non-Excuse Environmental Violation Silence Constraint
A few months after Engineer A completes the services, he drives by his client's property
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's completion of a contracted scope of services — including wetland delineation — does not excuse or justify silence about a subsequently observed environmental law violation by the former client, prohibiting the engineer from treating contract completion and the absence of ongoing monitoring obligations as a basis for non-disclosure of a confirmed, substantial violation of federal and state environmental law observed incidentally after contract completion.
Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation for Known Safety Risk Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's contracted scope of services does not exculpate or excuse the engineer from disclosing a known safety risk observed incidentally during performance of in-scope work — prohibiting the engineer from treating the scope boundary as a complete shield against professional responsibility for a safety condition the engineer has actually observed and is competent to assess, and establishing that scope limitation constrains the engineer's obligation to remediate the deficiency but does not constrain the obligation to disclose it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint limiting Engineer L's professional actions to the defined scope of contracted work, while simultaneously requiring that scope boundaries not be used to justify omitting safety-critical disclosures or actions that fall within the engineer's professional responsibility.
Constraint limiting Engineer L's professional actions to the defined scope of contracted work, while simultaneously requiring that scope boundaries not be used to justify omitting safety-critical disclosures or actions that fall within the engineer's professional responsibility.
Transportation Engineer B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
Constraint established by ethics code provisions limiting the scope of engineering practice to those holding appropriate licensure and qualifications, prohibiting unlicensed individuals from performing acts constituting the practice of engineering regardless of institutional title or authority.
Screening Committee Public Feedback Non-Exploitation Boundary Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that while screening committees in qualifications-based selection processes may legitimately provide public feedback identifying deficiencies in competing firms' submissions, the ethical permissibility of a firm acting on such feedback to restructure its team before final selection depends on whether the feedback was equally public and accessible to all competitors and whether the procuring authority treats all firms equally in any resulting accommodation — distinguishing between feedback that creates an improper advantage and feedback that is part of a transparent, open process
Sea Level Rise Infrastructure Design Integration Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to integrate current sea level rise projections, updated precipitation intensity data, and changing storm recurrence intervals into infrastructure design and analysis — including tidal crossing design — going beyond historical data assumptions required by local regulations, and to apply emerging evaluation procedures from professional conferences and technical literature to assess whether designs are adequate under projected future conditions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the principle that future climate and weather conditions must be treated as a dynamic 'moving target' rather than fixed historical baselines — including understanding that historical climate datasets are continuously updated as patterns change, that designs based solely on historical data may be inadequate for long-term public welfare protection, and that engineering planning and design must account for projected future conditions rather than assuming stationarity of climate and weather patterns.
Seal Professional Judgment Certification Scope Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that affixing a professional seal and signature to engineering plans and documents prepared by subordinates constitutes a certification of the engineer's professional judgment and discretion — not merely an administrative act — and that this certification is shaped by a variety of ethical concerns including competence, direction-and-control, and segment attribution; including the ability to understand that the seal has consequences going beyond ethics into legal accountability, and to refrain from sealing when the conditions for legitimate certification (responsible charge, competence, direction-and-control) have not been met.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand, internalize, and apply the full professional and legal significance of signing and sealing engineering documents — including recognizing that a seal signifies either personal drafting or responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision), that any subsequent modification by an unauthorized party thoroughly compromises the integrity and veracity of the document, and that the sealing process is a critical professional accountability mechanism that must be protected against unauthorized alteration.
Seal and Signature Professional Judgment Certification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that affixing a professional seal and signature to engineering plans, drawings, and specifications constitutes a certification of the engineer's professional judgment and discretion — not merely a legal formality — and therefore to refrain from sealing documents unless the engineer has exercised the professional judgment and discretion necessary to stand behind the technical content, recognizing that the conduct of the engineer in the preparation of plans and drawings involves professional judgment shaped by a variety of ethical concerns that cannot be delegated away through organizational structure.
Sealed Document Completeness Certification Accuracy Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering drawings, specifications, or other documents to ensure that those documents are materially complete and professionally adequate for their intended purpose before affixing the professional seal — recognizing that the act of sealing constitutes an implicit professional certification of adequacy, and that sealing documents known to be materially incomplete or inadequate constitutes a misrepresentation to all parties who rely on the seal as a mark of professional sufficiency, including clients, funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and contractors.
Sealed Document Completeness Pre-Certification Self-Assessment Capability
The signed and sealed drawings and specifications are ultimately approved by Engineer B
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to conduct a rigorous self-assessment of the completeness and professional adequacy of design drawings, specifications, or other documents before signing and sealing them, recognizing that the act of sealing constitutes a professional certification of adequacy, and to refrain from sealing documents that are materially incomplete or inadequate — or, if sealing is unavoidable, to formally document and disclose the known deficiencies to the client contemporaneously with delivery.
Sealed Document Integrity Defense Capability
Capability to recognize when the integrity of a professional engineer's signed and sealed documents is threatened by directives from unqualified or unlicensed parties to make revisions, and to defend that integrity by refusing to make revisions directed by unlicensed reviewers, understanding that the professional seal represents the engineer's personal certification of the document's technical adequacy and that compliance with unlicensed directives would compromise both the seal's meaning and the engineer's professional responsibility.
Sealed Document Modification Documentation Capability
It was the practice of the company to require that a professional engineer manually initial the revision block of the document being revised, identifying the responsible engineer.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who modifies another engineer's sealed design documents — whether with or without prior consent — to identify, record, and document all actual changes made to those documents, including initialing revision blocks, creating change logs, and ensuring that the originating engineer and all parties can identify precisely what was altered, so that the integrity of the professional record is maintained and accountability is preserved.
[proethica-intermediate] Capability to maintain detailed logs of actions and reasoning for accountability (Arkin 2008, Kroll 2020)
Sealed Document Modification Documentation Obligation
There was no indication that Engineer A took any steps to identify and document the actual changes he made to Engineer B's work.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who modifies another engineer's sealed design documents — whether with or without that engineer's consent — to identify and document all actual changes made to the other engineer's work, so that the originating engineer and all parties relying on the documents can determine precisely what was changed, by whom, and when, recognizing that failure to document modifications to sealed documents undermines the integrity of the responsible charge process and deprives the originating engineer of the ability to assess and stand behind the modified work.
Sealed Document Post-Alteration Investigation and Correction Demand Obligation
Engineer A has an obligation to take necessary steps to seek understanding as to the apparent reversing of his findings.
Professional principle requiring a licensed engineer whose signed and sealed professional report or document has been altered — particularly when the alteration reverses or contradicts the engineer's original findings without factual or technical basis — to take affirmative investigative steps to understand the nature and basis of the alteration, and to demand immediate correction if the alteration constitutes a misrepresentation of the engineer's professional conclusions
Sealed Document Revision Non-Subordination to Unlicensed Authority Obligation
Engineer A has been directed to revise his 'signed and sealed contract documents' based on [non] Engineer B's review
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has signed and sealed engineering documents to refuse to revise those documents based solely on the direction of an unlicensed individual who lacks the authority, qualifications, and legal standing to direct changes to sealed engineering work product, recognizing that the engineer's professional seal represents personal accountability for the technical content and that subordinating sealed document authority to unlicensed direction undermines responsible charge and public safety.
Sealed Report Alteration Discovery Investigation Obligation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers apparent reversal or modification of their signed and sealed professional findings must take necessary steps to seek understanding of the apparent reversal — including investigating whether any new factual or technical information exists that would legitimately alter the findings — and must require immediate correction if no such information exists and the modification constitutes a misrepresentation of the engineer's professional conclusions.
Sealed Report Alteration Investigation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers or suspects that their signed and sealed professional reports have been altered without authorization to take necessary investigative steps to understand the nature, scope, and motivation of the apparent alteration — including comparing original findings against reported conclusions, identifying discrepancies, demanding explanation from responsible parties, and determining whether the alteration constitutes misrepresentation requiring immediate correction.
Sealed Report Alteration Investigation and Correction Demand Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed professional reports have been altered — particularly where findings have been reversed without factual or technical basis — to take affirmative steps to investigate the nature and extent of the alteration, demand immediate correction if the alteration misrepresents the engineer's conclusions, and ensure that the integrity of the sealed document is restored, recognizing that any unauthorized modification of sealed engineering documents by a party who did not prepare or exercise responsible charge over those documents thoroughly compromises the integrity and veracity of the professional seal.
State in which a licensed professional engineer's signed and sealed reports have been covertly altered by a non-engineer supervisor or principal after the engineer refused to make the requested changes — such that the reports submitted to the client no longer reflect the engineer's professional findings, yet bear the engineer's seal and signature, creating a fraudulent misrepresentation of the engineer's professional conclusions and exposing third parties (property owners) to direct harm from decisions made on the basis of the falsified documents.
Sealed Report Integrity Inviolability Constraint
Absolute ethical, legal, and regulatory constraint establishing that a signed and sealed engineering report, analysis, or professional document is inviolable once executed — prohibiting any party who did not draft the document or exercise responsible charge over its preparation from subsequently modifying, altering, or reversing its findings or conclusions, and establishing that any such modification thoroughly compromises and undermines the integrity and veracity that the signing and sealing process is intended to embody.
Sealed Report Integrity Post-Alteration Correction Obligation Constraint
Ethical, legal, and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed professional reports have been covertly altered — without factual or technical basis and without the engineer's authorization — must take immediate corrective action, including: (1) notifying the client of the unauthorized alteration, (2) providing corrected versions of the reports reflecting the engineer's actual professional findings, (3) notifying the state licensing board of the unauthorized alteration and the non-engineer principal's unlicensed practice, and (4) notifying affected third parties — prohibiting the engineer from remaining passive or silent upon discovering the falsification on the grounds that the reports have already been transmitted and the engineer's internal refusal was already registered.
Sealed Report Integrity Preservation and Unauthorized Alteration Response Obligation
Professional principle requiring a licensed engineer whose signed and sealed professional report has been altered without authorization — particularly when the alteration lacks factual or technical basis and causes harm to third parties — to take affirmative corrective action, including notifying affected parties, the client, regulatory authorities, and the licensing board, rather than treating the unauthorized alteration as solely the firm's or supervisor's responsibility, because the engineer's seal creates a continuing professional accountability for the document's integrity and public reliance on its accuracy
Sealed Report Post-Transmission Falsification Third-Party Harm Notification Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed reports have been covertly altered by a non-engineer principal and transmitted to a client — resulting in demonstrable harm to identifiable third-party claimants whose legitimate claims were denied based on the falsified reports — must directly notify those third-party claimants of the falsification, in addition to notifying the client and regulatory authorities, prohibiting the engineer from limiting notification to the client or licensing board alone when identifiable third parties have suffered direct, concrete harm from the falsified professional documents.
Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Correction and Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that their signed and sealed professional reports have been altered without authorization — particularly by a non-engineer supervisor or firm principal — to take affirmative corrective action, including notifying the affected third parties (such as property owners whose insurance claims were denied based on the altered reports), the client (insurance company), and appropriate professional and regulatory authorities, so that the record is corrected and the harm caused by the unauthorized alteration is remediated.
Sealed Report Unauthorized Alteration Detection Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize, upon receiving information from third parties or other sources, that their signed and sealed professional reports have been altered without authorization — including the ability to compare original findings against reported conclusions, identify discrepancies between sealed report content and outcomes communicated to affected parties, and correctly classify unauthorized post-seal alterations as a serious professional and legal violation requiring immediate corrective action.
Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability
Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who receives secondhand or indirect information about another engineer's alleged misconduct — such as information relayed through a third-party non-engineer — to exercise heightened restraint and epistemic caution before filing a formal complaint with a state licensing board, including assessing the reliability and completeness of the secondhand account, recognizing the potential for distortion or missing context, and refraining from filing a complaint when the information is insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for believing a violation occurred.
Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who receives only secondhand information about another engineer's alleged licensure violation — particularly where the alleged violation involves ambiguous facts, social context, or third-party redistribution of materials — must exercise heightened restraint and conduct independent verification before filing a formal complaint with a licensing board, prohibiting the filing of complaints based solely on secondhand accounts without personal knowledge of the facts, direct observation of the alleged violation, or reasonable independent confirmation of the alleged misconduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has reason to believe a competing firm or engineer is operating in violation of jurisdictional regulatory requirements must independently verify the factual basis of that belief — including confirming the absence of the required authorization through available public records or direct inquiry — before filing a formal report with the relevant licensing board, prohibiting the engineer from submitting a regulatory complaint based solely on rumor, inference, or competitive suspicion without reasonable factual confirmation.
Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who receives secondhand information about another engineer's alleged misconduct — where the information was not directly observed but was relayed through a non-engineer intermediary — to exercise heightened restraint before filing a formal licensure board complaint, including verifying the facts through direct inquiry or authoritative sources, assessing whether the conduct as described actually constitutes a violation, and refraining from filing if the conduct, even if accurately described, does not rise to a reportable ethics violation.
Section 19 Collective Profession Reputation Protection Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when their own competitive or procurement conduct — including conduct that may not constitute a clear code violation but raises doubt about the purity of the enterprise — falls within the scope of Section 19 of the NSPE Canons of Ethics requiring engineers to endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding, and to apply that standard to self-regulate competitive conduct so as to protect the profession's collective reputation.
Section 19 Profession Collective Reputation Protection Procurement Conduct Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding — as required by Section 19 of the NSPE Canons of Ethics — by ensuring that competitive procurement conduct, including transitions from public agency employment to private practice involving projects within the engineer's prior public responsibilities, does not create circumstances that could be characterized as misrepresentation of insider advantage, misunderstanding of the fairness of the competitive process, or exploitation of public trust in ways that bring the profession into disrepute; this obligation applies even where specific ethical violations cannot be proven, because the cloud of doubt raised by the structural circumstances of the competitive engagement itself implicates the profession's collective reputation.
Section 19 Profession Misrepresentation Cloud-of-Doubt Appearance Constraint
Ethical constraint arising under Section 19 of the NSPE Canons of Ethics establishing that even where an ethics board cannot confirm that an engineer's insider competitive advantages were actually used unfairly, the mere possibility that such advantages might have been exploited — through information withholding, misrepresentation of insider knowledge value, or artificially low fee submission — raises a cloud of doubt sufficient to implicate the engineer's duty to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding, establishing that the appearance of potential unfair advantage exploitation is itself an ethics concern under Section 19 independent of whether an actual violation of other code provisions is established.
Section 2(c) Withdrawal Mandate Employer-Client Symmetry Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that the withdrawal mandate in Section 2(c) of the NSPE Code — requiring engineers to notify proper authority of dangers and withdraw from further service on the project — applies symmetrically to engineers serving both clients and employers, prohibiting any interpretation that limits the withdrawal obligation to client-facing engagements and excluding employer-directed work from its scope; establishing that the mandatory withdrawal and notification duty is triggered whenever an engineer holds a sustained professional opinion that the project endangers public health and safety, regardless of whether the engineer's relationship is with a client or an employer.
Section 8(b) Public Service Non-Participation Provision Scope and Applicability Assessment Capability
Note: The following Code section no longer exists: Code of Ethics-Section 8(b)-'When in public service as a member, advisor, or employee of a governmental body or department, an engineer shall not participate in considerations or actions with respect to services provided by him or his organization in private engineering practice.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, consulting firm principal, and ethics adjudicator to understand, interpret, and correctly apply former NSPE Code Section 8(b) — which prohibited engineers 'in public service as a member, advisor, or employee of a governmental body or department' from participating 'in considerations or actions with respect to services provided by him or his organization in private engineering practice' — including the ability to assess whether a given municipal engineer arrangement triggers the provision, to identify the conditions under which the provision bars dual-role design service provision, and to recognize that the provision's applicability depends on whether the engineer's relationship with the governmental body is one of employment or consulting.
Section II.1.c. Law-or-Code-Authorized Confidentiality Release Obligation
Section II.1.c. provides additional guidance in this case making it clear that the Engineer A has an ethical obligation to refrain from disclosing information which he acquires during the course of providing professional services to the client unless first obtaining the client's consent to disclose.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and apply the exception clause in NSPE Code Section II.1.c., which releases the engineer from the general obligation to maintain client confidentiality when disclosure is authorized or required by law or by the Code itself — specifically when the paramount public safety obligation (Section I.1.) or the public safety reporting obligation (Section II.1.a.) requires disclosure of information that would otherwise be confidential, so that the engineer understands that the Code internally authorizes the disclosure and the engineer is not violating the confidentiality provision by making it.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers information obtained in a professional capacity that constitutes an immediate danger to public health and safety to recognize and invoke the explicit exception clause in the NSPE Code (Section II.1.c.) that permits — and ethically requires — disclosure of such information to appropriate persons (including tenants, building occupants, and public authorities) notwithstanding the general prohibition on revealing client information without prior consent, because the Code itself authorizes disclosure in cases where public health and safety is endangered.
Section II.1.c Client Proprietary Rights Exclusive Benefit Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that NSPE Code Section II.1.c establishes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client — and that this provision independently grounds a confidentiality obligation over engineer-discovered findings (such as home inspection results) even when no client-to-engineer transmission of confidential business information occurred, thereby extending client confidentiality protection beyond the scope of Section III.4 to cover all professional work product generated in the client's service.
Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Employment-Context Non-Applicability Constraint
It may seem plausible that Section II.2.c. would provide some ethical avenue through which Engineer A could perform the job as county surveyor.
Ethical and interpretive constraint establishing that NSPE Code Section II.2.c — which permits a professional engineer to retain or recommend retention of specialists and experts — cannot be invoked as an independent ethical pathway to justify a licensed engineer's acceptance of a public employment position whose core duties fall entirely outside the engineer's competence, because Section II.2.c must be read in the context of the preceding competence provisions (II.2.a and II.2.b) and because the structural flexibility of consulting practice that makes specialist retention a viable competence remedy is absent in fixed public employment roles, prohibiting engineers from treating the specialist-retention provision as a blanket authorization to accept out-of-competence employment positions on the assumption that qualified subordinates will perform the substantive work.
Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Competence-Context-Constrained Reading Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators — to read NSPE Code Section II.2.c (the provision permitting engineers to retain or recommend specialists when the engineer is not fully qualified in a particular area) in the context of the preceding competence provisions of Section II.2 (particularly II.2.a and II.2.b), recognizing that Section II.2.c does not create an independent pathway to accept positions or assignments for which the engineer lacks domain competence by simply pointing to qualified specialists who will perform the actual technical work; rather, Section II.2.c applies only where the engineer possesses sufficient baseline competence to oversee and integrate the specialist's work, and cannot be invoked to circumvent the fundamental competence requirement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics adjudicators to read and apply NSPE Code provisions that address the same factual situation not in isolation but as mutually dependent provisions whose combined meaning governs the ethical analysis — recognizing that provisions such as Sections II.2.a (competence), II.2.b (direction and control), and II.2.c (technical segment sealing) are interdependent and that reading any one in isolation from the others produces an incomplete and potentially misleading ethical standard.
Section II.2.c Specialist Retention Provision Employment-Context Inapplicability Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics adjudicators to recognize that NSPE Code Section II.2.c — which permits an engineer to identify and retain qualified specialists for technical segments outside the engineer's competence — cannot be invoked as an independent ethical pathway to justify accepting a statutory public employment position whose core duties require personal domain competence the engineer does not possess; including the ability to read Section II.2.c in the context of the preceding competence provisions (Sections II.2 introductory, II.2.a, II.2.b), to distinguish the consulting-practice context in which specialist retention is organizationally feasible from the employment context in which it is not, and to correctly conclude that the specialist retention provision does not override the foundational competence obligation.
Section II.5.a. Implication-Scope Purposive Interpretation Capability
we interpret Section II.5.a. to prohibit Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to purposively interpret NSPE Code Section II.5.a.'s prohibition on misrepresentation of professional qualifications to encompass not only explicit false statements but also implications — statements that, while not literally false, are intentionally designed to create a false impression in the mind of a prospective employer, client, or member of the public — understanding that the purpose of the provision is to protect prospective employers from being deceived about an engineer's actual competence, role, and qualifications, and applying this purposive scope to novel cases involving implied rather than stated misrepresentation.
Section III.4.b Specialized Knowledge Consent Prerequisite Application Capability
Section III.4.b. amended and refined the older Code Section 7 to read: 'Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained a particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to identify, interpret, and correctly apply NSPE Code Section III.4.b — which prohibits an engineer from participating in or representing an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer, without the consent of all interested parties. Includes the ability to recognize when expert witness testimony would necessarily draw upon specialized knowledge gained during a prior engagement, to identify that such testimony constitutes 'representing an adversary interest' within the meaning of the provision, to determine that former client consent is a prerequisite rather than a formality, and to apply the 1981 revised standard rather than the pre-revision standard when evaluating post-termination adverse engagement permissibility.
Section III.4.b Specialized Knowledge Former Client Consent Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer — including confidential investigative findings, technical conclusions, and strategic analysis developed during a prior engagement — to refrain from participating in or representing an adversary interest in connection with the specific project or proceeding in which that knowledge was gained, unless and until the engineer has obtained the affirmative consent of all interested parties, including the former client, recognizing that NSPE Code Section III.4.b establishes this consent requirement as a mandatory condition precedent to any adverse participation, and that the absence of documented consent constitutes a per se ethical violation regardless of the engineer's subjective belief in their ability to provide independent analysis.
Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Information Confidentiality Engagement Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation is fully engaged — and carries its maximum protective weight — only when the client has affirmatively transmitted confidential information to the engineer in the course of providing professional services, as distinguished from information the engineer independently discovers through observation; prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of affirmative client transmission as a basis for reducing the confidentiality obligation, while simultaneously recognizing that client-transmitted confidentiality does not rise to an absolute bar against disclosure when public safety is at stake and the Code's own exception provisions are triggered.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to maintain client information as confidential — and to refrain from disclosing it in written reports submitted to public authorities — is conditioned on the client having affirmatively invoked confidentiality over the information, either by confiding it to the engineer under circumstances creating a reasonable expectation of confidence or by directly requesting non-disclosure; prohibiting the engineer from treating information as confidential when the client was unaware of the information prior to the engineer discovering it, never directly requested confidentiality, and took no affirmative action to treat the information as confidential — and establishing that the absence of affirmative client confidentiality invocation removes a key basis for withholding material findings from public authority reports.
Section III.4 Client-Transmitted Information Scope Limitation Non-Exculpation Constraint
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.
Ethical constraint establishing that the inapplicability of NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality provision — which specifically governs confidential information transmitted by the client to the engineer in the course of providing services — does not exculpate or diminish the engineer's confidentiality obligation when the engineer has independently generated findings through professional services commissioned by the client; prohibiting the engineer from reasoning that because the client did not transmit confidential information to the engineer (and therefore Section III.4 does not directly apply), no confidentiality obligation exists over the engineer-generated work product, and establishing that the client's proprietary rights under Section II.1.c independently ground a confidentiality obligation over engineer-generated commissioned work product even when Section III.4 is not engaged.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation is fully engaged — and carries its maximum protective weight — only when the client has affirmatively transmitted confidential information to the engineer in the course of providing professional services, as distinguished from information the engineer independently discovers through observation; prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of affirmative client transmission as a basis for reducing the confidentiality obligation, while simultaneously recognizing that client-transmitted confidentiality does not rise to an absolute bar against disclosure when public safety is at stake and the Code's own exception provisions are triggered.
Section III.4 Confidentiality Client-Transmitted Information Engagement Obligation
Section III.4 can be clearly understood to mean that an engineer has an ethical obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of any present client without the consent of that client.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation is fully engaged — and at its strongest — when the confidential information at issue was directly and voluntarily transmitted by the client to the engineer in the course of providing professional services, as distinguished from information the engineer independently discovered or observed, because the client's voluntary transmission creates a heightened expectation of confidentiality that must be weighed against, but does not override, the paramount public safety obligation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics contains two potentially conflicting provisions — the obligation to protect public health and safety (Section II.1.a.) and the obligation to maintain client confidentiality (Section III.4.) — and to resolve that conflict contextually by applying the explicit public-safety exception clause (Section II.1.c.), which permits and requires disclosure of client information when public health and safety is endangered, rather than treating either obligation as absolute or mechanically applying one to the exclusion of the other.
Section III.4 Scope Limitation to Client-Transmitted Confidential Business Information Recognition Obligation
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.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to correctly recognize that NSPE Code Section III.4's confidentiality obligation — which prohibits disclosure of confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client — is specifically and necessarily limited to confidential information that was transmitted by the client to the engineer in the course of providing professional services, and does not directly govern the separate question of whether the engineer may distribute a client-commissioned report (which the engineer generated) to adverse third parties; recognizing that the latter question is governed instead by the client's proprietary rights under Section II.1.c. and the faithful agent duty, so that the engineer applies the correct code provision to the correct factual scenario.
Section III.8.a. Purpose and Scope Purposive Interpretation Capability
the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit ... comments or explanations for... technical decision, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing . . . comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand and articulate the underlying purpose of NSPE Code Section III.8.a. — which is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed an opportunity to submit comments and explanations for technical decisions, enabling the reviewing engineer to have a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design — and to apply this purposive understanding to situations where the strict requirements of the section may not apply (e.g., after discharge) but where the underlying rationale remains professionally relevant and should inform conduct.
Section III.8.a Discharge Exception Scope Limitation Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the exception to the peer review notification requirement under NSPE Code Section III.8.a — which permits a successor engineer to review a predecessor's work without notification when 'the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated' — applies only to the notification obligation itself and does not authorize the successor engineer to make material design changes to the predecessor's sealed documents without complying with all other professional obligations governing modification of sealed engineering documents, including the obligation to remove the predecessor's seal on altered sheets, affix the successor's own seal, and document all changes with specificity; prohibiting the successor engineer from treating the discharge exception as a blanket authorization for unrestricted modification of sealed plans.
Section III.9 Indemnification Exception Condition-Dependency Interpretive Constraint
Interpretive constraint establishing that NSPE Code Section III.9's indemnification exception — permitting engineers to seek indemnification for professional services for other than gross negligence where the engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected — must be read as condition-dependent rather than as an unconditional authorization, requiring that the phrase 'where the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected' be interpreted to mean that indemnification is permissible only when professional liability insurance or other protective mechanisms are genuinely unavailable or unaffordable, and that the exception is automatically deactivated when such protection becomes reasonably available and affordable on the market; prohibiting the interpretation of the exception as a standing authorization for client indemnification clauses independent of the availability of alternative protective mechanisms.
Section III.9 Indemnification Exception Condition Verification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to verify, before invoking the Section III.9 indemnification exception, that the specific conditions justifying that exception actually exist — namely, that professional liability insurance or equivalent protection is not reasonably available or affordable, and that the engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected — recognizing that the exception is narrowly conditioned and that invoking it when those conditions are not met constitutes an ethical violation of the engineer's duty to accept personal responsibility for professional services.
Section III.9 Indemnification Exception Purposive Scope Interpretation Capability
Section III.9. should be read in the context of indemnification to mean that an engineer has an obligation to accept responsibility for professional activities and, where appropriate, obtain professional liability or other protection for the benefit of the engineer's client to the extent that such professional liability or other protection are available either on the market or in other spheres.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to interpret NSPE Code Section III.9's indemnification exception purposively — reading the provision in light of its original drafting intent (to protect engineers forced to practice without professional liability insurance during the 1980s liability crisis) rather than as a permanent, unconditional license to shift negligence risk to clients, and to correctly conclude that the exception applies only when the engineer's interests 'cannot otherwise be protected,' meaning when professional liability insurance is genuinely unavailable or unaffordable, not as a routine contractual preference.
Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by one party in civil litigation to supervise testing and prepare a forensic expert report, but who selectively uses data, omits material findings (such as equipment failures, alternative analytical methods, and contradictory pile driving records), and fails to consult available witnesses or the opposing engineer's representatives, thereby defending the client's position through incomplete and misleading technical reporting rather than objective professional analysis.
Selective Data Forensic Report Completeness Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert in civil litigation or quasi-legal proceedings to include all material technical findings in a forensic report — including pile driving records showing essential refusal, wave equation calculations demonstrating strength multiples over design requirements, and equipment failure data — and to refrain from selectively omitting findings that are favorable to the opposing party or adverse to the retaining client's litigation position, recognizing that selective use of data to defend a client constitutes an egregious denial of professional duties in any setting, whether legal, quasi-legal, or non-legal.
Selective Delivery Method Presentation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to provide an objective advisory recommendation on project delivery methods from presenting only a subset of the formally approved delivery methods to the client — particularly when the omitted methods are disfavored because the engineer is not qualified to provide services under them or because the recommended method benefits the engineer financially — requiring instead that all approved delivery methods be identified, described, and evaluated so that the client can make a fully informed decision, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.2.a, II.3.a, and III.2.b and BER Case 95-5 precedent.
Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance Obligation
The purpose of then Section 3(c) was to protect a prospective employer from being deceived as to the competence of an engineer-applicant in order that the employer not be tricked into entrusting important engineering decisions to one not qualified to make them.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer crafting a resume to ensure that any selective emphasis of qualifications remains within the permissible zone defined by whether the prospective employer is protected from being deceived as to the engineer's actual competence for the role sought — recognizing that emphasis which does not deceive the employer about competence (such as emphasizing genuine but minor managerial experience for a management role) is permissible, while emphasis that creates a false impression of qualifications the engineer does not genuinely possess (such as implying sole authorship of jointly-designed work) crosses into prohibited misrepresentation under NSPE Code Section II.5.a.
Selective Information Omission Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize when a professional report, advisory memo, or technical analysis omits material information — including contradictory data, alternative interpretations, or unfavorable findings — in a manner that creates a misleading or incomplete picture, and to identify the professional obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information regardless of whether that information supports or undermines the preparer's preferred conclusion, drawing on BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8 as precedent.
Selective Information Omission in Professional Report State
the engineer failed to include in the report that the initial log indicated that several of the piles were driven to essential refusal
State in which a professional engineer has prepared and submitted a report or evaluation that intentionally or negligently omits material technical information — such as contradictory test data, equipment failures, or methodological differences — that would materially alter the conclusions drawn, resulting in a report that is factually incomplete and misleading even if individual statements within it are technically accurate.
Selective Pre-Bid Information Sharing State
State in which a public agency engineer shares or is positioned to share project-relevant technical documents (such as as-built drawings) with selected contractors before bid opening — outside of any formal procurement disclosure process — creating an appearance of favoritism, potential influence over contract award, and a violation of equitable procurement obligations, even when the sharing is motivated by a desire to improve design quality rather than by ulterior motive.
Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
Engineer A highlighted the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland
State in which a professional engineer presenting technical findings at a public regulatory hearing exercises professional judgment about which information is 'relevant and pertinent' to volunteer beyond what is directly asked — where the engineer is aware of additional factors (such as traffic, noise, or air pollution impacts) that could affect the regulatory body's decision, but determines in good faith that those factors are not sufficiently relevant to require unsolicited disclosure, and where other witnesses subsequently address those factors — creating a condition in which the ethical permissibility of selective disclosure turns on the reasonableness of the engineer's professional judgment about relevance rather than on a categorical duty to volunteer all known information.
Selective Testimony Redirection Recognition and Resistance Capability
H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek
Capability of a licensed professional engineer providing testimony at a public regulatory hearing to recognize when a response to a direct question about identified risks selectively redirects to a different, more favorable risk scenario — such as addressing above-ground spill pathways while omitting substantive response to underground leak concerns — and to resist the temptation to engage in such selective redirection, instead providing a complete response that addresses all material risk dimensions raised by other parties, consistent with NSPE Code I.3 and III.3.a obligations.
Self-Advocacy and Authentic Professional Identity Principle
One of the speakers presented on self-advocacy, which encourages autistic individuals, when able, to share who they are and what they can do.
Professional virtue principle recognizing that engineers, as autonomous professionals, have an affirmative right — though not an obligation — to disclose personal characteristics relevant to their professional identity when doing so serves their own self-determination and authentic engagement with colleagues, clients, and the profession, and that such voluntary self-disclosure is an expression of professional integrity rather than a violation of any professional duty
A licensed professional engineering role in which the engineer personally prepares engineering documents (including CADD-produced drawings and specifications) and then signs and seals those self-authored documents, bearing full personal authorship responsibility and the obligations of the engineer of record.
Self-Caused Incapacity Non-Exploitation Principle
Professional ethics principle establishing that an engineer who has caused or is causing a condition that will diminish a former employer's or competitor's capacity to perform — such as by recruiting away key staff — may not then exploit that self-caused condition as a basis for soliciting the affected firm's clients, as doing so compounds the original competitive harm with a deceptive misrepresentation that omits the engineer's own causal role in creating the alleged incapacity
Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who has actively recruited or solicited a former employer's employee to join a competing firm from subsequently exploiting that employee's anticipated or actual departure as a basis for making disparaging representations to the former employer's clients about the former employer's capacity to perform — establishing that an engineer who is the proximate cause of a staffing disruption at a former employer may not weaponize that self-caused disruption as a competitive tool, because doing so compounds the original recruitment conduct with a further act of bad faith that injures the former employer's professional reputation and prospects through means the engineer themselves engineered, in violation of NSPE Code provisions on fair competition and prohibition on injuring the professional reputation of other engineers.
Self-Caused Staff Departure Competitive Exploitation Prohibition Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has actively recruited or solicited a former employer's employee to join a competing firm to recognize that using the anticipated or actual departure of that self-recruited employee as a basis for disparaging the former employer's capacity to perform — or as a competitive solicitation tool against the former employer's clients — constitutes an ethical violation, because the engineer is exploiting a competitive disadvantage that they themselves caused.
Self-Caused Staff Departure Non-Exploitation Competitive Solicitation Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has actively recruited or solicited a former employer's employee to join the engineer's new competing firm to refrain from then using that employee's anticipated or actual departure — a departure the engineer caused — as a basis for making disparaging representations to the former employer's clients about the former employer's capacity to perform, recognizing that exploiting a self-caused diminishment of a competitor's capacity as a competitive weapon compounds the ethical violation by adding deception to the underlying recruitment conduct.
Self-Certified Competence via Commercial Product State
A CD-ROM that permits virtually anyone to 'specify, design and cost out' a project clearly is not an appropriate basis upon which an individual can obtain professional competency
State in which a professional treats acquisition and use of a commercial off-the-shelf product (software, CD-ROM, kit, or similar tool) as a sufficient basis for self-certifying competence in a technical domain, bypassing the substantive education, supervised experience, and examination that constitute genuine professional qualification, thereby creating a false equivalence between product familiarity and domain expertise.
Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Competitor Comment Purposive Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that an engineer's adverse comment about a competitor's professional capacity or qualifications is prohibited under §12 when the purpose of the comment is to prevent, hinder, or obstruct the competitor's prospects for personal competitive benefit — applying the purposive/expansive interpretation of 'maliciously or falsely' from BER Case 75-15 to prohibit adverse competitor commentary that is motivated by self-interest and aimed at securing personal competitive advantage, regardless of whether the statements are technically false or made with express malice, and establishing that the prohibition applies symmetrically to all competing parties regardless of who initiated the exchange.
Self-Interest-Tainted Adverse Peer Critique Prohibition
Professional virtue principle establishing that while engineers are not absolutely foreclosed from offering adverse comments on a competitor's capacity to serve a prospective client, such adverse commentary becomes ethically impermissible when it is motivated by self-interest — i.e., when the purpose of the criticism is to secure a personal professional benefit rather than to objectively inform the client; the principle distinguishes between objective, disinterested adverse comment (potentially permissible) and self-serving disparagement (prohibited), and applies symmetrically to all competing parties regardless of who initiated the exchange
Self-Interest-Tainted Competitive Capability Critique Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer engaged in competitive solicitation to refrain from offering adverse comments on the capability or qualifications of a competing engineer or firm to prospective clients when such comments are motivated by — or tinged with — personal self-interest in securing the engagement, recognizing that while engineers are not absolutely foreclosed from offering objective adverse comments on another engineer's capacity in proper circumstances, any such adverse comment that is motivated by the intent to injure the competitor's prospects for personal benefit crosses the ethical boundary established by the prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation, prospects, or practice — regardless of whether the comments are technically accurate.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm that files a protest, critique, or complaint against a competing firm's procurement conduct to ensure that the protest is not motivated by — and does not function as — an attempt to injure the competitor's professional or business interests for the purpose of advancing the protesting firm's own competitive interests, recognizing that while safety-grounded protests directed to proper authorities are ethically permissible, protests whose primary purpose is competitive self-advancement rather than genuine public safety concern violate the engineer's duty of collegial fairness and the prohibition on malicious or false attacks on competitors.
Self-Interest-Tainted Competitive Capability Critique Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in competitive solicitation to recognize that the professional prohibition on injuring another engineer's professional reputation applies with full force when adverse comments about a competitor's capability are motivated by personal competitive benefit — including the ability to apply the purposive interpretation of 'maliciously or falsely' from BER Case 75-15, under which the purpose of hindering or obstructing a competitor's prospects is sufficient to trigger the prohibition even without literal malice or falsity — and to refrain from making such self-interest-tainted adverse comments regardless of whether the competing party has itself made similar comments.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and fulfill collegial obligations toward professional peers — including incumbent engineers — by refraining from providing critical opinions about a peer's professional work in contexts where those opinions would harm the peer's professional reputation or competitive position, particularly when the engineer providing the opinions stands to benefit competitively from the harm caused, consistent with professional obligations of fairness, collegial respect, and honorable conduct.
Self-Interest Contaminated Inter-Engineer Criticism State
The facts in the present case leave little doubt that the motivation and intent of both A and the four engineers of Firm B were to injure the prospects of the other.
State in which one or more engineers or engineering firms make critical statements about a competitor's professional capacity or quality of services where the motivation and intent of the criticism is demonstrably to injure the other party's professional prospects and secure a personal competitive benefit — rather than to provide objective, good-faith professional assessment. In this state, the criticism is ethically impermissible regardless of whether the statements are technically accurate, because the purpose is to obstruct or harm the other party rather than to serve the public interest or provide honest professional opinion. The state is distinguished from legitimate inter-engineer criticism by the presence of self-interested motivation as the primary driver.
Self-Interest Prohibition in Client Design Decision Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from using personal preference for a particular design approach — including a preference for sustainable solutions — to influence a client's design selection decision or contract award, requiring that the engineer's advocacy cease once full professional presentation has been made and the client has exercised its decision-making authority, and prohibiting any conduct that would constitute an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority in violation of NSPE Code Section II.5.b.
Self-Interested Delivery Method Recommendation State
State in which a professional engineer, asked by a client to provide an objective recommendation among multiple approved project delivery methods, omits from consideration one or more viable methods under which the engineer is not qualified to provide services or would not benefit commercially, and recommends a method under which the engineer is qualified and stands to gain work — without disclosing the omission or the self-interest driving it.
Self-Negligence Indemnification Clause Ethical Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from inserting or maintaining contractual provisions that require clients to indemnify and hold the engineer harmless for damages or legal costs arising from the engineer's own negligence in the performance of professional services, establishing that such provisions impermissibly subordinate client financial interests to the engineer's self-protective interests in violation of the faithful agent and trustee duty under NSPE Code Section III.9, and that no business justification — including prior insurance market unavailability — can render such provisions ethically permissible once the original justification has been eliminated by changed market conditions.
Self-Negligence Indemnification Clause Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from inserting contractual provisions that require clients to indemnify and hold harmless the engineer for damages or legal costs arising from the engineer's own negligence in the performance of professional services, recognizing that such clauses transfer professional liability to the client in violation of the engineer's duty to accept personal responsibility for professional work and to act as a faithful agent whose contractual terms serve client interests rather than the engineer's self-protective financial interests.
Self-Negligence Indemnification Clause Prohibition Self-Application Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that contractual provisions requiring clients to indemnify and hold harmless the engineer for damages or legal costs arising from the engineer's own negligence are ethically impermissible under NSPE Code obligations — including the duty to act as a faithful agent and trustee and to accept personal responsibility for professional work — and to refrain from inserting or enforcing such provisions in professional service agreements.
Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that engineering, as a self-policing profession, imposes on every licensed professional engineer a foundational duty to report instances of unprofessional conduct by other engineers to the appropriate public authorities — prohibiting engineers from treating peer misconduct reporting as optional, discretionary, or contingent on personal relationship with the offending engineer, competitive motivation, or certainty of violation, and establishing that this duty is a basic ethical obligation arising from the self-regulatory structure of the profession and the public trust that licensure represents.
Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty Obligation
Duty of every licensed professional engineer to recognize and act upon the foundational principle that engineering is a self-policing profession — meaning that the integrity of the licensure system and the protection of public health and safety depend on licensed engineers themselves coming forward with information about ethical violations and unprofessional conduct by other engineers, and that this duty to report is not discretionary or aspirational but constitutes a basic ethical obligation that every licensed engineer bears as a condition of membership in the profession, regardless of whether the observing engineer has a competitive, personal, or contractual relationship with the alleged violator.
Self-Policing Profession Peer Reporting Duty Activation State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, operating within a self-regulating profession, has become aware of conduct by another engineer that constitutes a violation of the state licensing board's rules of professional conduct, activating the foundational self-policing obligation of the profession — the duty to report unprofessional conduct to appropriate public authorities as a basic ethical obligation inherent to professional licensure, independent of competitive motivation, personal relationship, or specific rule citation.
Self-Promotional Material Non-Commingling with Objective Advisory Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to provide an objective advisory recommendation to a public agency client to refrain from commingling self-promotional marketing materials — including firm experience summaries, project references, and capability statements — with the advisory recommendation itself, so that the advisory opinion is presented as an objective professional analysis rather than as a vehicle for business development, and so that the non-engineer client is not misled about the nature and purpose of the communication.
Self-Review Prohibition Irresolvable by Disclosure State
State in which a professional engineer serving in a dual advisory and design capacity for the same municipal client would be placed in the position of reviewing or passing judgment on their own engineering work — creating a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved through disclosure of circumstances, distinguishing this situation from cases (such as BER Case 01-11) where the advisory engineer does not review their own work and where disclosure of further circumstances may be sufficient to manage the conflict.
Self-Reviewing Dual-Authority County Engineer Consulting Designer
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which a county engineer simultaneously serves as a private consulting engineer who prepares subdivision plans, then exercises governmental authority both by recommending approval of those self-prepared plans in the county engineer capacity and by voting to approve them as a planning board member — bearing obligations to avoid self-review, disclose conflicts of interest, recuse from all governmental decisions touching the engineer's own private work product, and refrain from exploiting public authority to advance private consulting interests.
Self-Serving Criticism Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer State
State in which an original design engineer, whose work has been criticized in a reviewing engineer's report, files a formal complaint with a professional registration board alleging that the reviewing engineer acted improperly, was not objective, omitted pertinent information, and obtained employment through questionable methods — where the complaint itself may be motivated by reputational self-protection rather than genuine professional misconduct, raising ethical questions about the propriety of using regulatory complaint mechanisms to suppress legitimate professional criticism.
Self-Serving Design Firm Safety Assurance Objective Scrutiny Capability
Capability of officials and engineers of a production or manufacturing firm to recognize that a designing firm's unilateral assurance that its own plans and specifications are adequate and safe — issued in direct response to safety concerns raised by the production firm — is inherently self-serving and cannot be accepted as an objective, independent determination of safety adequacy, and to apply appropriate skepticism and demand independent verification rather than deferring to the designing firm's self-assessment.
by providing only a partial, comparative engineering evaluation with no analysis and a recommendation to Engineer A's benefit
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides an incomplete, selective, or partial comparative analysis of methodologies or options to a client or public official, omitting material information and presenting only information that favors the engineer's own interests, bearing obligations of objectivity, completeness, and prohibition against extending free services as a means of securing work.
Self-Serving Partial Analysis Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who undertakes to provide an advisory analysis or comparative evaluation from delivering a partial analysis structured to favor the engineer's own financial interests — including omitting options the engineer cannot service, recommending only the method under which the engineer stands to benefit, and providing no substantive comparative analysis — establishing that once an engineer undertakes an advisory engagement, the analysis must be complete, objective, and free from self-interested distortion, as established by NSPE Code Sections II.3.a, III.2.b, and BER Cases 95-5 and 99-8.
Self-Serving Regulatory Complaint Against Technically Compliant Peer Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from filing a formal complaint with a state engineering registration board against another engineer whose conduct — specifically, conducting a legitimately commissioned post-occupancy inspection and issuing an honest technical report — was ethically and professionally permissible, when the filing engineer's primary motivation is to protect their own professional reputation and suppress criticism of their prior design work rather than to vindicate a genuine public interest or professional ethics violation; the constraint establishes that weaponizing the profession's self-policing complaint mechanism to retaliate against honest peer criticism constitutes an improper use of regulatory processes and itself violates professional ethics obligations.
Semi-Arid Region Water Resource Engineering Competence
Technical capability to evaluate engineering designs — including irrigation systems, water supply infrastructure, and landscape specifications — in the context of semi-arid and arid regional water resource constraints, including understanding of regional water scarcity, aquifer vulnerability, evapotranspiration rates, and the environmental consequences of high-consumption water uses in water-stressed environments.
Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged
A senior licensed professional engineering role within a consulting firm who serves as a supervisory authority over project engineers, reviews professional obligation questions raised by subordinates, and makes institutional determinations about whether design errors occurred and whether acknowledgment is required under professional codes of ethics.
Sequential Adverse Representation in Unrelated Matters State
State in which a professional engineer has, over time, provided expert services to parties on opposing sides of different, unrelated legal or adversarial proceedings — such that at the time of each engagement no active conflict exists with the prior client, but the sequential pattern creates an appearance of impropriety that may be exploited by opposing counsel to imply ethical violation. The state is ethically permissible under codes that require disclosure rather than absolute avoidance, provided the matters are genuinely unrelated and no confidential information from prior engagements is implicated.
Sequential Multi-Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has provided professional services to a party across multiple prior engagements — including engagements on opposing sides of adversarial proceedings involving that party — must proactively disclose the full pattern of prior relationships to each new retaining party at or before the time of accepting each new engagement, prohibiting selective or partial disclosure that reveals only the most recent prior relationship while omitting earlier engagements that, in combination, create a more complex conflict profile, and establishing that the disclosure obligation scales with the complexity and adversarial history of the prior relationship pattern.
Sequential Opposing-Party Retention in Same Investigative Matter State
State in which an engineer, having been retained by one party (e.g., a government agency) to investigate a specific incident and thereby gaining access to that party's confidential findings, strategies, and technical data, is subsequently retained by an opposing party (e.g., a contractor filing a claim against the first party) in the same matter — creating an irresolvable conflict of interest rooted in the engineer's prior privileged access and the impossibility of impartial service to both sides of the same dispute.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which an engineer who has been retained by one party in an active legal or quasi-legal proceeding, and has thereby gained cooperative access to that party's confidential information, is subsequently approached to provide services for the opposing party in the same proceeding — creating an absolute ethical prohibition on accepting the cross-side engagement that cannot be resolved by terminating the prior relationship, offering a 'separate and independent' analysis, or relying on the engineer's subjective belief in their own impartiality.
Sequential Party Representation Ethics Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the propriety of an engineer serving as expert witness for and against the same party in separate, unrelated legal proceedings at different points in time, including whether prior adversarial or supportive roles create an appearance of impropriety or actual conflict of interest that would disqualify the engineer from subsequent engagements
Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Engagement Non-Requirement Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to correctly recognize that the general norm of collegial pre-reporting engagement — approaching a colleague directly before filing a formal complaint — is not required when the observed violation is serious in nature, and that in such cases the engineer may proceed directly to filing a formal complaint with the state licensing board without first seeking clarification or providing the offending engineer an opportunity to self-correct.
Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Non-Requirement Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer observes what appears to be a serious — rather than inadvertent or technical — violation of state board rules of professional conduct by another engineer, the reporting engineer is not required to first approach the offending engineer collegially or afford an opportunity for voluntary correction before filing a formal complaint with the licensing board, distinguishing the serious-violation context from the inadvertent-violation context in which collegial pre-reporting engagement is the preferred first step, and prohibiting the use of the collegial-engagement norm as a basis for delaying or avoiding formal reporting of serious misconduct.
Serious Violation Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Non-Requirement Obligation
Recognition that the duty of collegial pre-reporting engagement — which requires an engineer to approach a colleague directly before filing a licensing board complaint for inadvertent or minor violations — does not apply when the observed violation is serious in nature, because serious violations of professional conduct rules are not appropriately remediated through informal collegial counsel alone, and the public interest in formal accountability through the licensing board process supersedes the collegial norm of private correction for inadvertent infractions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that a professional colleague — including a competitor — has committed what appears to be an inadvertent or unintentional violation of state engineering licensure laws or regulations (such as practicing without a required certificate of authority) to first communicate directly with that colleague to advise them of the potential violation, explain the reasons for the requirement and the consequences of non-compliance, and afford the colleague an opportunity to remedy the situation before filing a report with the licensing board or other authority, recognizing that inadvertent violations are not uncommon and that collegial counsel is both ethically appropriate and professionally reciprocal, provided there is no imminent public danger requiring immediate escalation.
Service-Before-Profit Professional Claim Integrity Preservation Capability
No amount of rationalization or explanation will change the public reaction that the profession's claim of placing service before profit has been compromised by a practice which is repugnant to the basic principles of ethical behavior under the laws and customs of this country.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that participation in corrupt payment schemes — including gift-giving to secure contracts — fundamentally compromises the engineering profession's foundational claim of placing service before profit, and to refrain from conduct that would undermine this claim in the eyes of the public, including the ability to weigh the reputational and professional consequences of corrupt participation against short-term business gains and to prioritize the integrity of the profession's service-before-profit identity.
Service-Before-Profit Professional Claim Preservation Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from engaging in conduct — including participation in corrupt payment schemes, gift-for-contract arrangements, or facilitation payments to foreign officials — that would compromise the engineering profession's foundational claim to place service to the public ahead of profit, establishing that no amount of rationalization, pragmatic justification, or competitive necessity argument can rehabilitate conduct that is repugnant to the basic principles of ethical behavior and that publicly undermines the profession's service-before-profit identity, as established by the BER's recognition that the profession's claim of placing service before profit is compromised by practices repugnant to basic ethical principles regardless of their legality or local acceptance.
Service-Before-Profit Professional Claim Preservation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from conduct — including participation in corrupt payment schemes, gift-for-contract arrangements, or other profit-motivated ethical violations — that publicly undermines the engineering profession's foundational claim to place service to the public ahead of profit, recognizing that such conduct, when revealed, irreparably damages public trust in the profession's stated values and cannot be rehabilitated by pragmatic justifications about competitive necessity or job preservation.
Service Before Profit as Professional Identity Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that the engineering profession's claim to public trust and professional status rests on the foundational commitment to place service to the public ahead of personal or firm profit — and that conduct which visibly subordinates service to profit (such as offering gifts to secure contracts) is repugnant not only because it violates specific code provisions but because it publicly undermines the profession's defining self-representation and erodes public confidence in the integrity of engineering services
Service Continuity as Municipal Engineering Quality Assurance Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that continuity of municipal engineering services — achieved by retaining the same qualified consulting engineer over time — tends to ensure the best quality of engineering services to the municipality, because accumulated institutional knowledge, familiarity with local infrastructure, and established working relationships enhance the engineer's effectiveness; this principle provides an affirmative public-interest rationale for permitting the designated municipal engineer-consultant to also provide complete engineering services through their own organization, provided the engineer-client relationship (not employer-employee) is maintained
Settlement Context Forensic Report Correction Non-Deferral Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert to recognize that the active status of settlement negotiations between the retaining attorney and opposing counsel does not justify deferring, withholding, or delaying notification of a discovered data inaccuracy in a submitted forensic report — including the ability to correctly identify that the adversarial and settlement context creates no exception to the professional obligation to correct inaccurate professional work product, and to act on that recognition by promptly notifying the retaining attorney despite the potentially disruptive effect on settlement strategy.
Severe Weather Design Standard Proactive Adoption Obligation
Engineer A is involved in the design of the structural system on a building project in an area of the country that experiences severe weather conditions
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who designs structural systems in geographic areas known to experience severe weather conditions to proactively seek out, evaluate, and adopt newly published severe weather design parameters and standards — beyond merely relying on previously learned methods — when designing structures whose failure under severe weather would pose significant risk to public safety. This obligation is heightened relative to general technical currency obligations because the known hazard environment creates a foreseeable risk that outdated methods may be inadequate, and the engineer's regional experience creates constructive awareness of the need for updated methods.
State in which a project is located in a geographic area with documented severe weather conditions that impose heightened structural design obligations, requiring engineers to apply region-specific design parameters and remain current with evolving severe weather design standards applicable to that locale.
Severe Weather Structural Design Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for designing structural systems in geographic areas subject to severe weather conditions, bearing obligations to maintain current knowledge of evolving design standards and technical literature specific to severe weather hazards, apply up-to-date design parameters to protect public safety, and ensure structural designs reflect the best available engineering knowledge for the environmental conditions of the project location.
Severe Weather Structural Design Parameter Application Capability
Technical capability of a licensed structural engineer to identify, understand, and correctly apply published severe weather structural design parameters — including wind load specifications, impact resistance requirements, and other hazard-specific design criteria — to structural system design in geographic areas known to experience severe weather conditions, ensuring that structural systems are designed to withstand the specific weather hazards of the project location.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical capability to perform structural engineering design — including analysis of loads, structural member sizing, connection design, foundation design, and basement/retaining structure design — in accordance with applicable codes and standards, sufficient to produce construction drawings that are free from serious errors, omissions, and faulty details, and that can be safely constructed without structural failure.
Severe Weather Structural Design Standard
new and improved severe weather design standards have been published in the most recent technical literature
Published technical standards specifying structural design parameters and methods for buildings in areas subject to severe weather conditions, representing the current state of professional knowledge for structural resilience
Shared Municipal Stakeholder Dual Role Conflict State
State in which a government engineer whose public employer interacts with municipalities (e.g., through grant agreements) is simultaneously engaged or solicited to perform private consulting work for those same municipalities, creating a structural conflict of interest even when the subject-matter domains of the public and private work are formally distinct.
Shared Presentation Material Dual-Role Boundary Erosion State
State in which a professional engineer uses the same document, presentation, data set, or professional material in both their government employment role and their private consulting role — without clearly distinguishing the capacity in which the material was prepared or is being presented — thereby eroding the boundary between the two roles, potentially misrepresenting the institutional authority behind the material, and making it impossible for audiences to determine whether the engineer is acting in an official government capacity or as a private consultant.
Sign-Off Authority Substantive Certification Non-Delegation Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who holds mandatory sign-off authority over final inspection reports or other professional documents cannot treat that sign-off as a purely administrative act — the engineer must ensure that the underlying work product meets professional standards before signing, and cannot sign off on reports produced under conditions the engineer has independently determined to be inadequate, regardless of institutional pressure, resource constraints, or the fact that subordinate inspectors performed the underlying work.
Sign-Off Reservation Disclosure Obligation
the Code provides guidance to engineers who are confronted with circumstances where their professional reputations are at stake
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is asked by an employer or client to sign off on documents about which the engineer has reservations or concerns to disclose those reservations rather than signing without comment, recognizing that the professional signature carries a certification of adequacy and that silent sign-off on documents the engineer believes are inadequate constitutes a misrepresentation of professional judgment.
Sign-Off Reservation Formal Disclosure Capability
Sometimes engineers are asked by employers or clients to sign off on documents about which they may have reservations or concerns (See Code Section II.1.b.)
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is asked by an employer or client to sign off on documents about which they have reservations or concerns to formally disclose those reservations — rather than silently acquiescing or refusing without explanation — ensuring that the institutional authority is aware of the engineer's professional concerns before the sign-off is executed or withheld, consistent with Code Section II.1.b.
Signed-and-Sealed Bridge Inspection Consulting Engineer
A licensed professional engineer employed by a consulting engineering firm who conducts a detailed formal inspection of compromised bridge infrastructure, prepares a signed and sealed inspection report identifying specific structural deficiencies, and provides findings to the local government engineer responsible for the structure.
Signed Complaint Policy Preference Over Anonymous Complaint Constraint
On the other hand, there are reasons why raising the issue via a signed letter vs. anonymously would be appropriate.
Ethical and policy constraint establishing that while anonymous complaint filing with a state engineering licensing board is permissible and partially discharges the reporting obligation, professional policy strongly favors the filing of a signed, identified complaint — prohibiting the engineer from treating anonymous filing as fully equivalent to identified filing in terms of ethical completeness, and establishing that the preference for signed complaints is grounded in: (1) the accused engineer's legitimate interest in knowing the identity of the accuser to understand the context of the charges; (2) the fundamental fairness principle that it is unjust not to know one's accuser; and (3) the practical consideration that the absence of an identified complainant may weaken the licensing board's case against the accused.
Signed Complaint Policy Preference Self-Application Capability
the Board believes that it makes good policy sense for an engineer to step forward and publicly raise an ethical concern with the state board.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has filed or is considering filing a complaint with a state engineering licensing board to recognize and apply the professional policy preference that engineers step forward publicly with a signed complaint rather than filing anonymously — understanding that this preference is grounded in the values of professional accountability, public transparency, procedural fairness to the accused, and the strengthening of the board's investigative capacity — while correctly understanding that this preference does not render anonymous complaints unethical when compelling circumstances make anonymous filing the only feasible option.
Signed Complaint Preference Over Anonymous Reporting Principle
Professional virtue principle establishing that, while anonymous complaints to professional licensing boards are ethically permissible when circumstances make signed reporting difficult, engineers who observe professional misconduct should prefer to file signed, attributed complaints — because signed complaints facilitate investigation, are fairer to the accused who has a right to understand the context of charges, and strengthen the case against the alleged violator — such that the preference for signed reporting is a matter of good policy and professional courage even when anonymous reporting meets the ethical minimum.
Signed Complaint Public Step-Forward Policy Preference Obligation
there are reasons why raising the issue via a signed letter vs. anonymously would be appropriate
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who files a complaint with a state engineering licensing board regarding a peer's serious professional misconduct to recognize — and, where circumstances permit, to act upon — the professional and policy preference for filing a signed, identified complaint rather than an anonymous one, because a signed complaint: (a) enables the accused engineer to understand the context in which the charges are being made; (b) satisfies the fundamental fairness norm that an accused party should have some means of knowing who their accuser is; (c) strengthens the board's ability to investigate and prosecute the complaint; and (d) demonstrates the professional courage and public accountability that the self-policing character of the engineering profession demands, even though an anonymous complaint that is factually grounded and made in good faith is not itself unethical.
Signed and Sealed Document Integrity Significance Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to understand, internalize, and apply the full professional and legal significance of signing and sealing engineering documents — including recognizing that a seal signifies either personal drafting or responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision), that any subsequent modification by an unauthorized party thoroughly compromises the integrity and veracity of the document, and that the sealing process is a critical professional accountability mechanism that must be protected against unauthorized alteration.
Signed and Sealed Report Integrity Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the inviolability of engineering reports that have been signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer, including the prohibition on unauthorized alteration of such documents by non-engineers or supervisors, and the duty of the signing engineer to take corrective action when they discover their sealed work has been materially altered without their knowledge or consent.
Simultaneous Dual-Role Adverse Advocacy Resignation Prerequisite Obligation
when the engineer appeared before the body which had jurisdiction over the subject matter on behalf of a party whose position was adverse to that of the government while at the same time being an advisor to the government, he at best gave the appearance of trying to be on both sides of a public policy issue
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously serves as a paid advisor to one party in a public proceeding — and who wishes to testify or advocate on behalf of an opposing party in that same proceeding — to first resign from the advisory role before doing so, recognizing that appearing before a decision-making body on behalf of a party whose position is adverse to the engineer's advisory client, while still serving as that client's advisor, creates an irremediable appearance of attempting to be on both sides of a public policy issue and constitutes paid advocacy for a private interest in open conflict with the engineering opinions of the government body the engineer advises.
Simultaneous Public Employment Private Contract Conclusion Absolute Prohibition Constraint
Inviolable ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who remains actively employed by a public agency from concluding binding private contracts, forming joint venture corporations, or finalizing private employment arrangements for work on the same project for which the engineer holds public responsibilities — establishing that the act of concluding such arrangements while still employed constitutes an absolute breach of faithful agent duties, conflict of interest avoidance obligations, and the duty to avoid conduct that is a conflict of interest with the employer, regardless of whether the engineer intends to resign imminently, as derived from NSPE Code Sections II.4 and III.4.
Sincere Professional Judgment Environmental Safety Adequacy Ethical Sufficiency Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who proceeds with a client-directed design involving environmental trade-offs — such as a higher-intensity landfill expansion — satisfies the ethical requirement to hold public safety paramount if and only if the engineer's decision to proceed is grounded in a sincere, professionally formed opinion that the design will not jeopardize the public health of the community, prohibiting the engineer from proceeding on the basis of client pressure, economic interest, or mere regulatory compliance alone without forming an independent sincere professional judgment about safety adequacy, and establishing that the sincerity and professional grounding of that judgment — not its ultimate correctness — is the ethical standard against which the engineer's conduct is measured, as established by BER Case No. 79-2.
Single-Public-Role Conflict Prohibition Sufficiency Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that holding even a single public governmental role — such as county engineer with responsibility to submit plans to a governmental body with recommendation — is independently sufficient to trigger the absolute conflict-of-interest prohibition against participating in considerations or actions with respect to services the engineer provides in private practice, without requiring the additional aggravating factor of also serving as a voting member of the approval body; including the ability to correctly identify that the county engineer role alone, by virtue of the responsibility to submit plans with recommendation, creates the prohibited conflict even absent planning board membership.
Single-Public-Role Sufficiency Conflict Prohibition Activation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that holding even a single public governmental role — such as county engineer with authority to recommend plans to a governmental body — is sufficient to trigger the absolute conflict prohibition under Section 8(b), without requiring the additional element of membership on the approving body itself; the conflict prohibition activates upon the engineer's assumption of any public service role that gives the engineer authority over, or responsibility for, the submission or recommendation of plans that the engineer prepared in private practice, regardless of whether the engineer also holds a voting or membership role on the final approving body.
Single-Role Public Authority Sufficiency for Conflict Prohibition Activation Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that when an engineer simultaneously holds a public governmental role carrying recommendation or submission authority over engineering plans and a private consulting role as the designer of those same plans, the public recommendation role alone — without any additional voting, approval, or board membership — is independently sufficient to activate the absolute conflict of interest prohibition applicable to public-service engineers. The principle forecloses the argument that conflict violations require the most egregious or multi-layered form of the conflict; any single public-authority role that intersects with the engineer's private work triggers the prohibition.
Single Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Non-Differentiation Constraint
Regulatory and ethical constraint prohibiting NSPE — as an institution — and individual NSPE members from applying different standards of ethical conduct to different classes of NSPE members based on their national origin, geographic location, or home-country legal environment, establishing that a single uniform standard of conduct must apply to all NSPE members regardless of whether they are U.S.-licensed engineers practicing abroad or non-U.S. engineers practicing in their home countries, as established by NSPE Code Section III.8.a and the BER's determination that applying one standard to domestic members and another to international members would be a major institutional error that undermines the Code's global meaning and application.
Single Public Role Section 8(b) Conflict Prohibition Activation Constraint
Absolute ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's violation of NSPE Code Section 8(b) is triggered by holding even a single public governmental role — specifically the county engineer role with institutional responsibility to submit plans to the county planning board with a recommendation — when the engineer simultaneously prepares those plans in a private consulting capacity; establishing that planning board membership is not a prerequisite for the Section 8(b) prohibition to apply, and that the county engineer's submission-and-recommendation authority over the plans constitutes 'participation in considerations or actions with respect to services provided by him in private engineering practice' sufficient to activate the absolute prohibition, even in the absence of a voting seat on the approval body.
Situational Ethics Non-Practice in International Engineering Obligation
Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — including NSPE International Members practicing outside the United States — to refrain from applying situational ethics in professional practice, recognizing that ethical obligations under the NSPE Code are not geographically variable, culturally contingent, or adjustable based on the legal or ethical norms of the host country, and that permitting situational variation in ethics standards would expose citizens of host countries to weakened protections and undermine the global integrity of the engineering profession.
Situational Ethics Prohibition Precedent Active State
In the seventies, the Board of Ethical Review noted that the so-called 'When in Rome...' rule, whereby engineers could engage in the legal and ethical practices of the host country was not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
State in which an established ethics body precedent categorically prohibits 'situational ethics' — the practice of adjusting ethical standards based on local law, custom, or cultural context — creating a firm constraint that applies regardless of where the engineer is practicing. This state is activated when a 'When in Rome' argument is raised and the applicable precedent forecloses it, transforming the abstract principle of consistent integrity into a non-negotiable prohibition on context-dependent ethics adjustment.
Fundamental principle establishing that professional engineering ethics obligations are not situationally variable — engineers cannot adopt different ethical standards depending on the geographic location, cultural context, legal environment, or business circumstances of a particular engagement — because situational ethics would undermine the consistent protection of public welfare that professional ethics codes are designed to provide and would enable progressive erosion of minimal protections for citizens in jurisdictions with weaker regulatory frameworks
Situational Ethics Technical-Professional Practice Parity Prohibition Constraint
Inviolable ethical constraint establishing that situational ethics — the practice of adjusting ethical standards based on local context, cultural norms, or competitive circumstances — cannot be practiced in the professional practice domain any more than it can be practiced in technical engineering domains, prohibiting engineers from treating ethical standards as context-variable in the same way that physical laws and engineering standards are treated as universal, and establishing that the universality of technical engineering principles implies an equivalent universality of professional ethical principles.
Six-Month Inaction Firm Principal Escalation Trigger Constraint
we believe that after a period of six months during which the error was not corrected, Engineer A should raise the issue with a principal in the firm.
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that when an engineer or engineer intern has reported a misrepresentation in firm marketing materials to the responsible party (such as a marketing director) and no corrective action has been taken within a period of six months — constituting a clear breach of a reasonable correction period — the reporting engineer is constrained to escalate the matter to a principal in the firm, prohibiting indefinite passive acceptance of an acknowledged but uncorrected misrepresentation solely on the basis of the responsible party's prior promise or continued inaction.
Small Municipality Competent Engineering Access as Public Interest Justification
the Board determined that the public interest is best served by providing to the small municipalities the most competent engineering services which they can acquire.
Domain-specific principle establishing that the public interest in ensuring small municipalities have access to the most competent engineering services they can acquire — given resource constraints that preclude full-time staff engineers — serves as an affirmative ethical justification for otherwise-scrutinized dual-role arrangements, provided those arrangements are structured to minimize actual conflicts of interest; this principle reflects the legislature's intent in enacting state laws requiring every municipality to have a municipal engineer and the profession's recognition that rigid conflict-avoidance rules may harm the very public they are designed to protect
Small Municipality Competent Engineering Firm Selection Capability
Many of the smaller communities in the state do not have and cannot afford full-time municipal engineers or supporting staff personnel for a full-time office.
Capability of a small municipality that cannot afford a full-time municipal engineer — and that is required by state law to appoint one — to select a consulting firm and appoint one of its principals as municipal engineer in a manner that ensures the appointed principal possesses competence relevant to the municipality's engineering needs, that the firm has sufficient capacity to serve the municipality's capital improvement requirements, and that the selection process is conducted with integrity and in the public interest rather than on the basis of pre-existing relationships or other improper considerations.
Small Municipality Consulting Firm Municipal Engineer Appointment State
Many of the smaller communities in the state did not have and could not afford full-time municipal engineers
State in which a small municipality, unable to afford a full-time municipal engineer, appoints a principal of a private consulting firm as its municipal engineer — typically on a low retainer or cost-plus basis — with the expectation that the same firm will be retained for capital improvement projects, creating a structural dual-role arrangement that is ethically permissible under state law and public interest considerations but requires ongoing conflict management.
Small Municipality Dual-Role Arrangement Public Interest Justification Recognition Obligation
Duty of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and municipal decision-makers to recognize that the public interest in providing small municipalities — which cannot afford full-time engineering staff — with access to the most competent engineering services available constitutes a legitimate justification for permitting dual-role arrangements (advisory plus design) that would otherwise raise conflict-of-interest concerns, provided that the arrangement is structured to avoid self-review and undivided loyalty is maintained, and that this public interest justification is grounded in the legislative intent of state laws requiring municipal engineers.
Small Municipality Dual-Role Public Interest Justification Recognition Capability
Many of the smaller communities in the state did not have and could not afford full-time municipal engineers or supporting staff personnel for a full-time office
Capability of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and municipal decision-makers to recognize that the public interest in providing small municipalities — which cannot afford full-time municipal engineers — with access to the most competent engineering services available constitutes a legitimate justification for dual-role arrangements in which a consulting firm principal serves as municipal engineer while the firm also provides design and capital improvement services to the same municipality, and to correctly assess when this public interest justification applies and when it is overridden by irreconcilable structural conflicts.
Small Municipality Engineering Service Access Public Welfare Facilitation Obligation
it is not uncommon for communities with limited budgets to retain the services of a competent professional engineer or professional engineering firm to serve in an advisory or other capacity on engineering matters affecting the community.
Duty of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and municipal clients to recognize that the public interest is best served by providing small municipalities — which cannot afford full-time engineering staff — with access to the most competent engineering services available, and to structure part-time municipal engineering arrangements in a manner that achieves this public welfare objective while maintaining ethical boundaries on dual-role service, recognizing that the competitive disadvantage imposed on part-time municipal engineers who are precluded from design work is an acknowledged ethical cost that does not override the conflict-of-interest prohibition but should be minimized through careful role structuring.
Small Municipality Full-Time Engineer Fiscal Incapacity Resource Constraint
Resource constraint arising from the fiscal limitations of smaller municipalities that cannot afford full-time municipal engineers or supporting staff — establishing that this incapacity is a recognized structural condition that shapes the permissible forms of municipal engineering service delivery, justifies the consulting-firm-as-municipal-engineer arrangement, and constrains the municipality from demanding full-time engineering services it cannot fund while simultaneously constraining the appointed consulting engineer to provide adequate service within the retainer compensation structure.
Small Municipality Practical Dual-Role Permissibility Boundary Constraint
the public interest was best served by providing the small municipalities with the most competent engineering services which they can acquire
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing the boundary conditions under which a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm serving as a part-time municipal engineer may also perform design services for the same municipality — recognizing that the public interest in providing small municipalities with competent engineering services creates a zone of permissible dual-role practice, but establishing that this permissibility is bounded by: (1) the absence of self-review of the engineer's own work, (2) the absence of private work within the municipality for developers or other private parties subject to the engineer's official review, (3) prompt disclosure of all circumstances that could create conflicts of interest, and (4) compliance with NSPE Code Section II.4.e — prohibiting the extension of permissible dual-role precedents (BER Cases 63-5, 74-2, 01-11) to situations where the engineer has advised on contractor selection, conducted a performance review of the displaced contractor, and then seeks to capture the successor design contract.
Small Municipality Practical Engineering Access Ethical Balancing Capability
Historically and particularly in this period of dwindling financial and other resources, it is not uncommon for communities with limited budgets to retain the services of a competent professional engineer or professional engineering firm to serve in an advisory or other capacity on engineering matters affecting the community
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, engineering firm, and municipal client to recognize and balance the practical reality that small municipalities with limited budgets depend on part-time or consulting engineers for competent engineering services — and that overly restrictive conflict-of-interest rules could deprive such communities of needed expertise — against the ethical imperative to prevent conflicts of interest, and to identify arrangements that serve both the public interest in engineering access and the professional interest in conflict avoidance.
Small Municipality Public Interest Dual-Role State Law Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when state law requires every municipality to have a municipal engineer and smaller communities cannot afford full-time engineers, the public interest is best served by permitting a consulting firm principal to serve simultaneously as municipal engineer and as the firm providing engineering services for capital improvement projects — establishing that this dual arrangement is ethically permissible under the stated conditions because the public interest in providing small municipalities with the most competent engineering services they can acquire justifies the arrangement, and that state law mandating municipal engineers was intended to achieve this public interest end, as established by BER Case 74-2.
Small Municipality Statutory Engineering Client
Many of the smaller communities in the state do not have and cannot afford full-time municipal engineers
A small municipality that, pursuant to state law requiring every municipality to have a municipal engineer, retains a private consulting firm and appoints one of its principals as the municipal engineer, thereafter also retaining that same firm for capital improvement engineering services — bearing obligations of fair stewardship of public resources, compliance with statutory requirements, and ensuring the arrangement delivers competent engineering services to the community.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A city government client role that retains a private consulting engineering firm under a multi-year contract for ongoing engineering services, bearing authority over contract renewal decisions and coordination of the engineer's work through a designated administrative official, while subject to obligations of fair procurement and impartial evaluation of competing firms.
Smithtown selects Engineer B to provide design services
A municipal government stakeholder role that retains a part-time town engineer for advisory and oversight services, relies on that engineer's advice in selecting and evaluating design contractors, and agrees to award a vacated design contract to the town engineer's own private firm following contractor termination, bearing obligations of independent procurement oversight and avoidance of conflicted contracting arrangements.
Snow Load Structural Modification Risk Assessment Capability
Technical capability of a licensed structural engineer to assess whether modifications to a structure — specifically the removal of load-bearing columns and footings — compromise the structure's ability to safely carry design snow loads, drawing on original design calculations and knowledge of the structural system's load path, and to form a professional judgment about collapse risk sufficient to trigger safety notification obligations.
Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability
On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — and of any engineer evaluating another engineer's conduct — to correctly distinguish between the distribution of a professional business card in a formal business context (which triggers full licensure disclosure obligations) and distribution in a purely social, non-business context to a non-engineer acquaintance (which does not constitute a professional solicitation and therefore does not trigger the same disclosure obligations), and to apply this distinction when assessing whether an ethics violation has occurred.
Social Context Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's distribution of a technically accurate, jurisdiction-specific business card to a non-engineer acquaintance in a purely social context — where no engineering services are being solicited or offered — does not constitute a violation of engineering licensure or advertising ethics rules, even if the card is subsequently redistributed by the recipient into a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed, because the engineer's intent and context of distribution were non-professional and non-solicitation in nature, and the engineer cannot be held responsible for third-party redistribution of materials originally shared in a social setting.
Social Context Business Card Recipient Non-Engineer
A non-engineer individual who receives a professional engineer's business card in a purely social context (not a business or solicitation context), and whose subsequent sharing of that card with a licensing authority triggers a potential misconduct inquiry. This role is distinguished by the absence of any professional or commercial relationship with the engineer and the incidental nature of the card exchange.
Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of any engineer evaluating another engineer's conduct to recognize that distribution of a technically accurate, jurisdiction-specific business card bearing the PE designation to a non-engineer recipient in a purely social (non-business) context does not constitute a violation of engineering ethics or licensure rules, and that initiating a formal licensure board complaint based solely on such social-context distribution is itself ethically impermissible. The obligation requires contextual calibration: the professional character of the card distribution event — not merely the card's content — determines whether an ethics obligation is triggered.
Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle
Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information. On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.
Professional principle establishing that a licensed professional engineer who presents a business card bearing a PE designation in a purely social (non-business) context to a non-engineer layperson in a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed does not thereby commit an ethics violation, because the purpose and audience of the communication are not professional in nature, no engineering services are being solicited or offered, and no member of the public is being misled into relying on the engineer's licensure status for professional purposes.
Software Tool Competence Substitution Non-Reliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from treating any software tool, CD-ROM library, design template, or automated system as a substitute for the domain-specific education, training, and experience required to practice competently in a technical field, and to independently verify — through review of professional standards, consultation with qualified peers, or other reliable means — that any tool adopted for engineering practice genuinely supports rather than replaces the engineer's own competence. This obligation applies regardless of vendor claims about the tool's capabilities and regardless of the engineer's general engineering credentials in other domains.
Software Tool Substituted for Domain Competence State
State in which a licensed professional relies on a commercial software tool or automated system as a functional substitute for genuine domain-specific experience and competence, thereby offering services in areas where they lack the underlying technical knowledge required to exercise independent professional judgment, evaluate tool outputs critically, or identify errors in generated designs.
Solar-Without-Storage Third-Party Grid Stress Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified that a proposed transition from on-site generation to solar-without-storage will foreseeably increase stress on the local utility grid — thereby increasing the probability of rolling blackouts for third-party electricity consumers — must disclose that systemic third-party impact in any advisory report to the decision-making authority, prohibiting the engineer from presenting the solar transition as viable based solely on isolated facility-level analysis while omitting the known adverse systemic externality on the broader grid and third-party consumers.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has completed a technical analysis demonstrating project viability in isolation must also disclose in any advisory report the systemic externalities of the proposed project — including foreseeable adverse impacts on third-party infrastructure, public utilities, or community welfare — prohibiting the submission of a report that presents only isolated project viability without disclosing known systemic risks that the engineer has identified through the course of analysis, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions and the principle that engineers must hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare.
Solar Generation Without Storage Risk Assessment Capability
Technical capability to identify, analyze, and communicate the specific operational risks of solar energy generation systems that lack battery storage — including intermittency during nighttime hours and adverse weather events, inability to provide dispatchable power during peak demand periods, and the resulting increased dependence on utility grid supply during periods of potential grid stress — and to correctly assess whether these risks are material to the organization's energy reliability and public safety obligations.
Sole-Purpose Consulting Engagement Competence Delegation Non-Availability Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer has been retained by a contractor for the sole and exclusive purpose of performing a specific technical task — such as structural footing design — the consulting engineer cannot ethically remedy a competence gap by delegating that core task to a qualified specialist or restructuring the engagement, because the entire scope of the retainer is the task in question; distinguishing this from general consulting firm contexts where workforce restructuring, subcontracting, or joint ventures may supply missing competence, and establishing that a sole-purpose engagement effectively collapses the consulting flexibility differential, making the competence requirement for the specific task inviolable for the retained engineer personally.
Sole-Purpose Consulting Sub-Delegation Circular Nullification Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer has been retained by a contractor or client for the sole and exclusive purpose of performing a specific technical task, any attempt by that engineer to sub-delegate or subcontract that very task to a third party would circularly nullify the purpose and value of the original retention — creating an ethical prohibition on such sub-delegation because it raises the fundamental question of what the retained engineer was actually hired to perform and for what they were being paid, distinguishing this from general consulting firm contexts where subcontracting supplements rather than replaces the firm's core engagement, as established in BER Case 94-8.
Sole-Purpose Engagement Precluding Competence Delegation State
It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings for the facility.
State in which an engineer has been retained by a contractor or client for the sole and exclusive purpose of performing a specific technical task — such as structural footing design — that falls outside the engineer's domain of competence, making it practically and contractually infeasible to subcontract or delegate that very task to a more qualified professional, because doing so would eliminate the entire rationale for the engineer's engagement and compensation. Unlike a general consulting context where workforce restructuring is possible, this state forecloses the competence-remediation pathway of retaining specialists, leaving the engineer with no ethical avenue to continue the engagement.
Sole-Purpose Retained Engineer Cross-Discipline Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation
It appears under the facts that Engineer B was retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by a contractor or client for the sole and exclusive purpose of performing a specific engineering task — such as structural footing design — to recognize that sub-delegating that very task to another specialist is not a feasible ethical escape route, because doing so would render the engineer's retention purposeless and would not discharge the engineer's own competence obligation; the engineer must either possess the competence to perform the task directly or decline the retention entirely.
Sole-Purpose Retention Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — or of an ethics reviewer assessing such an engineer's conduct — to recognize that when an engineer has been retained by a contractor or client for the sole and exclusive purpose of performing a specific technical task, the option of sub-delegating that very task to a separate qualified specialist is practically infeasible, because doing so would render the retained engineer's engagement purposeless and raise the question of what value the retained engineer is actually providing; and to correctly conclude that the consulting-practice flexibility to remediate competence gaps through subconsultants or joint ventures is unavailable in sole-purpose retention arrangements.
Solicitation-Induced Out-of-Competence Design Engineer
A licensed professional engineer who, induced by a deceptive commercial solicitation promising that software tools can substitute for domain-specific design experience, begins offering engineering design and construction services in technical areas entirely outside their established competence, bearing heightened obligations to recognize the limits of their expertise, to refuse work they are not qualified to perform, and to protect the public from the safety risks created by unqualified practice.
Solicitation Deception Avoidance Obligation
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineers seeking professional engagements must take all reasonable steps to avoid misleading, deceptive, or untruthful language in the solicitation of professional employment — including in marketing materials, brochures, proposals, and other communications directed at clients or prospective clients; the obligation applies both to affirmative misstatements and to omissions or framings that create false impressions about qualifications, personnel, or capabilities.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers to make only truthful and accurate representations of their qualifications, capabilities, and experience when seeking or accepting professional engagements, prohibiting false assurances of competence that mislead clients into awarding contracts the engineer cannot adequately perform
Solicitation Misrepresentation Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize when qualification proposals, solicitation presentations, or marketing materials contain misrepresentations of fact — including through selective omission of attribution notices, structural placement of disclosures that creates misleading impressions, or framing of prior-employer projects in a manner that implies current-firm accomplishment — and to correctly classify such practices as potential violations of professional licensing board rules prohibiting misrepresentation in solicitation materials.
Engineer C has criticized the work of another engineer, Engineer B
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer who is a competitor for an upcoming or potential public contract is contacted by a client and asked to evaluate or criticize the work of an incumbent engineer who is still under active contract, bearing obligations to refrain from specific criticism of the incumbent's work, to recognize the impropriety of providing self-serving critique without full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances, and to avoid conduct that constitutes unfair competitive practice or potential injury to another engineer's professional reputation.
Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has agreed to provide evaluative opinions about another engineer's work — despite the existence of a competitive conflict of interest — to provide only objective, technically grounded, and factually accurate assessments, refraining from criticism motivated by competitive advantage, and ensuring that any opinions offered are consistent with what the engineer would provide in a non-competitive context, consistent with professional obligations of objectivity, truthfulness, and fairness.
Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, despite the obligation to decline, has agreed to provide evaluative opinions about another engineer's work at the solicitation of a client or administrator — when the engineer has a competitive financial interest in the outcome — to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage the engineer's competitive position, and to include all relevant information that would be pertinent to a fair evaluation of the incumbent's work.
Sound Knowledge Foundation Requirement for Public Engineering Opinion
Professional virtue principle establishing that engineers may only express public opinions on engineering subjects when those opinions are founded on adequate professional knowledge, honest conviction, and the use of facts — engineers must not issue public commentary on engineering matters that exceeds their competence or is unsupported by sound engineering knowledge and judgment, and must insist on factual accuracy in public forums, group discussions, and published articles.
Sparse Public Attendance Information Gap Recognition and Remediation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer presenting public health and safety findings at a public authority meeting to recognize that sparse public attendance creates a material information gap for affected community members — particularly water rate payers facing health risks — and to take proactive steps to remediate that gap, including identifying alternative notification mechanisms, recommending supplemental public outreach, or escalating findings through channels that reach the affected population.
Sparse Public Attendance Safety Information Gap Remediation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer presenting public health and safety findings to a public authority at a meeting sparsely attended by the public to recognize that the sparse attendance creates an information gap for affected stakeholders, and to take additional steps — such as requesting a public notice period, recommending a follow-up public hearing, or ensuring findings are made publicly available — so that the affected public has a meaningful opportunity to receive and respond to the safety information before a consequential decision is made.
Specialist-Retaining Prime Consulting Engineer
the propriety and value of the prime professional or client retaining the services of experts and specialists in the interests of the project
A licensed professional engineering role in which a prime consultant, while performing substantial services on a project, recognizes the limits of their own technical competence in specialized sub-domains and bears an obligation to retain or recommend the retention of qualified experts and specialists in those areas, thereby ensuring the overall project is executed competently and the public interest is protected.
Specialist-Retention Provision Prime-Substantive-Contribution Contextual Reading Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators — to read the code provision permitting a prime professional engineer to retain or recommend specialists (NSPE Section 6, second clause) in the full context of the competence requirement in the first clause of that same section, recognizing that the specialist-retention provision does not create an independent pathway to accept a prime contract role by simply arranging for a specialist to perform all substantive technical work; rather, the specialist-retention provision applies only where the prime professional is itself performing substantial services on the project, and the specialist is engaged to supplement — not replace — the prime's own substantive contribution.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of ethics adjudicators — to read NSPE Code Section II.2.c (the provision permitting engineers to retain or recommend specialists when the engineer is not fully qualified in a particular area) in the context of the preceding competence provisions of Section II.2 (particularly II.2.a and II.2.b), recognizing that Section II.2.c does not create an independent pathway to accept positions or assignments for which the engineer lacks domain competence by simply pointing to qualified specialists who will perform the actual technical work; rather, Section II.2.c applies only where the engineer possesses sufficient baseline competence to oversee and integrate the specialist's work, and cannot be invoked to circumvent the fundamental competence requirement.
Specialist Consultation Competence Elevation Disclosure Threshold Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer who might otherwise lack sufficient domain competence to confirm a technical finding obtains consultation from a qualified specialist — such as a firm biologist confirming a threatened species habitat risk — that specialist consultation elevates the engineer's effective competence threshold for the finding, thereby triggering the mandatory written report inclusion obligation that applies to domain-competent confirmed findings, and prohibiting the engineer from invoking lack of personal specialist expertise as a basis for omitting the specialist-confirmed finding from a public authority report when the finding has been confirmed through qualified specialist consultation.
Specialist Direct Engagement Agency-Initiated Non-Supplanting Permissibility Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering specialist to correctly recognize that when a government agency independently initiates direct contact with the specialist — after determining that firms that had arranged the specialist as a sub-consultant would not make a substantial contribution — the specialist's response to that agency-initiated solicitation does not constitute improper supplanting of those arranging firms, because no active contract or formal selection of those firms has occurred, and the agency itself is exercising its procurement authority to seek the most qualified direct engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics evaluator to precisely discriminate the scope of the professional rule against supplanting — recognizing that the prohibition applies only when an engineer attempts to displace another engineer who is currently under active contract or in active selection/negotiation with a client, and does not prohibit competitive solicitation of former clients for whom no active contract, specific selection, or negotiation is underway — enabling accurate application of the supplanting rule and avoidance of misuse of the rule as a competitive weapon against permissible solicitation.
Specialist Engagement Obligation When Client Interests Require It
Domain-specific principle establishing that a professional engineer undertaking a project assignment has an affirmative ethical obligation to engage, or advise engaging, experts and specialists whenever the client's or employer's interests are best served by such specialized service — recognizing that professional competence includes not only personal technical capability but also the judgment to identify the limits of that capability and to supplement it through appropriate specialist engagement, and that failure to do so when the need is evident constitutes an ethical breach independent of any contractual obligation
Specialist Expert Repositioned as Prime Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which a recognized technical expert and firm principal, initially arranged by competing firms as a specialized sub-consultant, is subsequently contacted directly by the procuring government agency and invited to submit qualifications as the prime professional for the engagement. Bears obligations to accurately represent willingness and capacity to serve as prime, to disclose prior arrangements with competing firms, and to act consistently with fair competition and public interest in procurement.
Specialist Non-Supplanting Direct Engagement Permissibility Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that a specialist engineer or firm that was arranged as a sub-consultant by competing prime firms does not act unethically by accepting a direct prime contract from the procuring agency when the agency independently initiates that contact — provided the specialist does not actively solicit the direct engagement in a manner designed to supplant the primes, and the work falls entirely within the specialist's field of expertise. The ethical permissibility of the specialist's direct engagement is grounded in the agency's independent judgment that the prime firms would not make a substantial contribution, not in any improper conduct by the specialist.
Specialist Prior Arrangement Personal Conscience Review Before Independent Acceptance Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring a licensed professional engineering specialist who was informally arranged as a sub-consultant by one or more competing firms in a procurement to carefully consider, before accepting a direct prime engagement from the government agency, whether such acceptance would violate any arrangement the specialist may have had with those firms — establishing that even where the anti-supplanting prohibition is not formally triggered (because no definite steps were taken by the client to retain the competing firms), the specialist retains a personal conscience obligation to review the nature and terms of any prior informal arrangements and to assess whether independent acceptance would constitute a breach of those arrangements or an ethical violation of trust; distinguishing this personal conscience review from the formal supplanting prohibition analysis.
Specialist Prior Sub-Arrangement Competing-Firm Disclosure Constraint
Two of the eight firms, A and B, stated that they had each made arrangements with Engineer X... to provide the highly specialized expertise
Ethical constraint requiring a licensed professional engineering specialist who has made prior informal arrangements to serve as a sub-consultant to multiple competing firms in a government procurement to disclose those prior arrangements to the government agency when the agency directly solicits the specialist for prime engagement — establishing that the specialist's duty of honesty and non-deception requires transparency about the prior commitments so the agency can make a fully informed decision about the specialist's engagement, and prohibiting the specialist from submitting qualifications for direct prime engagement without disclosing the existence of the prior informal sub-consultant arrangements with competing firms.
Specialist Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation Obligation
The government agency, concluding that Firms A and B would not make a substantial contribution to the work, then contacted Engineer X, advising him that two firms had indicated their intention to use him as a special technical consultant if awarded the contract
Duty of a licensed professional engineering specialist who was arranged as a sub-consultant by competing firms in a procurement, and who is subsequently directly solicited by the procuring agency, to disclose to the agency the existence of the prior sub-consultant arrangements with the competing firms when submitting qualifications for direct prime engagement. This disclosure obligation ensures the agency has complete information about the procurement context, enables the agency to assess any potential conflicts or fairness concerns, and preserves the integrity of the procurement process. The obligation does not prohibit the specialist from submitting qualifications but requires transparency about the prior arrangements.
Specialized-Knowledge-Exploiting Departing Employee Engineer
A licensed professional engineer who, while employed by a firm, gains particular and specialized knowledge about specific client projects, and upon departure uses that specialized knowledge to solicit or perform work for those same clients on those specific projects without the consent of all interested parties, in potential violation of professional codes governing use of employer-acquired specialized knowledge.
Specialized Hydrologic Hydraulic Subconsultant
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage
A specialized engineering subconsultant role engaged to perform advanced hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, including modeling of sea level rise, storm surge, and precipitation intensity changes, to predict flood impacts of infrastructure modifications on surrounding communities, bearing obligations of technical competence and objective reporting of findings.
Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
A structured technical methodology or study framework for predicting the combined effects of sea level rise, tidal dynamics, and altered storm hydraulics on upstream flood risk, typically requiring specialized subconsultant expertise and used to quantify the extent to which infrastructure changes may accelerate flood damage to adjacent properties
Specialized Knowledge Adverse Use Prohibition Requiring Former Client Consent
Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained a particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.
Relational principle, codified in NSPE Code Section III.4.b, establishing that an engineer who has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer may not participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with the specific project or proceeding from which that knowledge was derived, without the consent of all interested parties — recognizing that firsthand specialized knowledge acquired in a prior engagement is inherently non-neutral and cannot be deployed against the interests of the party for whose benefit it was originally acquired
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Relational principle prohibiting engineers from participating in or representing an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer, without the consent of all interested parties — establishing that confidential specialized knowledge acquired in a prior professional relationship creates a bar to adverse participation even after the relationship ends
Specialized Knowledge Constraint on Post-Departure Competition
the Board determined in Case No. 77-11 that the four engineers violated the NSPE Code with regard to projects for which they had gained specialized knowledge while in the employ of the firm.
Relational principle establishing that while engineers generally have freedom to depart from an employer and compete for the employer's clients, this freedom is constrained when the departing engineer gained particular and specialized knowledge in the course of employment on specific projects — in which case the engineer must obtain the consent of the former employer or the affected clients before performing substantially similar work for a competing firm; the constraint is project-specific and knowledge-specific, not a general prohibition on competition
Specialized Knowledge Employer Disclosure Before Competitive Use Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, during employment, gained particular and specialized knowledge about an employer's clients' projects — including client-specific technical data, project parameters, or proprietary methodologies — to make full disclosure to the employer before using or leveraging that specialized knowledge in competitive solicitation of those same clients, recognizing that: (1) NSPE Code Section III.4.a prohibits use of proprietary information, trade secrets, or other valuable employer information without full disclosure; (2) specialized project knowledge is distinguishable from general professional competence that is freely portable; and (3) the failure to disclose constitutes both a breach of the faithful agent duty and a misuse of confidential employer information. This obligation applies conditionally — only when the engineer in fact gained such specialized knowledge and seeks to exploit it competitively.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, during prior employment, developed proprietary reports, analyses, or technical work product for a client on behalf of the employer, to refrain from exploiting the specific content, data, methodologies, or client-specific information contained in that work product when subsequently competing for related contracts as an independent practitioner — recognizing that while the engineer's general professional knowledge and skills are freely portable, the specific confidential and proprietary content of employer-developed work product remains protected after departure.
Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Constraint Obligation
the Board did determine in Case No. 77-11 that the four engineers did violate the NSPE Code with regard to projects for which they had gained specialized knowledge while in the employ of the firm
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer to establish a competing firm to refrain from competing for projects on which the engineer gained particular and specialized knowledge during employment — recognizing that while general professional knowledge and skills are freely portable, project-specific specialized knowledge acquired in the course of employment creates a constraint on post-departure competition that requires the former employer's or affected client's consent before the engineer may perform substantially similar work; and conversely, the duty to recognize that where no such specialized knowledge was acquired, no such constraint applies and competition is ethically permissible.
Specialized Knowledge Post-Departure Competition Restriction Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer firm and establishes a competing practice is restricted from competing for projects on which the engineer gained particular specialized knowledge while employed by the former firm — distinguishing this restriction from a general prohibition on post-departure competition, which is not per se unethical — and establishing that the specialized knowledge restriction applies only to those specific projects or project types where the engineer's insider technical knowledge would provide an unfair competitive advantage derived from the former employer's investment in developing that knowledge, as established by NSPE BER Case 77-11 and reaffirmed in Cases 86-5 and the present case.
Specialized Military Regulatory Domain Certification Competence Boundary Constraint
Competence constraint arising from a professional engineer's lack of substantive training, education, or experience in specialized military regulatory domains — specifically Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations — which absolutely prohibits the engineer from certifying compliance with those regulations regardless of their general PE licensure, their institutional role, or the length and complexity of the regulatory framework involved, establishing that the specificity, cross-referencing, and technical depth of military regulatory frameworks creates a distinct competence domain that cannot be bridged by general engineering expertise alone.
Specialized Military Regulatory Domain Complexity Recognition Capability
Making certain that a military hardware storage facility is designed and built safely involves keen awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of endeavor.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that military hardware storage, arms, ammunition, and explosive (AA&E) regulations constitute a uniquely complex, highly specialized, and cross-referenced regulatory domain — distinct from general civil or structural engineering — requiring keen awareness of detailed procedures, rules, and regulations unique to military physical security, and to correctly assess that general engineering competence does not transfer to this domain without specific training and experience in military regulatory frameworks.
Specialized Project Knowledge Consent Requirement Activation State
State in which a departing engineer, while still employed, gained particular and specialized knowledge in connection with a specific project under active consideration for a client, such that post-departure solicitation of that client for that specific project requires the consent of all interested parties under professional codes. This state is narrower than general competitive freedom: it activates a consent-based restriction only where the specialized knowledge was acquired in the context of a specific identifiable project, not merely through general familiarity with a client. The state creates an ethical constraint on the departing engineer's competitive conduct that does not apply to engineers who lack such project-specific specialized knowledge.
Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies that a proposed infrastructure project raises technical questions — particularly regarding climate-adjusted hydraulic risk to third parties — that exceed the engineer's own domain competence or available analytical tools to formally recommend to the client the engagement of a specialized subconsultant capable of performing the required analysis, and to document that recommendation in writing, so that the client can make an informed decision about whether to authorize the specialized work and cannot later claim ignorance of the technical gap.
Specialized Technical Services Soliciting Government Agency
A government agency contacts 15 engineering firms to solicit their interest in, and a statement of expertise and capability to provide services in a highly specialized area of technical knowledge.
A government agency role that initiates a procurement process for highly specialized engineering services by contacting a defined list of firms, evaluating their statements of expertise and capability, and making procurement decisions — including the authority to directly solicit unlisted experts when responding firms are found to lack substantive capability. Bears obligations to conduct fair, transparent, and merit-based procurement, to evaluate qualifications honestly, and to act in the public interest.
Specialty Practice Percentage Non-Significance Brochure Listing Permissibility Constraint
While the facts reveal that Engineer X is one of the few engineers in the firm with expertise in the field of hydrology, Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.
Ethical constraint establishing that where a departing engineer's area of specialty does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by the firm — even if that engineer is one of few within the firm possessing such expertise — the continued listing of that engineer in the firm's brochure and resume does not automatically constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts' under NSPE Code Section II.5.a, because the marginal contribution of the specialty to the firm's overall practice reduces the materiality of the departure to prospective clients' qualification assessments; constraining firms to assess the proportional significance of the departing engineer's specialty to total firm services before concluding that continued listing constitutes a misrepresentation, and prohibiting firms from treating internal scarcity of a specialty alone — without corresponding significance to overall firm services — as sufficient to elevate a departing engineer to key-employee status for brochure-listing purposes.
Speculation-Confirmed Violation Distinction State
Those two cases involved a different set of factors that created a reasonable basis for an engineer to take a more measured approach to the situation.
State in which a licensed professional engineer must determine whether a discovered concern constitutes mere speculation or surmise — warranting a measured, cautious response — versus a confirmed, factually established violation of applicable law or regulation — warranting direct confrontation, monitoring, and potential reporting. The ethical pathway available to the engineer differs materially depending on this determination, with speculative concerns permitting more deliberate and restrained responses while confirmed violations activate immediate and unambiguous obligations.
Speculation-Grounded Observation Final Report Omission Permissibility Principle
the possibility of a defect is merely a matter of speculation and surmise
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's incidental observation of a potential safety-relevant condition that is based solely on visual inspection without technical expertise in the relevant domain, without confirmatory testing, and without a factual basis beyond general surmise may permissibly be omitted from a final professional report — because inclusion of speculative, unverified findings in a formal report could mislead recipients, inflame the situation, and damage professional reputations without advancing public safety — provided the observation is preserved in field notes and verbally communicated to the appropriate party in the reporting chain.
Speculative At-Risk Service Entitlement Non-Inference Capability
Engineer A's firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has provided speculative or at-risk professional services — such as assisting with a grant application without a guarantee of compensation or future work — to recognize that the successful outcome of those services does not create a legitimate entitlement to future contract awards, and that any expectation of preferential selection based on prior speculative contributions must not be allowed to influence or bypass competitive procurement processes.
State in which an engineering firm is retained to perform professional services without guaranteed compensation, typically contingent on a future outcome (such as a successful grant application), creating an atypical client-firm relationship where the firm bears financial risk and the nature of compensation and future work expectations may be ambiguous or informally understood.
Speculative Contribution Non-Entitlement Acknowledgment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has provided speculative or at-risk professional services — such as assisting a client with a grant application without guaranteed compensation — to recognize and acknowledge that such contributions do not create an entitlement to subsequent contract awards, and to refrain from treating or representing prior speculative work as a basis for claiming, expecting, or accepting preferential selection on future projects.
Speculative Finding Written Report Exclusion Constraint
While it may be appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from including in a final written professional report an observation or finding that is based solely on visual inspection, surmise, or speculation — without supporting technical testing, evaluation, or domain-competent analysis — establishing that the speculative nature of the finding, combined with the engineer's lack of domain expertise in the relevant technical area, renders inclusion in a formal report irresponsible and potentially inflammatory, while permitting documentation of the observation in personal field notes for possible future reference; distinguishing this exclusion obligation from the more demanding inclusion mandate applicable when findings are confirmed and within the engineer's domain competence.
Speculative Finding Written Report Exclusion Obligation
While it might have been appropriate for Engineer A to note such information in his field notes, to place this information in a final report would not be responsible and could unnecessarily inflame the situation.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has observed a condition outside their domain of expertise — and whose assessment of that condition is based on general surmise and visual inspection rather than testing, evaluation, or specialized competence — to refrain from including that speculative assessment in a formal written engineering report, while still preserving the observation in field notes and communicating it verbally through the client chain, recognizing that including speculative findings in formal reports could unnecessarily inflame the situation and jeopardize the professional reputations of clients and public agencies without adequate technical basis.
Speculative Observation Verbal-Only Subconsultant Escalation Permissibility Constraint
while it might be appropriate for Engineer A to verbally report this information to Engineer A's client, and for the client to report this information to the public agency
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving as a subconsultant who has made an incidental, out-of-scope safety observation that is speculative in nature — based solely on visual inspection without domain-competent testing or evaluation — satisfies the initial threshold of the public safety obligation by verbally communicating the observation to the prime consultant (client), who then relays it to the responsible public agency, prohibiting the subconsultant from treating this verbal escalation as a complete and permanent discharge of the safety obligation while simultaneously establishing that verbal escalation through the client chain is the appropriate initial response when the observation is speculative, the engineer lacks domain expertise, and the prime consultant is in a superior position to evaluate the interrelationships between project elements.
Speculative Observation Written Report Exclusion with Field Notes Preservation Capability
Engineer A stated that he would retain the information for his engineering notes but not include it in the final report, as requested.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has made an out-of-scope observation based on general surmise and visual inspection — without domain expertise in the relevant technical discipline — to correctly determine that the observation should be excluded from the final written professional report while being preserved in engineering field notes, and to recognize that this approach appropriately balances the obligation to document observations for possible future reference against the obligation to avoid including speculative, potentially inflammatory conclusions in formal professional reports submitted to clients and public agencies.
Speculative Out-of-Scope Finding Formal Report Exclusion Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has made an incidental, out-of-scope observation that is based solely on visual inspection and general surmise — without specialized domain expertise, testing, or careful evaluation — to recognize the professional obligation to exclude that speculative finding from the formal written engineering report, while preserving the observation in field notes and communicating it verbally through the client chain, on the grounds that including speculative findings in formal reports could unnecessarily inflame the situation and jeopardize professional reputations without adequate technical basis.
Speculative Out-of-Scope Observation Premature External Authority Reporting Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has made an incidental, out-of-scope safety observation that is speculative in character — based on visual inspection without domain expertise, testing, or confirmatory evaluation — to refrain from reporting that observation directly to external public authorities before: (a) verbally communicating it through the client chain, and (b) determining whether corrective action is being taken; recognizing that premature external reporting of a speculative finding, before the client chain has had the opportunity to assess and act, could unjustly damage the professional reputations of the client and public agency without adequate technical basis, and that the speculative character of the observation reduces the urgency threshold that would otherwise trigger immediate external escalation.
Speculative Service Non-Entitlement to Preferential Award Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer or firm that has performed speculative or at-risk professional services — such as assisting a public client in securing a federal grant without guaranteed compensation — acquires no ethical entitlement to preferential, non-competitive award of subsequent public engineering contracts as recognition or reward for those services, and that any informal promise or expectation of future award based on such prior speculative contribution is ethically impermissible under public procurement fairness norms.
Speculative Work Non-Entitlement to Subsequent Contract Award
Professional principle establishing that an engineer's speculative or at-risk contribution to a client's project success — including grant procurement assistance performed without guaranteed compensation — does not create an ethical entitlement to, or a basis for, preferential selection on subsequent related contracts, and that any such expectation or arrangement must be channeled through lawful competitive processes rather than informal promises or quid pro quo arrangements
Sprinkler Contractor Documentation Requester
the successful sprinkler contractor asks Engineer D for as-built drawings of the existing sprinkler system
A contractor stakeholder role in which a sprinkler or fire protection contractor seeks access to existing as-built drawings from a public agency engineer, either after contract award to support compliant installation work or, over time, before bid submission to gain informational advantage in competitive procurement.
Technical standards, professional norms, and regulatory requirements governing the proper installation of fire sprinkler systems in residential and commercial structures, including requirements for pipe routing, freeze protection, and compliance with applicable codes such as NFPA 13 and NFPA 13D
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical standards, professional norms, and regulatory requirements governing the practice of fire protection engineering, including the design, inspection, documentation, and maintenance of fire suppression systems such as sprinkler systems, and the obligations of fire protection engineers in public-sector roles regarding documentation management and contractor support.
Staff Engineer Internal Escalation Obligation After Supervisor Inaction on Known Misrepresentation
Relational principle establishing that when a staff engineer has notified a direct supervisor or marketing director of an inaccuracy in firm promotional materials that could mislead clients, and the supervisor has failed to take corrective action within a reasonable period (here, six months), the staff engineer bears an affirmative ethical obligation to escalate the matter to a firm principal or higher authority within the firm — rather than treating the initial notification as discharging the full ethical duty; the obligation to escalate is triggered by the combination of actual notification, reasonable waiting period, and continued inaction.
Staff Engineer Reduced Departure Constraint Relative to Partner Principle
We believe Engineer A's conduct is appropriate and within the bounds of what would be considered reasonable, particularly since Engineer A was an employee of ABC and not a partner or principal of the firm.
Relational principle establishing that the ethical constraints on departure conduct — including obligations regarding client solicitation, disclosure to the employer, and competition with the former firm — are calibrated to the engineer's role and status within the firm, such that staff engineers (non-partners, non-principals) are subject to less stringent departure obligations than partners or principals, reflecting the difference in the depth of fiduciary duty, the degree of access to firm-wide confidential business information, and the extent of the engineer's participation in building and maintaining the firm's client relationships
Staff Engineer Role-Calibrated Departure Constraint Recognition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is a staff employee (rather than a partner or principal) of a firm to recognize that the ethical constraints on departure conduct — including obligations regarding client solicitation, disclosure to the employer, and competition timing — are calibrated to the engineer's role and are less stringent than those applicable to partners or principals, who bear heightened duties of loyalty and goodwill preservation by virtue of their ownership stake and fiduciary position in the firm; and conversely, the duty of evaluators and the engineer to apply role-appropriate ethical standards rather than imposing partner-level constraints on staff-level departures.
Staff Engineer Six-Month Inaction Firm Principal Escalation Obligation
Duty of a staff engineer or engineer-in-training who has reported a marketing material misrepresentation to the responsible party (e.g., marketing director) and received a promise of correction, but who observes no corrective action after a period of approximately six months, to escalate the matter to a principal of the firm — rather than proceeding directly to external reporting — so that the firm has a full internal opportunity to remedy the misrepresentation and the engineer fulfills their self-policing obligation through graduated internal channels. This obligation reflects the principle that internal escalation should precede external reporting when the violation is not of an immediately dangerous character, and that six months of inaction following actual notice constitutes a reasonable threshold for triggering the escalation duty.
Staff vs Partner Role-Calibrated Departure Constraint Differentiation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics reviewers to recognize that the ethical constraints applicable to an engineer departing to establish a competing firm are calibrated by the engineer's role within the former firm — specifically, that staff engineers (who are employees without ownership or partnership stakes) are subject to less stringent departure constraints than partners or principals (who owe heightened fiduciary duties, have access to firm-wide confidential business information, and have made implicit commitments to the firm's continuity) — and to apply this role-calibrated framework when assessing the permissibility of competitive departure conduct.
Stakeholder-Driven Technology Transition Pressure State
State in which organizational stakeholders have expressed a preference or demand for transitioning from an existing energy or operational technology to an alternative technology (such as renewable energy) primarily to achieve sustainability or carbon reduction goals, creating pressure on the responsible engineer to evaluate and recommend the transition even when technical tradeoffs — including reliability, resilience, and third-party grid impacts — may not fully support the transition without qualification.
Stakeholder Engagement Balanced Representation Obligation
As part of the project development process, the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback on the project
Duty of a licensed professional engineer conducting or overseeing stakeholder engagement processes for public infrastructure projects to ensure that the perspectives of all affected stakeholder groups — including underserved communities, environmental advocates, and cost-preference commentors — are accurately and completely represented in engineering reports and recommendations presented to decision-makers, and that no stakeholder group's concerns are systematically underweighted or omitted from the professional analysis.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer — whether as lead engineer, subcontractor, or PE supervisor — to ensure that public engagement reports submitted in connection with a public infrastructure project accurately and completely disclose all material facts about the engagement process, including session locations, times, accessibility, comment procedures, and the actual positions of affected communities, and to refrain from making unsupported claims about community support or opposition.
Stakeholder Interest Balancing Capability
Capability to simultaneously identify and balance the legitimate interests of multiple stakeholders — including the employing public agency, the public interest in lawful procurement, competing engineering firms, contracted firms, and regulatory bodies — when navigating procurement compliance disputes, and to seek solutions that are legally compliant, ethically sound, and mutually acceptable to the extent possible.
Stakeholder Interest Balancing Constraint in Compliance Action
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer taking compliance action — including reporting violations, escalating concerns, or pursuing corrective measures — must proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively with a view to promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible, prohibiting unnecessarily aggressive or unilateral action when measured, multi-stakeholder approaches can achieve legal and ethical compliance while minimizing collateral harm.
Stakeholder Preference Non-Distortion of Technical Report Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from structuring, framing, or presenting a technical advisory report in a manner that selectively emphasizes findings favorable to a stakeholder-preferred outcome — such as carbon footprint reduction — while omitting, minimizing, or deferring disclosure of findings that are unfavorable to that outcome — such as increased rolling blackout risk — establishing that stakeholder preference, however legitimate, does not authorize distortion of technical completeness, and that the engineer's obligation to provide objective and complete analysis supersedes the implicit pressure to validate a predetermined stakeholder conclusion.
Stakeholder Pressure Resistance in Energy Advisory Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing an advisory report on an energy system replacement proposal to resist implicit or explicit pressure from stakeholders who have a preferred outcome — including carbon footprint reduction advocates — to present the proposed system as unambiguously viable when the engineer's analysis has identified material risks or limitations, and to ensure that the report reflects an objective and complete technical assessment rather than a stakeholder-pleasing selective presentation.
State in which a professional negotiator faces a counterparty who is deliberately delaying or stalling a transaction, creating situational pressure that may tempt the negotiator to employ ethically impermissible tactics — such as misrepresentation or manipulation — to accelerate the process, thereby activating obligations to pursue only legitimate means of advancing the negotiation.
Stamped Document Author Adversarial Non-Weaponization Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who co-stamped a technical document from allowing that document — or their insider knowledge of its preparation — to be weaponized by a new employer who is an adversarial party against the original client in an active proceeding, establishing that the engineer's ongoing professional accountability for the stamped work creates a residual duty of neutrality that survives employment transition and bars the engineer from permitting their specialized knowledge of the document's strengths and weaknesses to be exploited by the opposing side, as established by NSPE Code faithful agent and conflict of interest provisions.
Stamped Document Author in Active Adversarial Proceeding State
State in which a professional engineer who co-stamped and is professionally responsible for a technical document finds that document at the center of an ongoing adversarial legal or quasi-legal proceeding, creating continuing professional obligations to stand behind the work while simultaneously constraining participation in the opposing side of that proceeding.
Stamped Document Continuing Technical Accountability Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has affixed their seal to a technical document — such as a water-rights analysis — to maintain ongoing professional accountability for the technical integrity of that work product even after departing the firm that produced it, recognizing that the professional seal creates a continuing bond of responsibility that does not terminate upon resignation or change of employment, and that the engineer may be called upon to stand behind, explain, or defend the technical content of the sealed work in subsequent legal or regulatory proceedings.
Stamped Document Ongoing Professional Accountability
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's affixing of a professional seal to a technical document creates a continuing professional accountability for the technical integrity of that work — an accountability that persists after the engineer leaves the employing firm, survives changes in employment context, and entitles (and in appropriate circumstances obligates) the engineer to defend the technical soundness of that work in subsequent proceedings, subject to conflict-of-interest constraints arising from changed employment circumstances
Stamped Document Ongoing Technical Accountability Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and honor the continuing professional accountability that attaches to a technical document bearing their seal — including understanding that stamping a report creates an enduring obligation to stand behind its technical content, to be available to defend or explain the analysis, and to acknowledge the limits of that accountability when subsequent proceedings move beyond the scope of the original stamped work.
Stamped Document Ongoing Technical Accountability Non-Abandonment Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has affixed their seal to a technical document retains ongoing professional accountability for the technical integrity of that document — prohibiting the engineer from abandoning, disavowing, or refusing to stand behind the work product solely on the basis of subsequent employment changes, while simultaneously requiring that any support for the stamped work be rendered in a manner consistent with the engineer's conflict of interest obligations arising from the new employment context.
Standard Project Process Information Channeling Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a public agency engineer who possesses technical documents useful to contractors — such as as-built drawings — must channel the availability and access to those documents through the agency's standard project process rather than through personal initiative or informal direct sharing, prohibiting the engineer from acting as an informal conduit for employer-owned information outside of formally authorized disclosure mechanisms, and establishing that advising contractors of document availability is permissible only when paired with direction to access those documents through proper institutional channels.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a public agency engineer from sharing employer-owned technical documents — including as-built drawings — with external parties through personal initiative or informal channels without formal employer authorization, arising from the faithful agent obligation and the principle established in BER Case 82-2 that engineers must recognize the confidentiality of client and employer relationships even when acting without ulterior motive, and establishing that good intentions do not substitute for formal institutional authorization.
Standard Safety Testing Completion Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes safety concerns about a product that has already completed and passed standard safety testing to recognize that the completion of standard testing — and the product's compliance with existing safety parameters — does not preclude or extinguish the obligation to report additional, unique safety concerns that the standard testing did not capture, particularly when the engineer's specialized competence identifies performance inconsistencies that raise concerns beyond the scope of the completed testing protocol.
Standard Testing Compliance Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a product's demonstrated compliance with accepted standard safety testing parameters does not preclude — and does not discharge — the professional obligation to report additional, unique safety concerns that fall outside the scope of the completed standard testing, including the ability to distinguish between compliance with existing testing protocols and the separate question of whether unique observed safety concerns require further investigation or reporting.
Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Constraint
the contractor is solely responsible for project safety, so Engineer T did not make any design error so long as the design met the professional standard of care (which the facts suggest it did)
Ethical constraint establishing that compliance with the applicable professional standard of care — including proper design, documentation, and contractual safety transfer — is ethically sufficient to avoid a finding of professional error or ethical violation, while simultaneously establishing that such compliance does not exhaust the engineer's ethical opportunities to promote public safety, health, and welfare through voluntary measures beyond the minimum required standard, prohibiting the inference that standard-of-care compliance forecloses ethical scrutiny of whether additional protective measures were available and advisable.
Standard of Care Compliance as Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Obligation
the BER does not view Engineer T's design as unethical.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that compliance with the accepted professional standard of care — including reliance on established contractual risk-transfer mechanisms and customary project delivery processes — constitutes the minimum ethical floor for professional conduct, and that while going above and beyond the standard of care is encouraged and may better serve public welfare, failure to exceed the standard of care does not in itself constitute an ethical violation, provided the engineer has met all mandatory ethical obligations.
Standard of Care Ethical Sufficiency Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project, they had recommended a straightforward structural modification approach, and they were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and their supervisory authority to recognize that compliance with the accepted professional standard of care for structural design — including relying on standard contractual risk-transfer provisions assigning construction safety responsibility to the contractor — establishes an ethical sufficiency floor below which conduct does not constitute a professional error requiring acknowledgment, while simultaneously recognizing that the ethical high road may involve going beyond the standard of care minimum by proactively exploring safer alternatives.
the BER does not view Engineer T's design as unethical. While the construction accident and worker injury are tragic outcomes, because Engineer T's design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care, the BER sees this more as a missed opportunity than an ethical lapse and concludes that no 'error' was made in design
Professional principle recognizing that compliance with the accepted standard of care in engineering practice constitutes the minimum ethical floor — not the ethical ceiling — and that engineers who meet the standard of care have not committed an error, even if better approaches existed in hindsight, while also acknowledging that opportunities to exceed the standard of care for public benefit should be recognized and considered
[Case 88] Professional principle recognizing that compliance with the accepted standard of care in engineering practice constitutes the minimum ethical floor — not the ethical ceiling — and that engineers who meet the standard of care have not committed an error, while also acknowledging that opportunities to exceed the standard of care for public benefit should be recognized and considered.
Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness
Engineer A, a forensic mechanical engineer, chairs a boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society
A licensed professional engineer who chairs a technical standards-setting committee within an engineering society and is simultaneously retained as a forensic expert witness in litigation involving the subject matter of those standards, bearing obligations to fully disclose the committee chair role to retaining counsel, disclose the opposing expert's role as a subcommittee member, and avoid ex parte communications with the opposing expert about pending litigation.
Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who chairs a technical standards-setting committee and is simultaneously retained as an expert witness in litigation involving a fellow committee member serving as the opposing expert must fully disclose to the retaining attorney both the engineer's own leadership role on the shared committee and the opposing expert's membership on a subcommittee within that same committee — prohibiting acceptance of the expert witness engagement without such disclosure, as established by BER Case 19-3 and the principle that dual-role relationships between opposing experts must be transparently disclosed to enable informed assessment of potential conflicts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership role on a technical standards-setting committee and is simultaneously retained as an expert witness in litigation involving a fellow committee member serving as the opposing expert must fully disclose to the retaining attorney: (1) the engineer's own leadership role on the shared committee, and (2) the opposing expert's membership on a subcommittee within that same committee — prohibiting acceptance of the expert witness engagement without such disclosure, as established by BER Case 19-3 and the principle that dual-role relationships between opposing experts must be transparently disclosed to enable informed assessment of potential conflicts.
Standards Committee Chair Expert Witness Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who chairs a technical standards-setting committee and has been retained as a forensic expert witness in litigation to disclose to the retaining attorney both the engineer's own committee chair role and the opposing expert's membership in a subcommittee within that same committee structure, so that the retaining attorney can assess potential conflicts, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make informed decisions about the engagement.
Standards Committee Chair Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership or membership role on a technical standards-setting committee from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with a fellow committee member who is serving as an opposing expert witness in pending litigation — without direction from legal counsel — when both engineers are simultaneously serving as opposing experts in the same case, establishing that the shared committee relationship creates a structural communication risk that requires affirmative prohibition of informal litigation-related communication, as established by BER Case 19-3 and the principle that standards committee integrity and litigation integrity must both be preserved.
Standards Committee Chair Opposing Expert Non-Communication Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who chairs a technical standards-setting committee and has been retained as a forensic expert witness in litigation involving a peer who serves on a subcommittee of that same committee to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with that peer regarding the pending litigation without the direction of legal counsel, so that the integrity of both the expert witness role and the standards committee function are preserved and no improper ex parte communication occurs.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership role on a technical standards-setting committee — and who has been retained as an expert witness in litigation involving a peer who serves on a subcommittee of that same committee — to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with that peer regarding the pending litigation without the direction of legal counsel, so that the integrity of both the expert witness role and the standards committee function are preserved and no improper ex parte communication occurs.
Standards Committee Chair Opposing Expert Professional Respect and Litigation Non-Communication Obligation
Engineer A also has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who chairs a technical standards-setting committee and has been retained as a forensic expert witness in litigation involving a peer who serves on a subcommittee of that same committee to: (1) treat the opposing expert with professional respect in their shared committee context, and (2) refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with that peer regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel, so that the integrity of both the expert witness role and the standards committee function are preserved and no improper ex parte communication occurs.
Standards Committee Conflict of Interest Framework
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the management of conflicts of interest arising from an engineer's simultaneous roles as a standards committee chair or member and as a forensic expert or expert witness in litigation involving matters governed by those same standards, including obligations regarding disclosure, recusal, and the appearance of partiality
Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership or membership role on a technical standards-setting committee within an engineering society to recognize when acceptance of an expert witness engagement in litigation involving subject matter within the committee's scope creates a dual role conflict — particularly when a peer committee member serves as the opposing expert — and to proactively disclose both the committee leadership role and the peer's committee membership to the retaining attorney before or at the time of engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when a prior professional relationship — including former employment with a private firm — creates an actual or apparent conflict of interest in a current public role, and to assess whether recusal, disclosure, or other remedial action is required to preserve the integrity of professional review, approval, or oversight functions, consistent with professional ethics obligations to avoid situations that compromise or appear to compromise independent judgment.
Standards Committee Dual Role Conflict Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership or membership role on a technical standards-setting committee and who has been retained as an expert witness in litigation involving a peer who also serves on that same committee or its subcommittees, to fully disclose to the retaining attorney: (1) the engineer's own role as chair or member of the relevant standards committee, and (2) the peer expert's role as a member of a subcommittee within that same committee structure, so that the retaining attorney can assess any potential conflicts, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make informed decisions about the engagement.
Standards Committee Opposing Expert Dual Role Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership role on a technical standards-setting committee and is simultaneously retained as an expert witness in litigation involving a fellow committee member serving as the opposing expert must fully disclose to the retaining attorney: (1) the engineer's own leadership role on the shared committee, and (2) the opposing expert's membership on a subcommittee within that same committee — prohibiting acceptance of the expert witness engagement without such disclosure, as established by BER Case 19-3 and the principle that dual-role relationships between opposing experts must be transparently disclosed to enable informed assessment of potential conflicts.
Standards Committee Opposing Expert Litigation Communication Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A also has an obligation to '. . . not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel'
Standards Committee Peer Litigation Communication Restraint Capability
Engineer A also has an obligation to '. . . not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership role on a technical standards-setting committee to recognize when a peer committee member has been retained as an opposing expert in pending litigation, and to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with that peer regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel — recognizing that such communications could compromise the integrity of both the litigation and the standards-setting process.
Standards Committee Peer Litigation Non-Communication Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership role on a technical standards-setting committee — and who has been retained as an expert witness in litigation involving a peer who serves on a subcommittee of that same committee — to refrain from engaging in any written or verbal exchanges with that peer regarding the pending litigation without the direction of legal counsel, so that the integrity of both the expert witness role and the standards committee function are preserved and no improper ex parte communication occurs.
Standards Committee Role Disclosure in Expert Witness Engagements
Professional principle requiring engineers who serve in leadership or membership roles on technical standards-setting committees and are simultaneously retained as expert witnesses in cases involving those standards to affirmatively disclose both their own committee role and the roles of any opposing expert witnesses who serve on the same or related committees, to retaining counsel and other relevant parties, so that potential conflicts of interest and professional relationships can be assessed and managed
Standards Subcommittee Member Expert Witness
Engineer B, also a forensic mechanical engineer, is a member of one of the technical subcommittees
A licensed professional engineer who serves as a member of a technical standards subcommittee within an engineering society and is simultaneously retained as a forensic expert witness on the opposing side of litigation from the committee chair, bearing obligations to avoid ex parte communications about the litigation with the committee chair and to exercise independent professional judgment in rendering expert opinions.
State-Mandated Municipal Engineer Appointment Competent Firm Selection Obligation
A state law requires that every municipality have a municipal engineer whose duties and compensation are to be fixed by a municipal ordinance.
Duty of a small municipality that cannot afford a full-time municipal engineer — and that is required by state law to have a municipal engineer — to select a consulting firm and appoint one of its principals as municipal engineer in a manner that ensures the appointed engineer possesses the competence necessary to discharge the statutory duties of the position, including attending public body meetings, providing general engineering advice, maintaining tax maps, reviewing site plans and subdivision maps, preparing cost estimates, handling citizen complaints, and advising on consultant retention.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a governmental appointing authority (e.g., county commissioners) to verify, before appointing a candidate to a statutory public engineering or surveying position, that the candidate possesses not merely the legally required credential (e.g., PE license) but also the domain-specific competence — education, training, and experience — necessary to perform the substantive duties of the position, recognizing that a PE license in an unrelated discipline does not satisfy the competence requirement for a position whose duties fall outside that discipline.
State-Mandated Municipal Engineer Appointment Legal Compliance Constraint
Legal constraint arising from a state statute requiring every municipality to appoint a municipal engineer whose duties and compensation are fixed by municipal ordinance — establishing that municipalities have no discretion to forgo the appointment and must comply with the statutory mandate regardless of fiscal capacity, and that the appointment must be made in a manner consistent with the statutory purpose of ensuring competent engineering oversight of municipal affairs.
State-Mandated Municipal Engineer Appointment Requirement State
State in which a statutory law requires every municipality to appoint a municipal engineer with duties and compensation fixed by ordinance, creating a legal compliance obligation that constrains how municipalities may structure their engineering services and which professional arrangements are legally permissible.
State Agency Legislative Hearing Witness Engineer
A licensed professional engineer employed by or representing a public government agency who testifies before a legislative committee on technical matters such as infrastructure, water supply, or energy policy, bearing obligations to provide accurate and complete engineering analysis, disclose the agency relationship, and serve both the agency's position and the broader public interest.
State Agency Peer Review Conflict Disclosure Obligation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that has been invited to participate in a design-build procurement for a project on which the firm previously conducted an independent external peer review to recognize and fulfill the obligation to disclose the prior peer review engagement to the state agency — including understanding that the state agency, as the commissioning party for both the peer review and the design-build procurement, has a legitimate interest in knowing about the prior engagement and in determining whether the firm's participation creates a conflict of interest or compromises procurement integrity.
State Board Certification Rule Advocacy and Compliance Obligation
State engineering licensure boards are beginning to make such certifications violations of state board rules of professional conduct; and the BER encourages these rule modifications
Duty of professional engineers and their representative bodies to support, encourage, and comply with state engineering licensure board rules that prohibit engineers from certifying compliance with technical regulatory frameworks outside their domain of competence, recognizing that such rules operationalize the core competence and honesty obligations of the profession and that the BER's affirmative encouragement of such rule modifications reflects a professional obligation to strengthen the regulatory infrastructure protecting public welfare.
State Board Guidance Consultation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has fulfilled a minimum reporting obligation to proactively consult the State Board of Professional Engineers for authoritative guidance on whether additional professional obligations exist beyond those already discharged — including the ability to frame the inquiry accurately, interpret the Board's response, and integrate that guidance into a final professional judgment about further action.
State Board Out-of-Competence Certification Violation Rule Encouragement Constraint
State engineering licensure boards are beginning to make such certifications violations of state board rules of professional conduct
Regulatory and professional constraint reflecting the BER's affirmative encouragement of state engineering licensure boards to adopt rules of professional conduct that explicitly classify the improper certification of compliance — i.e., certifying compliance with regulations or technical standards in domains outside the certifying engineer's competence — as a violation of state board rules, establishing that such rule modifications represent an appropriate and desirable evolution of professional regulatory standards, and creating a normative expectation that engineers and their representative bodies support rather than resist such regulatory developments, as established by the BER's concluding statement in this case.
State Board Professional Conduct Safety Disclosure Mandate Awareness Capability
We also believe that state board rules of professional conduct might require such action by professional engineers.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that, beyond the NSPE Code of Ethics, state board rules of professional conduct may independently require disclosure of information constituting a threat to public health and safety — and that such state-level mandatory disclosure requirements operate as an additional, independent source of professional obligation that reinforces and may exceed the NSPE Code's permissive disclosure authorization, requiring the engineer to investigate applicable state board rules when evaluating the scope of the safety disclosure duty.
State Board Rules Safety Disclosure Independent Reinforcement Constraint
Regulatory constraint establishing that state licensing board rules of professional conduct may independently require licensed professional engineers to disclose imminent public safety dangers to appropriate authorities — reinforcing and potentially exceeding the NSPE Code's ethical requirement — prohibiting engineers from treating the NSPE Code as the sole source of the disclosure obligation and establishing that state regulatory requirements may create an independent, legally enforceable duty to disclose safety-critical findings that operates alongside and may be more stringent than the professional code's ethical obligation.
State DOT Employer Prior Approval and Disclosure Obligation for Outside Employment
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed by a state governmental agency to disclose to and obtain approval from the governmental employer before accepting any outside employment or consulting engagement — particularly where the outside engagement involves entities (municipalities, developers) that interact with the engineer's governmental division — recognizing that governmental employers typically have ethics regulations, conflict-of-interest policies, and outside employment approval requirements that must be satisfied as a precondition to any dual employment arrangement, and that the engineer bears personal responsibility for initiating this disclosure proactively rather than waiting for the employer to discover the arrangement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who simultaneously holds governmental employment and performs private consulting work to carefully follow all applicable governmental procedures, policies, and regulations governing dual employment — including conflict-of-interest statutes, ethics regulations, and agency-specific policies — recognizing that compliance with governmental procedural requirements is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical conduct, and that the engineer bears personal responsibility for identifying and adhering to all applicable governmental constraints on outside employment.
State DOT Engineer Concurrent Airport Consultant
A licensed professional engineering role in which a state department of transportation employee simultaneously seeks or performs private consulting work for municipalities on airport design projects, where those same municipalities interact with the engineer's state DOT employer on highway matters, bearing obligations to avoid conflicts of interest arising from the interconnected nature of highway and airport infrastructure decisions and from the appearance of leveraging governmental relationships for private consulting advantage.
A state department of transportation client role that retains a construction contractor to inspect and repair highway and parkway infrastructure, bearing authority over project scope and contractor selection, and subject to obligations to ensure that contracted work is performed safely and in compliance with applicable traffic and safety regulations governing the infrastructure.
State DOT Prior Approval Proactive Disclosure for Outside Employment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a state governmental agency to proactively disclose to the employing agency and seek prior approval before accepting any outside employment or consulting engagement — including the ability to recognize when a solicitation triggers disclosure obligations, identify the applicable state ethics statutes and agency policies governing outside employment, prepare a complete and accurate disclosure, and refrain from accepting the outside engagement until approval is obtained.
State Engineering Registration Law Personal Misconduct Discipline Authority Recognition Capability
The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
Capability of professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies to recognize that state engineering registration laws authorize state registration boards to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude — authority that is explicitly broader than discipline for misconduct in the practice of engineering — and to understand that this statutory framework reflects a legislative judgment that personal character and integrity are prerequisites for professional licensure, providing a legal analogue to the professional society's ethics-based jurisdiction over personal misconduct.
State Engineering Registration Law Personal Misconduct Discipline Authority Recognition Obligation
Obligation of professional engineers and ethics adjudicatory bodies to recognize that state engineering registration laws authorize state registration boards to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude — authority that expressly extends beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering — and that this broad statutory authority (including suspension or revocation of license) reflects a legislative determination that personal character and integrity are prerequisites for licensure, not merely technical engineering competence.
State Environmental Law Minimum Standard Non-Sufficiency for NSPE Public Safety Paramount Compliance Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's compliance with state environmental law minimum standards — including minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes for a landfill expansion — does not automatically satisfy the engineer's independent obligation under the NSPE Code to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount, prohibiting the engineer from treating regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of the public safety obligation when foreseeable residual environmental risks — such as methane migration and groundwater contamination — remain unaddressed, and establishing that the NSPE ethical threshold may exceed the regulatory minimum.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a State Board of Professional Engineers' determination that an engineer has fulfilled minimum professional obligations by notifying the retaining client in writing does not preclude — and may not be used to justify abandoning — the engineer's independent ethical obligation under the NSPE Code to hold public safety paramount, where the systemic nature of the defect and the inadequacy of client-only notification create a residual public safety risk that the regulatory minimum does not fully address.
A licensed professional engineering role within a state environmental or public health regulatory agency responsible for reviewing engineering reports and approving changes to public water supply systems, bearing obligations to independently evaluate public health and safety risks, consider all submitted technical evidence including reports from discharged engineers, and condition approvals on adequate protective measures.
State Highway Department Route Design Engineer
a state highway department had prepared engineering data on alternate routes for a bypass
A licensed professional engineering role within a government highway agency responsible for preparing engineering data, cost estimates, and route recommendations for public infrastructure projects such as highway bypasses, bearing obligations of technical accuracy and public welfare in official government engineering determinations.
State Highway Department Route Proposing Authority
A state highway department proposes routing a new state highway through a city via route X
A government agency stakeholder role in which a state highway department proposes a specific routing for a new state highway through a municipality, bearing obligations of technical soundness, public welfare, and responsiveness to community input, while exercising authority over official route selection decisions.
State Law Engineering Study Prerequisite Advocacy Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is aware that a proposed local ordinance change or traffic infrastructure modification is subject to a state law requirement mandating an engineering study before proceeding to advocate to the city council and other decision-makers that the state law prerequisite must be satisfied before the ordinance change is implemented — including articulating the specific statutory requirement, explaining why the study is necessary, and formally objecting to proceeding without the required study.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed municipal or governmental action — such as a local ordinance change affecting traffic engineering infrastructure — is subject to a state law requirement mandating an engineering study before proceeding, and to correctly identify that proceeding without the required study constitutes a violation of state law, triggering professional obligations to object and escalate.
State Law Engineering Study Prerequisite Compliance Advocacy Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is aware that a proposed local ordinance change or traffic infrastructure modification is subject to a state law requiring an engineering study before implementation to advocate to the relevant legislative or administrative authority that the required engineering study must be completed before proceeding, and to refrain from acquiescing to or facilitating implementation of the change without the legally required study.
State Law Engineering Study Prerequisite Compliance Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint arising from state statutory provisions requiring that a formal engineering study be completed before a governmental body may proceed with proposed traffic engineering infrastructure changes — establishing that the absence of the required engineering study renders the governing body's decision to proceed legally non-compliant, and constraining engineers who are aware of this prerequisite from treating the governing body's vote as legally sufficient authorization to proceed without the mandated study.
[Case 112] Legal and regulatory constraint arising from state statutory provisions requiring that a formal engineering study be completed before a governmental body may proceed with proposed traffic engineering infrastructure changes, establishing that the absence of the required engineering study renders the governing body's decision to proceed legally non-compliant.
State Law Engineering Study Prerequisite Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a proposed municipal or governmental action — such as a local ordinance change affecting traffic engineering infrastructure — is subject to a state law requirement mandating an engineering study before proceeding, and to correctly identify that proceeding without the required study constitutes a violation of state law, triggering professional obligations to object and escalate.
State Law Engineering Study Prerequisite Unmet State
State in which a proposed infrastructure change or ordinance amendment is subject to a state law requiring completion of an engineering study before the change may lawfully proceed, but the governing authority is moving forward without having commissioned or completed that study — creating a condition of prospective statutory non-compliance that independently triggers professional obligations to object, report, and escalate, separate from any substantive engineering safety concerns.
State Law Variable Conflict of Interest Compliance Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint establishing that the ethical permissibility of a licensed professional engineer's participation in a procurement following a prior peer review or advisory role on the same project is not determined solely by federal professional ethics standards — but is also governed by applicable state laws that may independently impose conflict-of-interest bars, waiting periods, or disclosure requirements that are more stringent than the NSPE Code — requiring engineers to verify and comply with the specific state law requirements of the jurisdiction in which the procurement occurs before concluding that participation is ethically and legally permissible.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer or firm that has gained access to confidential, non-public project information through an independent peer review engagement must assess whether participation in a subsequent design-build procurement for the same project constitutes a conflict of interest — recognizing that the ethical analysis may not categorically prohibit such participation at the federal professional ethics level, but that state laws vary and may independently impose a conflict-of-interest bar — requiring the engineer to obtain agency approval and verify compliance with applicable state conflict-of-interest laws before participating, and prohibiting participation without such clearance.
State Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Statutory Compliance Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint arising from state licensing act provisions that define the conditions under which the title 'engineer' may lawfully be used — typically requiring a college degree and/or satisfaction of licensing requirements — establishing that engineering firms and licensed professional engineers are legally bound to comply with these statutory title-use restrictions in all firm communications, marketing materials, and personnel designations, and that non-compliance constitutes a violation of state law independent of any ethical violation.
[proethica-intermediate] Constraints arising from legal requirements and statutes that establish inviolable boundaries (Kroll 2020, Stenseke 2024)
State Licensing Board Permit Compliance Consultation Appropriateness Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who faces a directive to issue a permit or certification that the engineer believes may violate applicable environmental or safety statutes acts appropriately and consistently with professional ethics obligations by affirmatively seeking the opinion of the state engineering registration board as to whether issuing such a permit could violate the state engineering registration law — establishing that proactive consultation with the licensing board in circumstances of regulatory compliance uncertainty is not merely permissible but constitutes appropriate professional conduct, and prohibiting the characterization of such consultation as disloyal, insubordinate, or professionally improper.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has fulfilled minimum reporting obligations but remains uncertain about the full scope of public safety obligations — particularly in novel or ambiguous situations — should proactively seek guidance from the relevant State Board of Professional Engineers or regulatory authority before concluding that no further action is required, prohibiting passive assumption that client notification alone discharges all professional obligations when systemic public safety risk remains.
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State-level regulatory rules governing professional engineering conduct, including standards for marketing, solicitation of employment, and representation of qualifications, typically patterned after NCEES Model Rules or developed through unique state legislative history
State Municipal Engineer Mandate Regulatory Framework Knowledge Capability
Capability of a consulting engineering firm principal, municipal official, or ethics reviewer to understand and apply the regulatory framework established by state law requiring every municipality to have a municipal engineer — including knowledge of how duties and compensation are fixed by municipal ordinance, how the role varies by municipality size and nature, and how the statutory mandate creates the structural context in which dual-role consulting arrangements arise.
resigned from the firm to work for the State, who is an objector in this specific analysis (the State is typically an objector in most cases)
A public agency stakeholder role that formally objects to water-rights applications in court proceedings, representing the public interest in water resource allocation, and which may employ engineers who previously worked on the application being contested.
State Registration Law Conformance in Advertising Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and engineering firm to ensure that all advertising activities, including business card distribution and business development, conform to the registration laws and rules of practice of each state in which such activities occur, recognizing that states have laws restricting engineering practice to duly licensed persons and that some states prohibit solicitation of work by unlicensed engineers or firms. Compliance with state registration laws is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical advertising — the spirit of the ethics code imposes additional requirements beyond mere legal compliance.
State Registration Law Felony Moral Turpitude Discipline Authority Parallel Ethics Constraint
This concept is recognized in the laws governing professionals. The state engineering registration laws similarly follow these precepts in authorizing the state registration board to discipline a registrant upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that state engineering registration laws — which authorize state registration boards to discipline registrants upon conviction for any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude, beyond transgressions related to the practice of engineering — provide independent confirmation that professional discipline for personal criminal misconduct is appropriate and expected, and that professional engineering societies must recognize this parallel statutory authority as reinforcing the Code's own jurisdiction over personal misconduct, prohibiting the argument that professional ethics codes are more narrowly scoped than state registration law in their treatment of personal criminal conduct.
A governmental regulatory body that serves as a mandatory formal notification target when professional engineers determine that a client's or public authority's decision poses a risk to public health, safety, or welfare. This body receives formal written presentations of engineering facts, findings, and recommendations, and has jurisdiction to intervene or require corrective action independent of the client's or commissioning authority's consent.
State Transportation Agency Peer Review Client
A state government agency client role that retains an independent engineering firm to conduct an external peer review of design documents for a major state-funded transportation project, and subsequently issues a design-build RFP for the same project, bearing authority over the peer review scope and procurement process while generating conflict-of-interest obligations for the retained reviewer when that reviewer later seeks to compete for the design-build contract.
State Transportation Infrastructure Client
A state government client role that retains a consulting engineering firm to specify the route and design for a new public road connecting two towns, bearing authority over final route selection decisions including the exercise of eminent domain, and subject to obligations to receive complete engineering recommendations regarding all viable route alternatives, property impacts, and acquisition constraints before making infrastructure decisions.
State Water Pollution Control Regulatory Authority
A state governmental agency designated by law as the authority responsible for monitoring and overseeing water quality in state streams and rivers, to whom licensed engineers and municipal officials are legally required to report conditions of imminent or actual wastewater overflow into waterways, and which bears obligations to receive, investigate, and act upon such mandatory notifications.
Statutory County Surveyor Public Oversight Role
the job responsibilities of the county surveyor do not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents; however, the job responsibilities do include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements
A statutory public engineering/surveying position at the county level whose incumbent bears responsibility for oversight of surveying reports and highway improvement projects on behalf of the county, requiring substantive background and experience in land surveying and highway improvements to exercise the judgment and discretion the position demands. Distinct from a consulting engineer role in that the position's responsibilities are fixed by statute and cannot be restructured or supplemented by retaining outside specialists to cure a competency gap in the incumbent.
Statutory Municipal Engineer Capital Project Design Retention Ethical Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a consulting engineering firm whose principal has been appointed as statutory municipal engineer to recognize that subsequent retention of the firm for capital improvement project design services is ethically permissible — and consistent with the public interest in providing small municipalities with competent engineering — provided that the arrangement does not require the municipal engineer to review or approve the firm's own design work in the advisory capacity, and that the dual-role structure is disclosed to and accepted by the municipal client.
Statutory Municipal Engineer Consultant in Provider-Client Relationship
the engineer-consultant who is designated as the 'municipal engineer' should not be barred from serving the municipality as the one to furnish complete engineering services through his own organization if he is qualified
A licensed professional engineering role in which a private consulting engineer is designated as the statutory 'municipal engineer' required by state law, but whose relationship to the municipality is explicitly characterized as engineer-to-client (not engineer-to-employer), bearing obligations to provide complete, competent engineering services through their own organization, to avoid conflicts between advisory and service-delivery functions, and to ensure continuity of municipal engineering services in the public interest — while being prohibited from participating in considerations or actions regarding services provided by their own organization in a public-service capacity.
Statutory Public Oversight Role Non-Delegable Personal Competence Prerequisite Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer appointed to a statutory public oversight position to recognize that the oversight and judgment functions of that position are personally non-delegable — meaning that the engineer cannot discharge the position's core responsibilities by pointing to qualified subordinates who prepare or approve the technical documents being overseen — and that effective exercise of the non-delegable oversight function requires the engineer to personally possess at least a substantive minimum of background and experience in the technical domain being overseen; the existence of qualified staff does not cure the appointee's own competence deficit for purposes of the non-delegable oversight duty.
Statutory Public Role Oversight Duty Personal Non-Delegability Principle
Under the facts of this case, the job responsibilities of the county surveyor do not include actual preparation or approval of engineering or surveying documents; however, the job responsibilities do include oversight of surveying reports and highway improvements.
Domain-specific principle establishing that the oversight and judgment functions assigned to a statutory public engineering or surveying position are inherently personal obligations of the appointed incumbent that cannot be discharged by delegating the underlying technical work to qualified subordinates or consultants. While a county surveyor or analogous statutory officer may appropriately rely on qualified professionals to prepare technical documents, the incumbent's obligation to exercise informed oversight — including the capacity to evaluate, question, and take responsibility for those documents — is non-delegable. An appointee who lacks the competence to perform meaningful oversight cannot satisfy the oversight obligation by pointing to the competence of those being overseen.
Statutory Wastewater Overflow Reporting Requirement Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in a municipal engineering role to recognize when a specific state statutory reporting obligation is triggered by an imminent or actual wastewater overflow condition — including identifying the specific regulatory authority designated by law as the mandatory recipient of such reports, understanding that the statutory duty is independent of employer authorization or permission, and correctly determining that the obligation to report is mandatory rather than discretionary when the statutory threshold conditions are met.
Storm Surge Elevation Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has recommended a specific storm surge design elevation standard to a client — and whose recommendation has been refused on cost grounds — to refrain from acquiescing to the client's cost-driven refusal, to maintain the professional recommendation, to formally document the client's refusal and its public safety implications, and to pursue graduated escalation steps rather than simply accepting the client's override of the safety standard.
Storm Surge Post-Refusal Escalation Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has recommended a 100-year storm surge design standard to a client and been refused on cost grounds to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified storm surge risk — including risks to future residents and the public — require escalation beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities, local government officials, or other appropriate parties, and to act on that assessment by making formal reports or notifications when the threshold is met.
Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer, has many years of experience in stormwater control design
A licensed professional engineering role specializing in the design of stormwater management systems, responsible for ensuring designs meet environmental and public safety standards including protection of water sources.
Local, state, or municipal regulations specifying quantitative stormwater runoff performance standards that subdivision and development designs must satisfy, including recurrence interval peak flow requirements to protect downstream properties from flooding
Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
Technical capability to verify that subdivision stormwater management designs comply with applicable municipal regulations — including post-development peak flow requirements for specified recurrence interval storm events — by performing or reviewing hydrological modeling and analysis sufficient to confirm that regulatory thresholds are met before approving or sealing design documents.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Technical and normative capability to verify that engineering design documents, plans, and specifications comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, codes, and standards, including identifying required safety features, dimensional requirements, and regulatory mandates that must be incorporated into professional deliverables before submission.
Technical capability to assess, quantify, and qualitatively estimate risks of stormwater runoff impacts on receiving water bodies, including drinking water watersheds, using hydrological analysis and environmental standards
[proethica-intermediate] Professional domain-specific knowledge and competencies (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022, Doernberg & Truog 2023)
Structural Engineering Design Competence
Engineer R's review revealed a surprising number of serious structural design errors, omissions, and faulty details, not only for the failed basement, but also for the portions of the structure that had not been built yet
Technical capability to perform structural engineering design — including analysis of loads, structural member sizing, connection design, foundation design, and basement/retaining structure design — in accordance with applicable codes and standards, sufficient to produce construction drawings that are free from serious errors, omissions, and faulty details, and that can be safely constructed without structural failure.
Structural Failure Harm Materialized State
early during the process of constructing the basement there was a significant structural failure
State in which a completed or partially completed structural engineering design has experienced a significant physical failure during construction, confirming that design errors caused actual harm — including property damage, project delay, and financial loss — and triggering obligations of investigation, redesign, accountability, and reporting against the responsible design engineer.
Structural Failure Public Safety Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers, through independent review, that a structural failure has occurred and that additional unbuilt portions of the same structure contain serious design errors must immediately escalate those findings to all relevant parties — including the client, the responsible engineer, and if necessary the State Board — prohibiting passive acceptance of the situation or limitation of response to private confrontation alone when ongoing public safety risk from unbuilt defective design remains unmitigated.
Structural Failure Unbuilt Portion Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers, through independent review commissioned after a structural failure, that unbuilt portions of the same structure contain serious design errors must immediately escalate those findings to all relevant parties — including the client, the responsible engineer, and if necessary the State Board — prohibiting limitation of response to the failed portion alone when ongoing public safety risk from defective unbuilt design remains unmitigated.
Structural Footing Foundation Design Competence
Technical capability to design structural footings and foundations for industrial facilities, including knowledge of soil mechanics, load transfer, bearing capacity, settlement analysis, and applicable structural codes — competence that requires specific academic training in structural or geotechnical engineering and/or demonstrated subsequent professional experience in foundation design, and that is not conferred by a chemical engineering degree alone.
Technical standards and methodologies governing the calculation of tributary loads, structural member sizing, and adequacy assessments for building structural elements, including beams, columns, and load-bearing walls
Engineer T, a senior structural engineer who designs commercial buildings in the employ of XYZ Consulting Engineers, was in responsible charge of the design of major structural modifications to an existing building
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for designing structural modifications to existing buildings, including scoping, detailing, and issuing construction documents, bearing obligations to explore alternative design approaches that protect construction worker safety and public welfare, and to acknowledge design errors when they occur.
Structurally Deficient Bridge Open to Traffic State
State in which a bridge with documented structural deficiencies (confirmed by engineering inspection) has been reopened to public traffic, creating an active and ongoing public safety risk without adequate engineering remediation or monitoring.
[Case 137] State in which a bridge with confirmed structural deficiencies—documented by engineering inspection—has been reopened to public traffic, creating ongoing public safety risk. The structural inadequacy is known, remediation is incomplete or insufficient, and vehicles including overweight ones are actively using the structure.
Structurally Impossible Compliance Ethical Declination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that when acceptance of a position or assignment creates a situation in which every available course of action results in unethical conduct — because the engineer cannot personally perform the required duties competently and no organizational remedy is available — the only ethically permissible response is to decline or withdraw from the position; including the ability to articulate why the structural impossibility of compliance is itself a decisive ethical reason for declination, rather than an invitation to seek creative workarounds.
Sub-Consultant Employer-Chain Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed as a sub-consultant through a prime consulting firm to correctly sequence safety escalation obligations when an out-of-scope safety hazard is observed — specifically, to recognize that the obligation runs first to the employing firm (ES Consulting) as the prime consultant with superior project knowledge and overall responsibility, then to the client (Client X), and only conditionally to the affected third party (Owner Y) or regulatory authorities if the employer and client fail to take adequate action — and to correctly execute this sequenced escalation while maintaining the paramount duty to public safety.
Sub-Consultant Prime Consultant Deference Verbal Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a sub-consultant who has made an incidental, out-of-scope, speculative safety observation to route that observation verbally through the prime consultant — rather than directly to the public agency or external authorities — recognizing that the prime consultant, bearing overall project responsibility, is in a superior position to understand interrelationships among project elements, prior work history, and contextual factors necessary to make an informed evaluation, and that direct sub-consultant-to-authority escalation is premature until the prime consultant has had the opportunity to assess and act on the observation.
Sub-Consultant Prior Arrangement Disclosure Upon Direct Agency Solicitation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering specialist who has been arranged as a sub-consultant by one or more competing firms in a public procurement to recognize, when subsequently contacted directly by the soliciting agency, the obligation to disclose the existence of those prior sub-consultant arrangements — including identifying which competing firms had arranged the specialist's services — so that the agency can make a fully informed procurement decision, while also correctly recognizing that responding to the agency's direct solicitation does not constitute improper supplanting of the arranging firms.
Sub-Consultant Safety Escalation Independence Obligation
VWX Architects and Engineers retains the services of Engineer A, a civil engineer, as its subconsultant
Relational principle establishing that a sub-consultant engineer who has identified a safety-relevant finding, reported it verbally through the prime consultant chain, and then received instructions from that chain to suppress the finding from written documentation, retains an independent professional obligation to escalate the finding directly to appropriate public authorities — because the sub-consultant's public safety duty is not fully discharged by deferring to the prime consultant's or client's suppression decision.
Sub-Consultant Suppression-Instruction Independent Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a sub-consultant who receives, through the prime consultant intermediary, a client instruction to suppress or omit a safety-relevant finding from a final report, to recognize that the sub-consultant relationship does not extinguish the independent professional obligation to escalate the safety concern to appropriate public authorities — and that the prime consultant's role as communication intermediary does not transfer the sub-consultant's independent ethical responsibility to the prime consultant, nor does compliance with the suppression instruction through the prime consultant chain discharge the sub-consultant's public welfare duty.
Sub-Consultant Suppression-Instruction Independent Written Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a sub-consultant who receives, through the prime consultant intermediary, a client instruction to omit a safety-relevant finding from the final report, to recognize that compliance with that instruction does not discharge the professional obligation to escalate the finding independently and in writing to appropriate public authorities — and to act on that recognition by preparing and transmitting a written safety notification to the relevant authority, independent of the prime consultant and client chain, when the safety concern involves public infrastructure and a confirmed fatality.
Sub-Consultant Verbal Client-Chain Escalation Before External Authority Reporting Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a sub-consultant who has made an incidental, out-of-scope, speculative safety observation to recognize the professional obligation to first report that observation verbally through the client chain — to the prime consultant and, through the prime consultant, to the public agency — before considering direct escalation to public authorities, and to correctly identify the prime consultant as the appropriate first recipient of the verbal report given the prime consultant's superior project knowledge and overall project responsibility.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a sub-consultant licensed professional engineer who has made an out-of-scope observation to recognize that the prime consultant — who has overall responsibility for the project and superior knowledge of project history, prior consultants, contractors, and interrelationships among project elements — is in a far better position to make an informed evaluation of the observation's significance, and to defer to the prime consultant's judgment about how to handle the observation rather than independently escalating to public authorities, while still fulfilling the obligation to report the observation through the client chain.
Sub-Professional Bid Honest Representation Obligation
Duty of a professional engineering firm submitting a competitive bid for sub-professional services to ensure that all representations in the bid — including descriptions of the firm's capabilities, experience, personnel, pricing, and capacity to perform the sub-professional work — are truthful, accurate, and non-deceptive, consistent with the firm's ongoing ethical obligations as a PE firm, and that no misrepresentation is made about the nature of the work, the firm's qualifications for it, or the competitive context.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer and engineering firm to ensure that all advertising, marketing, and self-promotional communications — including business cards, brochures, and websites — are conducted in a manner that is truthful, not misleading, and not deceptive, satisfying both the letter and the spirit of the NSPE Code of Ethics, and consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession. This obligation applies regardless of the medium or context of the communication and is not extinguished by antitrust or commercial speech considerations, which merely constrain the scope of the ethics code rather than eliminating the truthfulness requirement.
Sub-Professional Bid Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
Capability of a professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed PEs to recognize that it is ethically permissible to submit a written competitive bid for work that is solely sub-professional in character — understanding that the antitrust-driven removal of ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding applies to sub-professional as well as professional services, and that the firm's PE status does not create an ethical bar to competing commercially for sub-professional work.
Sub-Professional Competitive Bid Submission Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed PEs to recognize that it is ethically permitted to submit a written competitive bid for work that is sub-professional in character but related to professional engineering services, because antitrust rulings have removed ethics code restrictions on competitive bidding, and the work falls within the legitimate commercial activities of such a firm; the firm must neither refuse the bid on false ethical grounds nor treat the invitation as ethically impermissible.
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Public Protection Rationale Distinction Capability
the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional services is based on protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price.
Capability of a professional engineer, engineering firm, and ethics adjudicatory body to recognize and articulate the foundational rationale distinguishing the prohibition on competitive bidding for professional engineering services from the permissibility of competitive bidding for sub-professional or non-professional services — specifically, the ability to understand that the prohibition on competitive bidding for professional services is grounded in protection of the public through avoidance of quality sacrifice to lowest price, and that this rationale does not apply to sub-professional or commercial services that can be clearly and accurately specified, thereby permitting competitive bidding for such services.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that engineering practice operates within a legal framework of free and open competition at local, state, and federal levels — including understanding that NSPE Code provisions formerly restricting competition (such as prohibitions on advertising and competitive bidding) were removed following government regulatory action, that free and open competition is a basic legal rule governing engineering procurement, and that ethical analysis of competitive conduct must be situated within this legal framework rather than evaluated in isolation from it.
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Quality-Sacrifice Rationale Non-Applicability Constraint
Ethical and legal constraint establishing that the rationale underlying the prohibition on competitive bidding for professional engineering services — namely, protection of the public through avoidance of the sacrifice of quality to the lowest price — does not apply to sub-professional or non-professional services; and therefore that the competitive bidding prohibition cannot be extended to sub-professional or commercial services on public-protection grounds, permitting competitive price-based bidding for sub-professional services that can be clearly and accurately specified; grounded in the principle that the public-protection rationale for restricting competition is specific to professional judgment services and has no force where services are specifiable and quality is not dependent on professional discretion.
Sub-Professional Competitive Bidding Rationale-Scope Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, engineering firm, and ethics adjudicatory body to recognize that the prohibition against competitive bidding for professional engineering services is rationale-bounded — its purpose being to protect the public through avoidance of quality sacrifice to the lowest price — and that this rationale does not apply to sub-professional or non-professional (business or commercial) services that can be clearly and accurately specified; accordingly, competitive bidding for such sub-professional services is ethically permissible and must not be treated as an ethics code violation.
Sub-Professional Service Competitive Bidding Permissibility Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that a professional engineering firm whose principals are all licensed engineers is ethically permitted to submit competitive bids for work that is sub-professional in character, provided the firm does not misrepresent its professional status or exploit its engineering credentials to gain an unfair competitive advantage over non-PE commercial competitors in the sub-professional marketplace
Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Assessment Capability
this difference permits competitive bidding for sub-professional or nonprofessional (business or commercial) services, which may be clearly and accurately specified.
Capability of a professional engineering firm, its principals, and procuring clients to assess whether sub-professional or non-professional services can be clearly and accurately specified — a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of competitive bidding for such services — including the ability to identify when service specifications are sufficiently precise to enable meaningful price competition without sacrificing quality, and to recognize when ambiguity in specifications would undermine the integrity of the competitive bidding process.
Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Competitive Bidding Prerequisite Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that competitive price-based bidding for sub-professional or non-professional services is permissible only where those services can be clearly and accurately specified — prohibiting the use of competitive bidding for sub-professional services that are vaguely or incompletely defined, and establishing that specification clarity is a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of competitive bidding in the sub-professional service context; grounded in the principle that competitive bidding produces fair and comparable results only when all bidders are responding to the same clearly defined scope of work.
Sub-Professional Service Specification Clarity Prerequisite for Competitive Bidding Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer, engineering firm, and procuring client to ensure that sub-professional or non-professional services for which competitive bidding is invited can be clearly and accurately specified — as a prerequisite condition for the ethical permissibility of competitive bidding — recognizing that the quality-protection rationale for prohibiting competitive bidding on professional services does not apply only when the work is sufficiently definable that price competition does not risk sacrificing quality.
Sub-Professional Services Bidding Ethics Standard
The firm is invited to submit a written bid for work comprised solely of sub-professional services.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing whether and under what conditions a licensed engineering firm may submit competitive bids for work that is sub-professional in character but related to professional engineering services, including considerations of competitive fairness, professional identity, and the scope of permissible firm activities.
Sub-Professional Services Procurement Client
A client or procuring entity that invites a professional engineering firm to submit a competitive bid for work that is sub-professional in character, though related to engineering. This role is relevant because the procurement structure (competitive written bid) and the nature of the work (sub-professional) interact with the professional obligations of the invited firm.
Sub-Professional Work Competitive Bid Eligibility State
firm in which all the principals are professional engineers provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character
State in which a firm composed entirely of licensed professional engineers is invited to submit a competitive price-based bid for work that is explicitly sub-professional in character — related to but below the threshold of professional engineering services — creating ethical ambiguity about whether QBS norms, anti-competitive-bidding provisions, and professional engineering codes apply to the engagement, given that the work itself does not constitute professional engineering practice even though the firm's principals hold PE licenses.
Sub-Professional Work Ethics Code Scope Boundary Constraint
provides services on occasion of a type and nature regarded as sub-professional in character, although related to professional engineering services
Regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that the specific competitive bidding prohibitions and professional conduct restrictions contained in engineering codes of ethics — including provisions governing fee competition, solicitation, and competitive methods — do not extend to sub-professional or non-professional services performed by engineering firms, as determined by antitrust rulings and BER precedent; prohibiting the misapplication of professional code competitive restrictions to commercial sub-professional service markets while simultaneously affirming that baseline honesty, non-deception, and honorable conduct obligations persist in all contexts.
Sub-Professional Work Organizational Segregation Design Capability
Capability of a professional engineering firm and its principals to design and implement appropriate organizational or contractual mechanisms to segregate sub-professional or commercial activities from professional engineering activities — including the ability to recognize when a separate organizational form with a distinct name is desirable, and when that is not practicable, to adopt alternative means of segregation such as contractual references or correspondence distinctions — so that clients and the public can clearly distinguish between the two categories of work.
Sub-Professional Work Separate Organization Desirability Constraint
It is desirable where the sub-professional work is a large part of the firm's activities, to operate through a separate form of organization, with a distinct name.
Ethical and organizational constraint establishing that where sub-professional or non-professional work constitutes a large part of a professional engineering firm's activities, it is desirable — though not absolutely required — to operate that sub-professional work through a separate organizational form with a distinct name, in order to maintain clear demarcation between professional engineering services governed by the code of ethics and commercial sub-professional services not so governed; grounded in the principle that the public and clients must not be confused about which category of service they are receiving from a PE firm.
Sub-Professional vs Professional Service Scope Classification Capability
Capability of a professional engineering firm and its principals to correctly classify whether a solicited scope of work is professional engineering in character or sub-professional in character — understanding the distinction between work requiring licensed professional engineering judgment and work that, while related to engineering, does not require such licensure — and to apply this classification correctly when evaluating bid invitations, ethical obligations, and the scope of applicable professional ethics code provisions.
Subconsultant Ethical Compliance Oversight Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a lead engineer who retains or partners with a subconsultant firm maintain oversight sufficient to identify and address ethical violations by that subconsultant, prohibiting the lead engineer from passively accepting subconsultant work product that violates professional ethical standards on the grounds that the subconsultant bears sole responsibility, and establishing that the lead engineer's professional obligations extend to the ethical integrity of work performed by firms operating under their project leadership.
Subconsultant Ethical Non-Compliance State
Engineer M expresses concern to Firm DBA about the public outreach and session locations, but Firm DBA states that these practices are consistent with prior projects undertaken for the City
State in which a subconsultant or partner firm retained by a lead engineer is conducting work in a manner that violates professional ethical obligations, and the lead engineer has raised concerns that the subconsultant has dismissed or refused to address, creating a situation where the lead engineer bears responsibility for the overall project while lacking direct authority to compel the subconsultant's compliance.
State in which a subconsultant or partner firm has produced and submitted a report that omits material facts, contains unsupported affirmative claims, and misrepresents the results of a required public or professional process, creating an active ethical and legal risk for the lead engineer who is associated with the project and whose professional reputation and obligations are implicated by the fraudulent work product.
Subconsultant Scope-Constrained Safety Escalation Pathway State
Engineer A verbally reports this information to his client, which then verbally reports the information to the public agency.
State in which a subconsultant engineer, operating under a limited-scope engagement through a prime contractor, has discovered a safety-relevant condition and reported it through the client chain, but the client chain has suppressed the finding — leaving the subconsultant with no remaining internal escalation pathway and facing the question of whether to escalate directly to an independent public authority, potentially bypassing the prime contractor and public agency that have already been informed and chosen to suppress the information.
Subconsultant Suppression-Instruction Independent External Escalation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer serving as a subconsultant who receives — through the prime consultant intermediary — an instruction from the ultimate client (public agency) to suppress or omit a safety-relevant finding from a final report must independently escalate that finding to an appropriate public authority, prohibiting the subconsultant from treating the prime consultant's relay of the suppression instruction as a complete discharge of the public safety obligation, and establishing that the subconsultant's structural position in the engagement chain does not extinguish the independent duty to ensure public authorities receive safety-critical information.
Subcontractor Code Compliance Confrontation Capability
As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code.
Capability to directly confront a subcontractor — including the licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles — about identified ethical violations in their work product, clearly articulating the specific code obligations at issue, the nature of the violations, and the required corrective actions, in a manner that is professionally appropriate, documented, and designed to achieve genuine compliance rather than mere acknowledgment.
Subcontractor Ethical Compliance Oversight Obligation
The BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code. The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed.
Duty of a lead engineer of record to monitor, challenge, and require correction of ethical violations — including material omissions, misrepresentations, and false claims — in reports and deliverables produced by subcontractors engaged on the project, and to confer directly with subcontractor leadership (including licensed PE supervisors) to ensure compliance with the NSPE Code of Ethics before those deliverables are submitted to the client or used to advance the project.
[Case 5] Relational principle requiring lead engineers of record who engage subcontractors or subconsultants to perform professional services on a project to exercise reasonable oversight to ensure that those subcontractors comply with applicable professional ethics standards — and to take affirmative action when the lead engineer becomes aware that a subcontractor's work product or conduct violates those standards — recognizing that the lead engineer's professional responsibility to the client and the public is not discharged by delegation to a subcontractor
Subcontractor Ethical Oversight Capability
Capability to maintain active ethical oversight of subcontractors and partner firms engaged to perform professional services on a project — including public outreach, communications, and technical consulting — recognizing that the lead engineer of record retains professional responsibility for the ethical conduct of the overall project and must identify, raise, and escalate ethical violations by subcontractors even when those subcontractors are acting under client direction.
Subcontractor Work Rejecting Management Authority
A non-engineering or senior management role within a large industrial company that bears authority over procurement and subcontractor acceptance decisions, overrides subordinate engineer recommendations regarding subcontractor deficiencies on grounds of cost and schedule, and imposes employment sanctions on engineers who persist in raising technical objections, thereby generating a conflict between organizational authority and the engineer's professional obligations.
Subdivision-Wide Structural Defect Notification Obligation
Engineer A observes that since the house was a tract home, there are other identical designs in the subdivision.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who discover, during a forensic investigation of a single unit in a tract housing development, that a structural defect is systemic to the entire subdivision design, to notify appropriate parties — including regulatory authorities, the homeowners association, or affected residents — of the broader risk, beyond notification of the immediate client, when the defect poses a material risk to the safety of occupants of the other units.
Developer G retains Firm BWJ to develop plans for the subdivision
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for developing subdivision plans including stormwater management design, ensuring compliance with local regulatory requirements such as post-development peak flow standards, and bearing obligations for technical accuracy, public safety, and regulatory conformance in subdivision infrastructure design.
The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans
A client stakeholder role borne by a property developer or owner who commissions an original set of subdivision plans from one engineer, discharges that engineer after full fee payment due to dissatisfaction, retains a successor engineer to review and redesign the project using the original plans as a guide, and provides the original signed and sealed drawings to the successor engineer — generating obligations to ensure proper engineering accountability and not to facilitate improper use or alteration of sealed engineering documents.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role responsible for developing subdivision plans including stormwater management design, ensuring compliance with local regulatory requirements such as post-development peak flow standards, and bearing obligations for technical accuracy, public safety, and regulatory conformance in subdivision infrastructure design.
Subdivision Tract Defect Reporting Forensic Engineer
Engineer A also observed that, since the residence was a tract residence, there were other identical designs in the subdivision
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer conducting a forensic investigation for a retaining client discovers a structural design defect that, due to the tract or subdivision nature of the construction, likely affects multiple identical structures beyond the one under investigation, bearing obligations to report the defect in the submitted report and to take additional steps including contacting local building officials, individual homeowners, and community associations to advise them of the systemic finding.
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution for Personal Review Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who supervises and seals plans prepared by subordinate engineers — whether registered or non-registered — to recognize that personal confidence in the competence and ability of those subordinates does not substitute for, and cannot replace, the detailed review and check of their work that is required before affixing a professional seal under the responsible charge standard; including the ability to distinguish between trust-based delegation (which is appropriate for work assignment) and seal-based certification (which requires personal verification through detailed review regardless of the subordinate's demonstrated competence).
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution for Responsible Charge Review Obligation
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's subjective confidence in the ability of subordinates — whether registered or non-registered — cannot ethically substitute for the engineer's own detailed review and checking of plans before affixing a professional seal. The ethical and legal obligations of responsible charge require the sealing engineer to personally verify technical adequacy through some level of detailed review; reliance on trust in hired personnel, however well-founded, does not discharge this obligation.
[Case 163] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who affixes a professional seal to plans prepared by subordinate engineers — whether registered or non-registered — to refrain from substituting subjective confidence in the ability of those subordinates for the detailed review and check of the design that responsible charge requires — recognizing that trust in subordinate competence, however well-founded, does not satisfy the responsible charge standard, does not constitute direct control and personal supervision of the work product, and does not discharge the sealing engineer's personal professional accountability for the technical content of the sealed documents.
Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution for Sealing Review Constraint
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from substituting personal confidence in the professional abilities of subordinate engineers — whether registered or non-registered — for the detailed review and check required to establish responsible charge before affixing a professional seal; the engineer's belief that hired subordinates are capable and competent does not satisfy the direction-and-control standard, because responsible charge requires the sealing engineer's own substantive technical engagement with the work product, not a judgment about the subordinate's general reliability.
Subordinate Complicity Prohibition in Unlicensed or Incapacitated Supervision
Professional principle requiring engineer interns, junior engineers, and other engineering subordinates to refrain from cooperating in arrangements whereby they perform substantive licensed engineering work under the nominal seal of a supervisor who they know to be incapacitated, unlicensed, or otherwise unable to provide genuine direction and review — prohibiting subordinates from treating the supervisor's seal as a legal shield that absolves them of ethical responsibility for the arrangement
[Case 58] Professional principle requiring engineer interns, junior engineers, and other engineering subordinates to refrain from cooperating in arrangements whereby they perform substantive licensed engineering work under the nominal seal of a supervisor who they know to be directing them to violate applicable professional standards, policy, or ethical obligations — prohibiting subordinates from treating the supervisor's promise to 'sign off' as a legal or ethical shield that absolves them of responsibility for the arrangement
Subordinate Engineer Independent Safety Escalation Right When Supervisor Direction Is Ethically Deficient
Technician A asks his supervisor Engineer B what to do with the samples.
Professional virtue principle establishing that a subordinate engineer or technician who receives direction from a supervising engineer that the subordinate reasonably believes is ethically deficient — particularly where public safety or legal compliance is at stake — retains an independent professional obligation to consider escalation beyond the supervisor's instruction, and is not fully absolved of ethical responsibility merely by following the supervisor's direction; the subordinate's ethical agency is not extinguished by the supervisory relationship.
Subordinate Inspector Non-Reporting Pattern Discovered State
State in which a supervising professional has discovered, through retrospective review of inspection records and photographs, that an inspector under their supervision has systematically failed to report the same visibly obvious defect across multiple inspection cycles over an extended period — creating an active obligation to assess the scope of the systemic failure, report it to appropriate authorities, and determine whether public safety has been compromised by the accumulated non-reporting.
Subordinate Inspector Oversight and Defect Escalation Obligation
While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member.
Duty of an engineer intern or junior engineer serving in a supervisory capacity over field inspection technicians within a public infrastructure inspection program to actively review the work product of those technicians — including inspection reports and photographic records — for completeness and accuracy, and upon discovering that a technician has failed to report a visibly obvious defect, to immediately escalate the defect and the technician's non-reporting to the responsible licensed professional engineer, with full disclosure of all relevant facts including the duration and pattern of the failure.
Subordinate Materiality Judgment Deferral Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint arising from an engineer intern or unlicensed subordinate's lack of qualification to independently assess the materiality, urgency, or systemic significance of discovered information — requiring that the subordinate defer all potentially material information upward to the supervising licensed professional engineer rather than exercising independent judgment about what to include or omit from reports, prohibiting the intern from filtering, prioritizing, or withholding information on the basis of their own unqualified assessment of its relevance or importance.
Subordinate Refusal Proportionality Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a subordinate engineer or engineer intern who objects to an assigned task on sustainability or ethical grounds calibrate the form and intensity of their objection — including whether to refuse outright, advocate through memorandum, or propose alternatives — proportionately to the normative weight of the applicable code provision and the severity of the identified harm, prohibiting disproportionate refusal responses (such as outright task refusal and firm-wide withdrawal advocacy) when the applicable code provision is encouraged rather than mandatory and the harm, while real, does not rise to the level of an immediate public safety emergency.
State in which a subordinate professional or intern explicitly refuses to perform an assigned task on ethical, sustainability, or professional grounds, formally documenting their objection to a principal or supervisor, thereby creating an unresolved internal dispute about the legitimacy of the task and the scope of the subordinate's professional obligations relative to their employment duties.
Substantive Contribution Contextual Calibration Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing that the determination of whether an engineering firm's contribution to a project is 'substantial' — and thus sufficient to ethically justify accepting a prime contract role — must be assessed contextually, with consideration given to factors such as geographic proximity, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent factors that may constitute genuine value-added contributions beyond purely technical expertise. The principle prevents mechanical application of the substantive contribution threshold by recognizing that value can take multiple legitimate forms in engineering engagements.
Substantive Contribution Geographic and Local Factor Calibration Obligation
If Firms A and B had proposed to provide a substantial portion of the work through their own capabilities, they acted quite appropriately in making arrangements with Engineer X to provide his expertise and proposing this mode of service to the client.
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm assessing whether its proposed contribution to a prime contract meets the 'substantial' threshold to consider, in defining substantiality, benefits to the client arising from the firm's geographic location, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent contextual factors — recognizing that substantiality is not a fixed numerical threshold but a contextually calibrated judgment that may be satisfied by locally-grounded contributions that genuinely serve the client's interests, even if the firm's technical domain contribution is narrower than the specialist's.
Substantive Contribution Threshold as Ethical Prerequisite for Prime Engagement
Domain-specific principle establishing that an engineering firm's ethical acceptance of a prime contract role in a public procurement requires that the firm be capable of making a genuine, substantive technical contribution to the work — not merely an administrative, brokerage, or coordination function. Where the firm's entire technical contribution would be provided by a named sub-consultant and the firm's own services would be nominal in nature, the firm lacks the substantive contribution threshold required to ethically represent itself as a capable prime and to accept the prime contract role.
Substantive Prime Contribution Geographic and Local Factor Calibration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineering firm to assess whether its proposed contribution to a prime contract meets the 'substantial services' threshold required by the engineering ethics code, by correctly incorporating geographic location advantages, familiarity with local conditions, and other pertinent client-benefit factors into the substantive-contribution calculus — recognizing that these factors may constitute legitimate substantive value that elevates a firm's contribution above mere brokerage, and that the threshold is calibrated to client benefit rather than to a fixed percentage of technical work.
Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineering firm accepting a prime contractor role in a public procurement to ensure that it will make a substantive — not merely nominal — technical contribution to the work, commensurate with its role as prime professional. A firm that proposes to serve as prime contractor while delegating all substantive technical work to a single specialist sub-consultant, retaining only nominal administrative or brokerage functions, fails this threshold and must either: (a) decline the prime role; (b) restructure the engagement so that the firm genuinely performs a material portion of the work; or (c) disclose its nominal role and recommend direct engagement of the specialist. This obligation operationalizes the principle that the prime contractor designation carries substantive professional responsibility, not merely contractual intermediation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer to conduct an honest and rigorous self-assessment of their firm's technical competence in the specific domain of a proposed contract before accepting that contract, and to decline the engagement if the firm lacks the requisite expertise — regardless of economic pressures, staff retention concerns, or competitive opportunity — so that clients receive services from engineers genuinely qualified to perform them.
Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Client Communication
Professional honesty principle establishing that engineers may not use deliberately vague, euphemistic, or oblique language when communicating safety or legal risks to clients — such as describing potentially hazardous waste as 'questionable material' — because such subterfuge makes the engineer an accomplice to potential unlawful action, violates the spirit and intent of the ethics code, and deprives the client of the clear, actionable information needed to fulfill their own legal obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional honesty principle establishing that engineers may not make statements that are literally or technically accurate but are deliberately crafted to create a materially false impression in the listener's mind — including by exploiting outdated facts, selective framing, or misleading implication — because such 'artful' deception violates the same ethical obligations as outright falsehood; the ethical standard is not merely literal truth but the overall impression conveyed
Subterfuge-as-Accomplice Prohibition in Hazardous Material Communication Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers or receives evidence that a client's property contains potentially hazardous materials to refrain from using vague, euphemistic, or deliberately obscure language — such as 'questionable material' — to describe what is in fact likely hazardous waste, recognizing that such subterfuge makes the engineer an accomplice to potentially unlawful action and is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires honesty and integrity in all professional communications.
Successor Contract Acceptance Incumbent Contract Expiration Prerequisite Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has conducted a peer review of an incumbent engineer's active work to recognize that accepting a successor design engineering contract from the same client is ethically permissible only after the incumbent engineer's contract has fully expired — not while the incumbent's contract remains active — and to correctly identify that accepting the successor role while the incumbent's contract is still in force would constitute an improper displacement of the incumbent engineer in violation of professional ethics codes.
Successor Engineer Original Seal Removal Upon Material Alteration Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who makes material design changes to any sheet of another engineer's sealed plan set to recognize the obligation to remove or clearly supersede the original engineer's seal and signature on each materially altered sheet — understanding that leaving the original seal intact after material alteration creates a false professional certification, misrepresents the original engineer's responsibility for the altered design, and constitutes a serious violation of engineering licensure law and professional ethics.
Successor Engineer Original Seal Removal Upon Material Sheet Alteration Obligation
Engineer B also made major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities in the public improvement plans.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who makes material design changes to any sheet of another engineer's sealed plan set to remove or clearly supersede the original engineer's seal and signature on each materially altered sheet before those plans are submitted to any regulatory authority, contractor, or other party — recognizing that leaving an original engineer's seal intact on a materially altered sheet constitutes a false professional certification by the original engineer of content they never reviewed or approved, and that the successor engineer's professional accountability for the altered content requires affirmative removal of the prior certification.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of engineering firms to ensure that signed and sealed engineering documents are modified only by the engineer who originally prepared them or by an engineer who exercises responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision) over the modification — and to refrain from permitting, directing, or acquiescing in modifications made by any party who did not prepare the original documents and does not exercise responsible charge over the modification — recognizing that any such unauthorized modification thoroughly compromises the integrity and veracity of the professional seal and the responsible charge process.
Successor Engineer Plan Modification Change Notation Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer who makes design changes to a predecessor engineer's sealed plan set to specifically identify, itemize, and document all changes made on each affected sheet — prohibiting vague general responsibility claims, undifferentiated modification, or complete absence of change notation, and establishing that the successor engineer must provide sufficient specificity to allow any reviewer to distinguish the predecessor's original design from the successor's modifications on a sheet-by-sheet and element-by-element basis.
Successor Engineer Post-Review Contract Acceptance Permissibility Principle
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who is retained to conduct a review of an incumbent engineer's work does not commit an ethical violation by subsequently accepting a contract as the replacement design engineer for the same client, provided that: (1) the engineer properly notified the incumbent of the review engagement; (2) the client's decision to transition to the new engineer was independently motivated by a pre-existing intent not to renew the incumbent's contract; and (3) the reviewing engineer did not exploit the review engagement to improperly solicit or secure the successor contract
Successor Engineer Post-Review Expired-Contract Acceptance Permissibility Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to conduct a peer review of an incumbent engineer's active work to refrain from accepting the successor design engineering contract from the same client until the incumbent engineer's contract has fully expired, and to recognize that acceptance of the successor contract after the incumbent's contract expires — rather than during the active contract period — is ethically permissible provided the reviewing engineer fulfilled all collegial notification duties during the review phase, recognizing that the transition of client relationships through legitimate contract expiration does not constitute improper solicitation or displacement of the incumbent.
Successor Engineer Predecessor Seal Removal Upon Material Alteration Constraint
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who makes material design changes to any sheet of a predecessor engineer's signed and sealed plan set from leaving the predecessor engineer's seal and signature intact on those altered sheets — requiring the successor engineer to remove or clearly supersede the predecessor's seal on each materially altered sheet and to affix the successor's own seal and signature, establishing that failure to do so creates a false representation of authorship and professional accountability that deceives clients, regulatory authorities, and the public as to who bears professional responsibility for the altered design.
Successor Engineer Prior-Engineer Communication Before Redesign Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer retained to review and redesign a project using another engineer's sealed plans to recognize the professional obligation to communicate with the original engineer before making substantive design changes — including understanding that the original engineer's knowledge of design intent, site conditions, and technical rationale is professionally relevant, that such communication is required as a matter of collegial respect and professional integrity, and that proceeding without communication risks compounding design errors and violating the original engineer's professional interests.
Successor Engineer Prior-Engineer Communication Before Redesign Obligation
Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained to review and redesign a project using another engineer's sealed plans as a guide to communicate with the original engineer before making substantive design changes, recognizing that the original engineer's sealed work represents professional accountability that cannot be silently superseded, and that the absence of any communication between the two engineers — particularly when major changes are made across dozens of sealed sheets — violates the collegial and procedural norms governing sequential design engagements.
Successor Engineer Prior-Engineer Notification Before Sealed Plan Redesign Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer retained to review and redesign a project using another engineer's sealed plans to communicate with and notify the predecessor engineer before making substantive design changes to those sealed documents — prohibiting the successor engineer from proceeding with material modifications to sealed plans without affording the predecessor engineer the opportunity to be informed of the review and redesign engagement, as required by NSPE Code Section III.8.a and professional courtesy norms, unless the predecessor engineer's connection with the project has been formally and completely terminated.
Successor Engineer Responsible Charge Integrity Non-Delegation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who makes modifications to another engineer's sealed design documents to ensure that all such modifications are made under proper responsible charge — meaning the successor engineer personally directs, controls, and takes professional accountability for the modified work — and to recognize that responsible charge cannot be delegated to the client, to the original engineer's seal, or to a vague disclaimer, and that sealing modified documents without genuine responsible charge over the modifications constitutes a professional violation.
Successor Engineer Retained Before Incumbent Contract Expiry State
the franchiser begins discussions with Engineer B and retains Engineer B to provide immediate review of design concerns that are pending in connection with the design of several franchise facilities throughout the US
State in which a client has formally retained a successor engineer for substantive design review services while the incumbent engineer's contract remains active and has not yet expired — creating a temporal overlap in which two engineers hold simultaneous but asymmetric obligations to the same client, the successor is bound by confidentiality instructions regarding the incumbent, and the incumbent retains full contractual rights and professional standing despite the client's intent to transition.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a client has initiated engagement with a new engineer (Engineer B) for services overlapping with or succeeding those of an incumbent engineer (Engineer A) whose contract has not yet expired — creating a condition where the incoming engineer is simultaneously bound by duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the new client while the outgoing engineer retains active contractual rights, and where the client has instructed the incoming engineer to maintain confidentiality about the new engagement from the incumbent, generating tension between faithful agent obligations to the new client and professional courtesy obligations toward the incumbent.
Successor Engineer Sealed Plan Alteration Without Attribution Prohibition
Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and changing routing of the street.
Professional principle prohibiting a successor engineer from making substantive design changes to another engineer's signed and sealed plans without: (1) removing or superseding the original engineer's seal and signature on all affected sheets, (2) affixing the successor engineer's own seal and signature to all sheets containing changes, and (3) providing clear and specific notation of every change made — on the grounds that leaving a predecessor's seal and signature intact on materially altered documents creates a false public record that the original engineer certified work they never reviewed or approved, constituting both a misrepresentation of the original engineer's professional judgment and a failure of the successor engineer to accept personal accountability for their own design decisions.
Successor Engineer Sealed Plan Change Notation Mandatory Specificity Constraint
Engineer B had an ethical obligation to make all necessary notations of changes which he had made with respect to the grading plans, housing pads, routing of streets, storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities.
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint requiring a licensed professional engineer who makes design changes to a predecessor engineer's sealed plan set to make all necessary notations of every change made — including modifications to grading plans, housing pads, street routing, storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities — with sufficient specificity to allow any reviewer to identify exactly what was changed, prohibiting vague general responsibility claims or complete absence of change notation as substitutes for itemized, sheet-by-sheet documentation; establishing that failure to make such specific notations constitutes a form of deception in violation of NSPE Code Section III.3.a regardless of whether the omission was intentional or unwitting.
Successor Engineer Sealed Plan Unsigned Alteration Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who makes substantive design changes to another engineer's sealed plan set to sign and seal the modified sheets personally, and to refrain from leaving the original engineer's seal and signature intact on sheets that have been materially altered — recognizing that an unmodified seal on a materially changed document falsely represents that the original engineer certified the altered content, and that the successor engineer's failure to sign the modified sheets constitutes both a misrepresentation and an abdication of professional accountability for the changes made.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is technically competent to modify another engineer's sealed design documents to nonetheless refrain from making any such modifications — even minor ones — without first conferring with and obtaining the approval of the engineer who prepared, designed, and sealed those documents, recognizing that technical competence to make a modification does not substitute for the originating engineer's consent, that responsible charge requires direct control or personal supervision by the originating engineer, and that failure to consult the originating engineer before modifying their sealed work is ethically impermissible regardless of time pressure or management direction.
Successor Engineer Undocumented Redesign on Predecessor Plans State
State in which a successor engineer has performed substantial redesign work using a predecessor engineer's plans as a base, but has failed to document the nature and extent of changes made, failed to sign and seal the modified sheets, and failed to communicate with the predecessor engineer — creating ambiguity about professional responsibility, misrepresenting the authorship of the revised design, and preventing any meaningful accountability for the changes introduced.
Successor Redesign Deceptive Omission of Change Specificity Prohibition Obligation
We view the conduct of Engineer B under the facts of this case to be misleading either intentionally or unwittingly
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who makes substantive design changes to another engineer's sealed plan set to refrain from conduct — whether intentional or unwitting — that is misleading by virtue of failing to specify the nature, scope, and location of all changes made, recognizing that a general title-sheet notation claiming responsibility for 'revisions' without identifying what was revised is virtually meaningless and constitutes a form of deception that violates the engineer's duty of honesty, that such omission prevents clients, contractors, regulators, and the original engineer from understanding what was changed and by whom, and that the ethical obligation of specificity in change documentation is not satisfied by technically true but informationally vacuous disclaimers.
Sufficiency Assessment of Prior Safety Reports
Professional principle requiring engineers who have reported public health and safety risks to appropriate authorities to critically assess, before concluding their professional obligation is discharged, whether those reports were sufficiently clear, technically complete, and free from ambiguity such that no reasonable misunderstanding of the technical documentation could have occurred, and whether the risk could reasonably be interpreted differently by another competent engineer
[Case 78] Professional principle requiring engineers who have reported public health and safety risks to appropriate authorities to critically assess, before concluding their professional obligation is discharged, whether those reports were sufficiently clear, technically complete, and free from ambiguity such that no reasonable misunderstanding of the technical documentation could have occurred.
Superior Authority Dismissal of Compliance Concern State
State in which a licensed professional engineer has identified, investigated, and formally reported a compliance violation to their organizational superior, and that superior — also a licensed professional engineer — has acknowledged the violation but explicitly declined to pursue corrective action, citing convenience or relationship preference, thereby placing the reporting engineer in a position of unresolved ethical tension between organizational hierarchy and professional and legal obligations.
Superior Authority Environmental Regulatory Reporting Suppression Non-Compliance Constraint
In ruling that the engineer failed to fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the city administrator and certain members of the city council of her concern, the Board found that the engineer was aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for the law by her immediate supervisor, as well as by members of the city council.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role with statutory responsibility for environmental compliance who is directed by a superior authority (such as a city administrator) to suppress or limit legally required regulatory reporting — such as overflow capacity violations required to be reported to state water pollution control authorities — must not comply with that suppression directive, and must escalate the matter to the appropriate proper authorities (which, after internal escalation has failed, are state regulatory officials rather than local city officials), prohibiting the engineer from treating internal reporting to a non-compliant superior as a discharge of the mandatory external regulatory reporting obligation.
Superior Authority Error Determination Deference Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer's personal belief that a professional error occurred has been reviewed and rejected by a qualified supervising authority — such as a Chief Structural Engineer — following a thoughtful professional assessment, establishing that the subordinate engineer is constrained from unilaterally overriding that supervisory determination and publicly or legally characterizing the work as erroneous, absent new evidence or a formal external adjudication, while remaining obligated to disclose all underlying facts transparently.
Superior Authority Suppression of Regulatory Reporting Obligation State
being warned by the city administrator to report the problem only to him
State in which a professional engineer employed in a public-sector or institutional role has identified a legally reportable condition (e.g., overflow capacity violations requiring state water pollution control authority notification) and has been explicitly warned or directed by an immediate supervisor to suppress or redirect that reporting — channeling it only through the supervisor rather than to the legally required external authority — creating a direct conflict between the engineer's legal and ethical reporting obligations and the supervisor's directive, and making the engineer potentially complicit in an ongoing legal violation if the engineer complies with the suppression directive.
Superior Expedite Directive Technical Hang-Up Suppression Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer employed in a regulatory or public agency role from complying with a superior's directive to move expeditiously on a permit or approval and 'avoid any hang-ups' with respect to technical issues, when the engineer holds a professionally grounded belief that the subject plans fail to meet applicable regulatory requirements — establishing that institutional pressure to suppress technical review does not override the engineer's obligation to conduct and act upon that review, and that framing substantive regulatory compliance concerns as mere 'technical hang-ups' does not diminish their professional and ethical weight.
Superior Expediting Directive Implicit Pressure Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer in a subordinate regulatory role to recognize that a superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' and 'avoid technical hang-ups' constitutes implicit institutional pressure to subordinate professional technical judgment to administrative convenience, and to identify this framing as an attempt to characterize legitimate engineering safety concerns as mere procedural obstacles, thereby triggering the engineer's obligation to maintain professional independence rather than comply.
Superior Expediting Directive Safety Non-Subordination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer in a regulatory or public agency role to refuse to subordinate a professionally grounded technical safety or regulatory compliance determination to a superior's directive to 'move expeditiously' or 'avoid hang-ups,' recognizing that framing legitimate safety and regulatory concerns as mere procedural obstacles or technical inconveniences does not diminish their substantive validity, and that compliance with such a directive — when the engineer believes the resulting permit or approval would violate applicable law and endanger public health — constitutes an abrogation of the engineer's fundamental professional responsibility.
Supervised Inspector Defect Omission Detection Capability
Capability of an engineer intern or junior engineer serving in a supervisory capacity over field inspection technicians to detect, upon reviewing inspection reports and supporting documentation, that a supervised inspector has failed to identify or report a visibly obvious defect — including the ability to compare current inspection reports against photographic evidence and prior reports to identify omissions that a competent inspector should have caught.
Supervising Engineer Sustainability Objection Response Obligation
Engineer Jaylani assigns Wasser the task of sketching out details for the irrigation system
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a supervising engineer or firm principal who receives a formal sustainability objection from a subordinate engineer or engineer intern — supported by technical evidence of environmental harm — to conduct a substantive review of the objection, evaluate the technical evidence cited, determine whether the concern rises to a level requiring client notification or design modification, and communicate a reasoned response to the subordinate, rather than dismissing the objection without engagement or proceeding with the original specification without consideration of the raised concerns.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer developing design solutions for a client to actively consider and integrate sustainable development principles into the analysis and recommendations, including presenting sustainable alternatives and educating the client about sustainability tradeoffs, rather than defaulting exclusively to traditional approaches — harmonizing the faithful agent duty with the ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainable development principles under NSPE Code III.2.d.
Supervising PE Active Inquiry Obligation Upon Partial Report
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving as a supervisor of an engineer intern or subordinate in a public infrastructure inspection program, upon receiving a report of a safety deficiency from that subordinate, to actively inquire into the full context of the reported deficiency — including the history of prior inspections, the duration of any apparent defect, and the completeness of the subordinate's investigation — rather than accepting a partial report at face value, so that the supervising PE can make an informed determination about the scope of corrective action required and the adequacy of the inspection program.
Supervising PE Active Inquiry Upon Partial Safety Report Capability
Engineer B, as the supervising licensed PE and DOT director, was obligated upon receiving Engineer Intern A's report of the bridge defect to actively inquire
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving as a supervisor in a public infrastructure inspection program to recognize, upon receiving a partial safety report from a subordinate engineer intern, that the report may be incomplete — including recognizing when the reported defect raises questions about the inspection program's historical performance — and to actively inquire into the full scope of the defect's history, the inspection program's prior performance, and any systemic failures that may have contributed to the current finding, rather than accepting the partial report at face value.
Supervisor-Directed Regulatory Notification Suppression for Business Retention State
State in which a supervising engineer explicitly directs a subordinate to withhold mandatory regulatory notification of a suspected or confirmed hazardous condition — substituting only a vague client advisory ('questionable material') — where the stated or implied rationale is preservation of an existing business relationship with the client, thereby placing both the supervisor and subordinate in potential violation of federal and state environmental reporting laws and professional ethics obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer employed in a public-sector or institutional role has identified a legally reportable condition (e.g., overflow capacity violations requiring state water pollution control authority notification) and has been explicitly warned or directed by an immediate supervisor to suppress or redirect that reporting — channeling it only through the supervisor rather than to the legally required external authority — creating a direct conflict between the engineer's legal and ethical reporting obligations and the supervisor's directive, and making the engineer potentially complicit in an ongoing legal violation if the engineer complies with the suppression directive.
Supervisor-Directed Regulatory Permit Non-Compliance Issuance State
Engineer A believed the plans as drafted were inadequate to meet the regulation requirements
State in which a professional engineer employed in a regulatory capacity has determined that a proposed permit does not meet applicable legal or regulatory standards, has documented and communicated that finding to their superior, but the superior has overridden the engineer's determination and authorized issuance of the non-compliant permit — placing the engineer in a state where the permit has been issued contrary to their professional judgment and without their endorsement, and requiring the engineer to determine whether further action (refusal, escalation, or withdrawal) is ethically required.
Supervisor-First Escalation Sequencing in Employment Context Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed by a private contractor to recognize that, in situations involving real but non-imminent safety hazards, the appropriate first escalation step is immediate notification of the immediate supervisor — verbally and in writing — before contacting external regulatory or governmental authorities, and to correctly identify that external notification (e.g., to state DOT or law enforcement) will likely flow through the employer's responsible parties rather than directly from the engineer, while still recognizing the obligation to escalate externally if the supervisor fails to act.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a public safety concern to correctly sequence the notification obligations — advising the client (faithful agent duty) before or in conjunction with contacting external regulatory authorities — recognizing that the faithful agent obligation to the client is fulfilled first, and that this sequencing does not diminish or delay the subsequent obligation to notify regulatory authorities, but rather ensures that the client is not blindsided by external escalation without prior notice.
Supervisor-Mediated DOT and Law Enforcement Notification Constraint
It is probable that state department of transportation officials (and law enforcement officials as necessary) will also need to be advised of the situation by either Engineer A's supervisor or some other appropriate responsible party within OPQ Construction so that appropriate corrective action can be considered and implemented
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a foreseeable safety hazard from illegal vehicle operation on a restricted public infrastructure asset — and who has notified their immediate supervisor — must ensure that state DOT officials and law enforcement are notified of the hazard through the appropriate responsible party within the employing organization (such as the supervisor or a designated OPQ Construction official), rather than bypassing the organizational chain of command to contact external authorities directly as a first step, while simultaneously establishing that if the supervisor declines to ensure such notification, the engineer must escalate externally to ensure DOT and law enforcement are informed before design finalization.
Supervisor Business-Motivated Suppression Instruction Non-Compliance Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring a subordinate engineer or technician who receives a supervisory instruction to suppress, withhold, or minimize mandatory regulatory reporting of a likely hazardous condition — where the stated or evident reason for suppression is preservation of a client business relationship — to refuse compliance with that instruction, recognizing that supervisory authority does not extend to directing subordinates to participate in regulatory non-compliance motivated by commercial interests, and that the subordinate bears independent ethical responsibility for the consequences of compliance with such an instruction.
Supervisor Code-Binding Non-Exemption for Employer-Protective Conduct Recognition Capability
The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer acting in a supervisory capacity to recognize that the same ethics code provisions that bind all individual engineers — including public welfare and civic service provisions — remain fully binding on the supervisor even when the supervisor's conduct is motivated by a genuine intent to protect the employer's business interests, and that an employer-protective intent does not constitute an exception to or excuse from the supervisor's individual professional ethical obligations, specifically including the obligation not to preclude other engineers from carrying out conduct that those engineers sincerely believe to be consonant with the ethics code.
Supervisor Code Violation by Precluding Subordinate Public Welfare Activity State
State in which a supervising engineer, acting with intent to protect employer interests, uses supervisory authority — including threats of punitive action or discharge — to prevent or deter subordinate engineers from engaging in activities that the professional code affirmatively mandates or permits in the public interest, such as civic advocacy, public safety reporting, or constructive community service. In this state, the supervisor is themselves in violation of the professional code because the threatened suppression of subordinates' code-mandated public welfare activities constitutes an independent ethical breach, regardless of the supervisor's benevolent intent toward the employer. The state highlights that the code's public welfare obligations bind supervisors as well as subordinates, and that using supervisory authority to undermine those obligations in others is itself a code violation.
Supervisor Documentation-Only Instruction Ethical Refusal Capability
Capability of a subordinate engineer or technician who has received a supervisor's instruction to merely document the existence of potentially hazardous samples without conducting or recommending analysis, to recognize that such an instruction is ethically impermissible, to refuse compliance with the instruction, and to escalate the matter through appropriate channels including to higher supervisory authority or regulatory bodies.
Supervisor Employer-Protective Intent Non-Excuse for Public Welfare Code Subordination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting in a supervisory capacity to recognize that an intent to act in the best interests of the employer does not excuse, justify, or mitigate a violation of the engineering ethics code that results from threatening, suppressing, or precluding subordinate engineers from carrying out activities they sincerely believe to be consonant with the code's public welfare mandate; and that the same ethics code provisions binding on subordinate engineers are equally binding on supervisors, regardless of the supervisor's employer-protective motivation.
Supervisor Engineer Code Violation Through Subordinate Civic Advocacy Suppression Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving in a supervisory capacity who uses supervisory authority — including discharge threats — to prevent a subordinate engineer from engaging in extra-employment civic advocacy for public welfare standards violates the NSPE Code of Ethics applicable to the supervisor individually, prohibiting supervisors from treating employer business interests as a sufficient basis for suppressing subordinate engineers' civic service activities that are consistent with the Code's public welfare and civic service provisions, and establishing that the Code's individual applicability means supervisors bear independent ethical responsibility for their suppression conduct regardless of employer instructions.
Supervisor Ethics Code Binding Non-Exemption Through Employer-Protective Intent Principle
Professional accountability principle establishing that an engineering supervisor who threatens a subordinate engineer with discharge or other punitive action to prevent that engineer from fulfilling ethics-code-mandated public welfare activities is personally in violation of the ethics code — even if the supervisor sincerely intends to act in the employer's best interests — because good intent toward the employer does not excuse conduct that subordinates the public welfare obligations of another engineer and thereby prevents the fulfillment of professional duties the code imposes on all engineers.
Supervisor Indirect Communication Policy Evasion Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed senior engineer who intends to direct a subordinate to implement a design revision that conflicts with an explicit agency policy to refrain from communicating that directive indirectly or ambiguously as a means of avoiding explicit acknowledgment of the policy conflict — recognizing that indirect communication designed to obscure a policy violation is itself a form of dishonesty that compounds the underlying ethical violation and places the subordinate in an untenable professional position.
Supervisor Non-Response Construction Safety External Escalation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has notified a supervisor of a foreseeable construction safety hazard — and whose supervisor has declined to address the hazard — to recognize the professional obligation to refuse to finalize the unsafe design and to escalate the safety concern to external authorities, including the state department of transportation client, relevant regulatory bodies, and other appropriate parties, rather than acquiescing to the supervisor's inaction.
Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety Design Finalization Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from finalizing, submitting, or implementing a scaffolding or temporary structure design when the engineer has notified a supervisor of a foreseeable safety hazard to workers and the public — arising from observed illegal third-party conduct — and the supervisor has declined to address the hazard or has directed the engineer to proceed without remediation, establishing that supervisor non-response or refusal does not authorize the engineer to finalize a design that the engineer has determined creates an unmitigated foreseeable risk of fatal or serious injury, and requiring the engineer to refuse finalization and escalate to appropriate external authorities including state DOT officials, law enforcement, and the state engineering licensure board.
Supervisor Non-Response Scaffolding Safety External Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has notified a supervisor of a foreseeable safety hazard to construction workers and the public — arising from illegal commercial vehicle traffic on a restricted roadway adjacent to proposed scaffolding — and whose supervisor has declined to address the hazard, to refuse to finalize the scaffolding design without adequate safety measures and, if necessary, to escalate the safety concern to appropriate external authorities including the state DOT client and relevant regulatory bodies.
Supervisor Public Welfare Code Subordination Through Discharge Threat Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer serving in a supervisory capacity who threatens a subordinate engineer with discharge for continuing ethics-code-consistent civic advocacy activities — even when the supervisor intends to act in the employer's best interests — violates the public welfare provisions of the engineering ethics code by subordinating those provisions through the threat, prohibiting supervisors from using discharge threats as a mechanism to preclude subordinate engineers from carrying out activities that the subordinate engineer sincerely believes are consonant with the Code's public welfare and civic service mandates, and establishing that the supervisor's good intent toward the employer does not excuse the Code violation created by the suppression of subordinate civic advocacy.
Supervisor Sample-Documentation-Only Instruction Refusal Obligation
Duty of a subordinate engineer or technician who has been directed by a supervising engineer to merely document the existence of samples — without analyzing them or taking legally required steps — when the subordinate's professional experience indicates the samples likely constitute hazardous waste triggering mandatory federal and state reporting obligations, to refuse compliance with that instruction and to independently escalate the safety and legal concern through appropriate channels, recognizing that the supervisor's direction to suppress analysis constitutes an ethically deficient instruction that does not bind the subordinate's independent professional obligations.
Supervisor Sign-Off Non-Exculpation Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a supervising licensed engineer's explicit offer to personally sign off on a design or action does not relieve a subordinate engineer intern of independent ethical culpability for knowingly participating in a policy-violating or deceptive design revision — prohibiting the intern from treating supervisory sign-off as a complete ethical shield that transfers all professional responsibility to the supervisor, and establishing that the intern's own ethical obligations persist regardless of the supervisor's willingness to assume formal responsibility.
Supervisor Sign-Off as Ethical Shield State
State in which a supervising licensed engineer explicitly offers to personally sign off on a design or action that a subordinate has been directed to perform, where that offer is made in the context of an ethically questionable or policy-violating directive — creating a structural pressure on the subordinate to comply by implying that supervisory authority and seal will absorb or neutralize the ethical and professional risk, when in fact the subordinate retains independent ethical obligations that cannot be delegated upward.
Supervisory Authority in Error Characterization Decisions
Professional principle recognizing that senior engineering supervisors bear responsibility for making considered institutional judgments about whether a design outcome constitutes a professional error requiring acknowledgment, and that such judgments must be made thoughtfully, in good faith, and with genuine engagement with the subordinate engineer's concerns rather than as mere institutional self-protection
Supervisory Chain Environmental Compliance Escalation Beyond Unresponsive Supervisor Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role with statutory environmental compliance responsibilities to recognize, after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of immediate supervisors and city council members regarding ongoing environmental law violations, that the 'proper authorities' for reporting are not the unresponsive local officials but rather state regulatory officials, and to escalate the environmental compliance concern to state authorities — recognizing that continued inaction after this recognition makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing violation.
Supervisory Direction-and-Control Sealing Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer signs and seals engineering documents that were prepared by other personnel (licensed or unlicensed) working under the engineer's active direction and control, bearing obligations to exercise genuine responsible charge — including substantive technical review, supervisory engagement, and quality assurance — over all sealed work product regardless of who operated the CADD system.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A senior licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serving as chief engineer within a large firm affixes their seal to plans prepared by licensed and non-licensed engineers working under their general direction, bearing obligations to exercise detailed review and responsible charge over all sealed documents rather than relying solely on general supervisory confidence in subordinates.
Supervisory Error Characterization Authority Obligation
Duty of a senior engineering supervisor — such as a Chief Structural Engineer — who is consulted by a subordinate engineer regarding whether a design decision constitutes a professional error requiring acknowledgment, to conduct a thorough, good-faith, and technically substantive review of the subordinate's concern, to make a considered institutional determination about whether an error occurred and whether acknowledgment is required, and to communicate that determination clearly to the subordinate — recognizing that the supervisor bears institutional responsibility for the firm's professional accountability decisions and that the subordinate engineer is entitled to rely on the supervisor's considered judgment in determining how to proceed.
Supervisory Error Threshold Adjudication Capability
Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made.
Capability of a senior engineering supervisor who is consulted by a subordinate engineer regarding whether a design decision constitutes a professional error requiring acknowledgment to conduct a thorough, technically substantive, and good-faith review of the concern — including evaluating the applicable standard of care, the engineer's competence boundaries, the contractual scope of services, and the role of the contractor in construction safety — and to reach a defensible, authoritative determination about whether the design decision constitutes an error requiring acknowledgment under professional ethics codes.
Supervisory Inaction Complicity Principle
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer in a position of public responsibility is aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for law by supervisors or officials, has made multiple attempts to modify those views, and knows or should know that the proper reporting authority is an external body rather than internal supervisors, continued inaction — including remaining in the position without escalating to appropriate external authorities — makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing violation and constitutes a failure to fulfill ethical obligations, regardless of the engineer's subjective intent to avoid conflict.
[Case 79] Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer in a position of public responsibility is aware of a pattern of ongoing disregard for law by supervisors or officials, has made multiple attempts to modify those views, and knows or should know that the proper reporting authority is an external body rather than internal supervisors, continued inaction makes the engineer an accessory to the ongoing violation and constitutes a failure to fulfill ethical obligations.
Supervisory Inaction Environmental Law Violation Complicity Avoidance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer employed in a public agency role with statutory responsibility for environmental compliance who, after observing a pattern of ongoing disregard for applicable environmental law by supervisors and elected officials, and after multiple failed attempts to modify the views of those superiors through internal channels, to recognize that the 'proper authorities' are not the internal officials who have demonstrated disregard for the law but rather external state regulatory authorities, and to escalate the violation to those external authorities — failing which the engineer becomes an accessory to the ongoing violation through inaction.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reported a public safety concern to a regulatory official (such as a county building official) who fails to respond, to escalate the matter beyond that official to the official's supervisor, the fire marshal, and any other agency having jurisdiction — including agencies that issued certificates of occupancy following construction modifications — rather than treating the unanswered initial contact as sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation.
Supervisory Licensure Condition Failure Mentorship Response Capability
The supervising engineer at XYZ Consultants received Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that state board restrictions now applied.
Capability of a supervising professional engineer who learns that an engineer intern hired under a PE licensure condition has failed to satisfy that condition — including due to board-imposed re-examination restrictions — to respond constructively by providing mentorship, identifying pathways to eventual licensure, advising on the employment implications, and modeling ethical professional conduct, rather than responding punitively or dismissively, recognizing the formative professional development opportunity presented by the intern's situation.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a senior licensed professional engineer who supervises engineer interns or early-career engineers to recognize the formative professional impact of their own conduct on the ethical development of subordinates — including understanding that modeling policy circumvention, indirect directive communication, or benevolent rationalization of violations teaches those patterns to interns at the outset of their careers — and to conduct themselves in a manner that models ethical professional practice rather than rationalizing violations, regardless of the sympathetic circumstances.
Supervisory Public Role Domain Competence Mismatch State
State in which a licensed professional (PE) formally satisfies a statutory credential requirement for a public supervisory or oversight position, but whose entire professional expertise lies in a domain entirely unrelated to the subject matter of the role's oversight responsibilities — such that the credential requirement is met while the substantive competence requirement is not. The role involves no direct preparation of engineering documents, only oversight and review, yet the professional lacks the domain knowledge necessary to meaningfully evaluate the work being supervised. This state activates obligations to assess whether oversight competence can be acquired or supplemented, and whether acceptance of the role is ethically permissible.
Supervisory Response to Licensure Condition Failure Mentorship Obligation
Duty of a supervising professional engineer who learns that an engineer intern hired under a PE licensure condition has failed to satisfy that condition due to repeated exam failures and board-imposed restrictions to respond in a manner that balances the firm's legitimate business interests with the intern's professional development needs — including honestly assessing the firm's options, communicating clearly about the employment consequences, and where appropriate, providing guidance on pathways to eventual licensure — without using the intern's vulnerable position to extract labor under conditions that exploit the power imbalance inherent in the supervisory relationship.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a senior licensed professional engineer who supervises engineer interns or early-career engineers to recognize the heightened ethical responsibility that attaches to the supervisory relationship — specifically the duty to model ethical conduct, to refrain from directing subordinates to participate in policy-violating or ethically compromised work, and to avoid teaching, by example or instruction, that covert policy circumvention, indirect deceptive communication, or misuse of public funds are acceptable professional practices — recognizing that the lessons imparted during formative professional development have lasting effects on the subordinate's professional character and on the integrity of the profession.
Supervisory Role Domain Incompetence Acceptance State
in the recent Case 85-3 where an engineer with experience and background solely in the field of chemical engineering accepted a position as a county surveyor
State in which a licensed professional engineer accepts a supervisory, oversight, or administrative role — such as county surveyor or chief engineer — in a domain or practice area for which the engineer lacks the necessary qualifications and experience, even when the role is framed as oversight rather than direct technical preparation. The ethical violation arises because meaningful oversight of technical work requires domain competence, and the framing of the role as purely supervisory does not eliminate the competence requirement.
Supervisory Sealing Authority Structural Redesign Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer in a chief engineer or senior supervisory role to recognize when the current organizational structure makes it impossible to meet the responsible charge standard for all plans being sealed, and to proactively redesign the supervisory and sealing authority structure — for example, by delegating sealing authority to qualified registered subordinate engineers for specific technical segments, establishing tiered review protocols, or limiting the number of concurrent projects under a single sealing engineer — so that every sealed plan has received the detailed review required by the responsible charge standard.
Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is considering whether accepting a direct engagement from a client would constitute improper supplanting of another engineer to verify whether the supplanting prohibition threshold has been met — specifically, whether the client has taken 'definite steps' toward retaining another engineer, such as informing that engineer of selection for negotiation on a specific project or specifically intending to retain that engineer — and to correctly conclude that the prohibition is not triggered when no such definite steps have been taken, enabling the engineer to accept the direct engagement without ethical violation.
Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is considering whether accepting a direct engagement from a client would constitute improper supplanting of another engineer to verify, before declining or accepting the engagement, whether the supplanting prohibition is actually triggered — specifically, whether 'definite steps' have been taken by the client toward retaining the other engineer, meaning either: (a) the client has informed the other engineer that they have been selected to negotiate an agreement for the specific project, or (b) the client specifically intended to retain the other engineer for the work. In the absence of such definite steps, the supplanting prohibition does not apply and the engineer may ethically accept the direct engagement.
Supplanting Prohibition Non-Activation Absent Client Definite Selection Constraint
The government agency... asked him if he would be interested in taking the contract on his own firm's account.
Ethical constraint establishing that the anti-supplanting prohibition applicable to licensed professional engineers is not activated — and therefore does not bar a specialist from accepting direct agency engagement — when no definite steps have been taken by the client to retain any specific firm for the particular work, including situations where competing firms have only informally arranged for the specialist's services as a sub-consultant but have not been selected or entered into negotiation with the agency for the specific contract; derived from NSPE BER Cases 62-10 and 62-18 establishing that the supplanting prohibition requires either an existing contract or a specific client intent to retain the engineer for the particular work.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that the supplanting prohibition under §11(a) cannot be expanded beyond its two-part predicate requirement — that the complaining engineer either (a) had an existing contract for the specific work, or (b) had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work — and prohibiting the application of the supplanting rule to situations where neither predicate is satisfied, including where a former employer had only preliminary discussions or an informal client relationship with prospective clients but no contract or active negotiation; establishing that the supplanting rule does not give any engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients.
Supplanting Protest Competitive Motivation Non-Weaponization Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who files an ethics protest alleging improper supplanting by a competing firm to ensure that the protest is grounded in a genuine and accurate reading of the supplanting prohibition — specifically, that an active contract or specific selection/negotiation was underway — and not motivated primarily by competitive self-interest in retaining clients; the engineer must not weaponize the supplanting rule to suppress legitimate competitive solicitation of former clients who had no active contractual relationship.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose prior work has been reviewed and found deficient by another engineer to refrain from filing a formal registration board complaint against the reviewing engineer when the reviewing engineer's conduct — conducting a legitimately commissioned inspection, participating in a joint review, and issuing an honest technical report — does not constitute an actual ethics or licensure violation; recognizing that weaponizing the professional regulatory system to suppress legitimate peer critique, protect professional reputation, or punish honest technical disagreement constitutes an independent ethics violation by the complaining engineer.
Supplanting Rule Contract-or-Negotiation Predicate Non-Expansion Constraint
We have often held that §11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms.
Ethical constraint establishing that the supplanting prohibition under §11(a) cannot be expanded beyond its two-part predicate requirement — that the complaining engineer either (a) had an existing contract for the specific work, or (b) had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work — and prohibiting the application of the supplanting rule to situations where neither predicate is satisfied, including where a former employer had only preliminary discussions or an informal client relationship with prospective clients but no contract or active negotiation; establishing that the supplanting rule does not give any engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients.
Supplanting Rule Precise Scope Discrimination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics evaluator to precisely discriminate the scope of the professional rule against supplanting — recognizing that the prohibition applies only when an engineer attempts to displace another engineer who is currently under active contract or in active selection/negotiation with a client, and does not prohibit competitive solicitation of former clients for whom no active contract, specific selection, or negotiation is underway — enabling accurate application of the supplanting rule and avoidance of misuse of the rule as a competitive weapon against permissible solicitation.
Suspected Hazardous Waste Unanalyzed Sample State
State in which a field technician or engineer has collected physical samples from drums or containers on a client's property and, based on professional experience, has strong reason to believe the contents would be classified as hazardous waste upon laboratory analysis — but where no formal analysis has yet been conducted, creating a liminal condition between suspicion and confirmed violation that nonetheless triggers precautionary professional obligations regarding regulatory notification and proper handling.
Sustainability-Objecting Engineer Intern
Engineer Intern Wasser is a new employee at Cutting Edge
A licensed engineer intern role in which a junior engineering employee formally objects to an assigned task on grounds that the work conflicts with sustainable development principles, environmental science findings, and professional ethics obligations, bearing obligations to raise concerns through proper channels, document objections with supporting evidence, and defer to supervisory authority while preserving the right of conscientious refusal.
Sustainability Code Provision Normative Weight Assessment Capability
the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is 'encouraged.'
Capability to assess and correctly apply the differential normative weight of sustainability-related provisions in professional codes of ethics — including distinguishing between mandatory provisions ('shall') and encouraged provisions ('encouraged' or 'are encouraged to') — and to correctly determine the ethical consequences of non-compliance with each category, including understanding that encouraged provisions do not create absolute obligations but do create affirmative professional aspirations.
Sustainability Objection Supervisory Response Capability
Engineer Jaylani was obligated, upon receiving Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability conflicts and hydrogeological risks, to conduct a substantive review
Capability of a supervising professional engineer or firm principal to receive, evaluate, and respond appropriately to a formal sustainability or environmental objection raised by a subordinate engineer intern — including conducting a substantive review of the technical evidence cited, assessing the normative weight of the sustainability concerns, determining whether client notification is required, and formulating a professional response that neither dismisses legitimate concerns nor exceeds the scope of the firm's contractual authority.
Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals
State in which a project specification or assigned task is alleged to conflict with recognized sustainability principles, frameworks, or goals — such as UN Sustainable Development Goals or professional code sustainability provisions — creating tension between contractual obligations to execute the specified work and ethical or professional obligations to adhere to sustainable development principles.
Sustainable Alternative Advocacy as Ethical Tension Resolution Constraint
By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d.
Ethical and professional constraint establishing that when a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern faces tension between the mandatory faithful agent obligation and the encouraged sustainable development provision, the ethically preferred resolution pathway is to introduce and present sustainable alternatives to the client — rather than refusing the task or withdrawing from the project — establishing that the engineer's sustainability advocacy obligation is fulfilled through technical expertise, mature leadership, and dedicated client service, and prohibiting the treatment of task refusal or project withdrawal as the primary or preferred ethical response to sustainability tension when alternative presentation remains available.
Sustainable Alternative Generation Capability
Capability to move beyond a specified conventional design approach and generate technically viable, sustainable alternative solutions — such as rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, or green infrastructure options — that achieve the client's functional objectives while reducing environmental impact, and to present these alternatives to clients and employers in a manner that harmonizes faithful agent obligations with sustainable development principles.
Sustainable Alternative Presentation Opportunity State
State in which a professional, assigned to perform a technically and legally permissible task that does not optimally serve sustainability principles, possesses the expertise and positional access to present the client with sustainable alternatives that could achieve the client's goals more sustainably — creating an affirmative professional opportunity (though not an absolute obligation) to inform the client of those alternatives before executing the assigned approach.
Sustainable Development Advocacy Communication Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern who identifies that a proposed design specification conflicts with sustainable development principles — including UN Sustainable Development Goals and NSPE Code III.2.d — to formally communicate those sustainability objections to the responsible supervising engineer or firm principal, with supporting technical evidence, so that the firm can make an informed decision about whether to proceed with, modify, or escalate the design concern.
Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
Professional principle recognizing that while engineers are encouraged — but not strictly required — to adhere to sustainable development principles, engineers who identify significant sustainability conflicts in assigned work have a legitimate basis to formally raise those concerns through appropriate professional channels, and firms bear a corresponding obligation to engage substantively with those concerns rather than dismissing them
[Case 83] Professional principle recognizing that while engineers are encouraged — but not strictly required — to adhere to sustainable development principles, engineers who identify significant sustainability conflicts in assigned work have a legitimate basis to formally raise those concerns through appropriate professional channels, and firms bear a corresponding obligation to engage substantively with those concerns rather than dismissing them.
Sustainable Development Advocate Engineer Intern
Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a 'traditional' irrigation system
A licensed engineer intern role in which a junior engineering employee proactively advocates for sustainable development alternatives beyond mere refusal of assigned tasks, bearing obligations to introduce sustainable options to clients and employers, harmonize faithful-agent duties with sustainability encouragement provisions of the NSPE Code, and serve clients through technical expertise and mature professional leadership rather than conscientious refusal alone.
Sustainable Development Client Education Capability
Capability to proactively educate clients about sustainable development alternatives and their tradeoffs — including long-term environmental, economic, and social benefits — in a manner that harmonizes faithful agent obligations with sustainable development principles, recognizing that engineers have an affirmative opportunity and obligation to inform clients about sustainable options rather than simply executing conventional approaches without raising alternatives.
Sustainable Development Code Encouragement vs. Obligation Calibration Obligation
In January 2006, the NSPE Board of Directors approved a change to the NSPE Code of Ethics to add Section III.2.d. to the NSPE Code.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and of ethics reviewing bodies to correctly calibrate the force of NSPE Code Section III.2.d. — which, as amended in July 2007, states that engineers are 'encouraged' (rather than 'shall strive') to adhere to sustainable development principles — recognizing that the amended language establishes a professional encouragement rather than a strict mandatory obligation, while still treating sustainable development principles as a relevant and weighty consideration in environmental engineering practice that informs the scope of disclosure and reporting obligations in environmental assessment contexts.
[proethica-intermediate] Obligations arising from ethical principles beyond legal requirements
Sustainable Development Code Normative Weight Calibration Capability
in July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates voted to modify the language in NSPE Code Section III.2.d. to state that 'engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.'
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing body to correctly calibrate the normative force of NSPE Code Section III.2.d. — distinguishing between the original 'shall strive to adhere' language (January 2006) and the amended 'are encouraged to adhere' language (July 2007) — and to correctly determine the ethical consequences of each formulation, including understanding that the 'encouraged' formulation does not create an absolute obligation but does create an affirmative professional aspiration that informs the analysis of disclosure and reporting obligations in environmental engineering contexts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to assess and correctly apply the differential normative weight of sustainability-related provisions in professional codes of ethics — including distinguishing between mandatory provisions ('shall') and encouraged provisions ('encouraged' or 'are encouraged to') — and to correctly determine the ethical consequences of non-compliance with each category, including understanding that encouraged provisions do not create absolute obligations but do create affirmative professional aspirations.
Sustainable Development Code Provision Ambiguity State
engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations
State in which a professional code of ethics contains a provision regarding sustainable development that has been modified from mandatory ('shall') to encouraged ('are encouraged') language, creating ambiguity about the strength of the obligation and requiring the ethics body to interpret the provision as a matter of first impression in the context of other code language and prior opinions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional faces tension between a mandatory code provision (expressed as 'shall') and an encouraged but non-mandatory code provision (expressed as 'encouraged'), where full compliance with both simultaneously is not possible, requiring the professional to prioritize the mandatory obligation while seeking creative paths to honor the encouraged principle.
Sustainable Development Encouraged Provision Non-Mandatory Task Refusal Boundary Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising from the July 2007 modification of NSPE Code Section III.2.d. from 'shall strive to adhere' to 'are encouraged to adhere' to sustainable development principles — establishing that the encouraged language creates a professional aspiration rather than a mandatory obligation, and that engineers may not treat the encouraged sustainable development provision as a mandatory basis for refusing to perform lawful, technically sound assigned tasks or for withholding material environmental findings from public authority reports on sustainability grounds alone; while simultaneously establishing that the encouraged provision does impose meaningful professional responsibilities — including the obligation to include confirmed environmental findings in public authority reports — that are reinforced by and interact with the mandatory objective completeness obligation under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., prohibiting both the over-reading of the encouraged provision as mandatory task-refusal authority and the under-reading of it as entirely without professional consequence.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint arising from the distinction between mandatory ('shall') and encouraged ('are encouraged to') provisions in a professional code of ethics, establishing that an engineer intern or licensed engineer may not treat an encouraged provision as a mandatory basis for refusing to perform a lawful, technically sound assigned task — prohibiting the conflation of aspirational ethical encouragements with binding professional obligations that would justify task refusal, contract non-performance, or unilateral project withdrawal.
Sustainable Development Environmental Testimony Obligation
Engineer H's redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer providing engineering testimony or input at a public regulatory hearing — whether as a design engineer or as a public interest witness — to consider and address the principles of sustainable development, including the protection of the environment for future generations, when evaluating and presenting technical information about proposed development projects that may pose environmental risks such as contamination of public waterways.
Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read 'Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.'
A formal provision within a professional code of ethics that encourages or requires engineers to adhere to principles of sustainable development, including protection of the environment for future generations and conservation of natural resources, representing the codification of sustainability as a professional ethical obligation.
Sustainable Development Goal Alignment Assessment Capability
Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals including but not limited to Goal 6– Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, Goal 11– Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, and Goal 15– Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems
Capability to evaluate whether a proposed engineering design, specification, or project component aligns with or conflicts with recognized sustainable development frameworks — including UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation), Goal 11 (sustainable cities), and Goal 15 (terrestrial ecosystems) — and to articulate specific points of conflict or alignment with supporting technical and normative evidence.
Sustainable Development Integration Obligation
Under Code section III.2.d, they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer developing design solutions for a client to actively consider and integrate sustainable development principles into the analysis and recommendations, including presenting sustainable alternatives and educating the client about sustainability tradeoffs, rather than defaulting exclusively to traditional approaches — harmonizing the faithful agent duty with the ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainable development principles under NSPE Code III.2.d.
Sustainable Development Obligation-Bearing Environmental Engineer
Applying this analysis to the present case and in light of the NSPE Code of Ethics language contained in Section III.2.d., the Board believes that Engineer A's obligations are clear.
A licensed professional environmental engineering role in which an engineer, subject to NSPE Code Section III.2.d. encouraging adherence to sustainable development principles, performs environmental assessments and prepares written reports for submission to public authorities, bearing obligations to include all relevant and pertinent environmental threat information — including threats to 'threatened' (not merely 'endangered') species — in professional reports, to advise the client of such inclusion, and to refrain from omitting material environmental findings even when client confidentiality interests are asserted, given the absence of an explicit confidentiality request and the engineer's technical competence in the relevant domain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer conducting site analysis for a development project receives information from firm specialists (e.g., biologists) about potential environmental threats to protected species or ecosystems, bearing obligations to include all relevant and pertinent environmental threat information in professional reports submitted to public authorities, advise the client of such inclusion, and refrain from omitting material environmental findings even when the threatened species or resource does not meet the highest regulatory protection threshold.
Develop a green infrastructure system incorporating wetland restoration and other biodynamic controls.
Professional norms, technical benchmarks, and emerging standards governing the incorporation of green infrastructure, low-carbon design, and long-term sustainability into engineering projects, including wetland restoration and biodynamic control systems
Sustainable Infrastructure Design Competence
Technical capability to design, evaluate, and specify green infrastructure systems — including wetland restoration, biodynamic controls, and nature-based flood management solutions — assessing their flood mitigation performance, biodiversity co-benefits, carbon sequestration potential, maturation timelines, expandability characteristics, and long-term maintenance requirements, and comparing these attributes against conventional engineered alternatives.
Sustained Safety Opinion Participation Refusal Persistence Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that engineers in a production or manufacturing role who hold a sustained professional opinion that the machinery or equipment as designed would be unsafe to the public must refuse to participate in its processing or production for as long as they hold that opinion — prohibiting any relaxation of the participation refusal based on employer pressure, business considerations, or the passage of time alone, and establishing that the duration of the refusal obligation is coextensive with the duration of the engineer's sincere professional safety judgment, not with the duration of any particular escalation attempt or negotiation period.
Sustained Safety Opinion Production Refusal Persistence Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer employed in a production or manufacturing role to maintain a sustained, consistent refusal to participate in the production or processing of machinery or equipment for as long as the engineer continues to hold the professional opinion that the machinery as designed and specified would be unsafe to the public — recognizing that the obligation to refuse is not discharged by a single objection, that it persists throughout the duration of the safety concern, and that neither employer pressure, economic hardship, nor the passage of time extinguishes the obligation to refuse participation in operations the engineer sincerely believes endanger public health and safety.
Sustained Safety Opinion Production Refusal Persistence Obligation
Duty of engineers in a production or manufacturing role who hold a sustained professional opinion that the machinery or equipment they are directed to produce is unsafe to the public, to maintain their refusal to participate in production for as long as they hold that opinion — recognizing that the obligation to refuse is not discharged by a single objection followed by acquiescence, but persists as long as the safety concern remains unresolved, and that neither employer pressure nor the threat of employment loss extinguishes the obligation to refuse while the safety opinion is genuinely held.
Switching Sides Adversarial Proceeding Confidential Access Bar Constraint
Engineer A, a forensic engineer, was hired as a consultant by Attorney Z to provide an engineering and safety analysis report and courtroom testimony in support of a plaintiff in a personal injury case.
Ethical and professional constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who was retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding — and who, in the course of that retention, gained cooperative access to confidential information, documents, and facts belonging to that party — from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same proceeding, establishing that the engineer's prior access to confidential information creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that cannot be cured by termination of the original engagement, by the engineer's good-faith belief in providing an independent report, or by the opposing party's framing of the new engagement as separate and independent — and prohibiting the engineer from treating the cessation of the prior relationship as a complete discharge of the duty of trust and loyalty owed to the original client, as established by BER Case No. 85-4 and NSPE Code Section II.4.b.
Switching Sides Forensic Expert Prohibition Obligation
In deciding that Engineer A's actions were not ethical, the Board noted that the mere fact that Engineer A ceased performing services for Attorney Z would not be an adequate solution to the ethical dilemma at hand.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation — and who, in the course of that engagement, gained access to confidential information, documents, and strategic analysis belonging to that party — to refrain from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same matter, even after termination of the first engagement, recognizing that the engineer cannot credibly provide an independent analysis for the opposing party when the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information and documents cannot be erased from professional judgment.
Switching Sides Full Discussion With Original Client Obligation
The Board further noted that Engineer A should instead have fully discussed the issue with Attorney Z.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation and is considering terminating that engagement — or who has been approached by the opposing party — to fully discuss the ethical dilemma with the original retaining attorney before taking any action, so that the original client has the opportunity to address the engineer's concerns, provide consent, or otherwise resolve the conflict before the engineer's relationship with the original party is terminated in a manner that enables adverse retention.
Switching Sides Prohibition in Adversarial Proceedings
Relational principle prohibiting engineers who have been retained by one party in an adversarial proceeding — and who have thereby gained access to that party's confidential information, documents, and strategic knowledge — from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same or related proceeding, even after the initial engagement has been terminated, because the engineer cannot credibly provide independent analysis uncontaminated by the prior party's confidential information
Systemic Defect Multi-Party Notification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, in the course of a forensic investigation, discovers a structural or safety deficiency that is likely replicated across multiple identical designs — such as tract housing with identical structural members — to recognize that professional obligations extend beyond reporting to the retaining client, and to identify and notify all parties who may be affected, including local building officials, individual property owners, and community associations, ensuring that the full scope of the systemic risk is communicated to all parties with a need to know.
Systemic Defect Multi-Party Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, in the course of a forensic investigation, discovers a structural or safety defect that is likely replicated across multiple identical units — such as tract housing with identical designs — to take notification steps beyond reporting to the retaining client, including contacting local building officials, individual affected property owners, and relevant community associations, so that all parties at risk from the systemic defect are informed and can take protective action.
Systemic Defect Multi-Stakeholder Notification Constraint
Engineer A had ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics beyond providing the report to the retaining insurance company.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers a structural or safety defect that is likely replicated across multiple structures — such as identical tract housing designs — must notify not only the immediate retaining client but also local building officials, individual affected property owners, and relevant community associations, prohibiting limitation of notification to the retaining client alone when the systemic nature of the defect creates public safety obligations extending beyond the immediate engagement.
Systemic Design Defect Beyond Immediate Project Scope State
State in which a professional engineer, while investigating or evaluating a specific structure or project, discovers evidence that the same design defect or structural inadequacy is likely present in multiple other structures beyond the immediate project scope — such as identical tract homes in a subdivision — thereby expanding the engineer's safety reporting obligation beyond the retaining client to include building officials, individual affected owners, and community associations.
Systemic Externality Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has completed a technical analysis demonstrating project viability in isolation must also disclose in any advisory report the systemic externalities of the proposed project — including foreseeable adverse impacts on third-party infrastructure, public utilities, or community welfare — prohibiting the submission of a report that presents only isolated project viability without disclosing known systemic risks that the engineer has identified through the course of analysis, as established by NSPE Code objectivity and completeness provisions and the principle that engineers must hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare.
Systemic Failure Escalation Obligation for Inspection Programs
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers responsible for public infrastructure inspection programs — including engineer interns with supervisory responsibility over field inspectors — to recognize and escalate evidence of systemic inspection failures (recurring missed defects, pattern non-reporting, multi-year lapses) to appropriate supervisory and program authorities, rather than treating each missed inspection as an isolated incident, because systemic failures in infrastructure inspection programs create compounding public safety risks that require programmatic rather than case-by-case remediation
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who evaluate energy system alternatives for a single organization to disclose foreseeable systemic impacts on the broader electric grid — including increased probability of rolling blackouts — when the proposed alternative would shift load entirely to grid supply under conditions of known grid stress, recognizing that the engineer's duty to the public extends beyond the client organization to the community served by the shared grid infrastructure.
Systemic Grid Impact Disclosure in Energy Advisory Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing an advisory report on an energy system replacement proposal to disclose not only the isolated performance characteristics of the proposed system but also any reasonably foreseeable systemic impacts on the broader energy grid — including increased stress on utility generation capacity and heightened probability of rolling blackouts — that the proposed change would cause, particularly when those systemic impacts have been communicated by qualified utility resource planners and pose risks to public welfare beyond the organization's own operations.
Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Internal Product Dispute Non-Equivalence Recognition Obligation
What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
Duty of professional ethics bodies, engineers, and supervisors to recognize the critical ethical distinction between (a) an engineer's internal questioning of a specific employer's business decision to produce a lower-quality product — which does not rise to a public advocacy obligation and is governed by the obligation to point out safety hazards and offer personal opinions to management — and (b) an engineer's participation in industry-wide civic advocacy for minimum legislative quality standards affecting all products across all companies — which constitutes a legitimate public welfare activity protected under the ethics code; and that the ethical analysis applicable to the former does not govern or restrict the latter.
Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Non-Equivalence to Internal Product Quality Dispute Principle
Domain-specific principle establishing a critical ethical distinction between (a) an engineer's internal questioning of a specific employer's business decision to produce a lower-quality product — which falls within management's legitimate prerogative and is not a code-mandated obligation — and (b) an engineer's external, systemic advocacy for minimum quality and safety standards across an entire industry or product category — which constitutes a public welfare service that the ethics code affirmatively sanctions and supports, and which is not governed by the same deference-to-management principle applicable to internal product disputes.
Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy vs Particular Company Product Dispute Factual Distinction Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewing body to recognize and apply the critical factual distinction between (a) an engineer's internal dissent or questioning of a particular employer's business decision regarding a specific company product — which is governed by the principle that engineers should not question company business decisions but may point out safety hazards and offer personal opinions to management — and (b) an engineer's participation in systemic, industry-wide civic advocacy for minimum legislative quality standards affecting all products across an entire industry — which is governed by the public welfare and civic service provisions of the ethics code — and to correctly determine that these two scenarios are ethically non-equivalent and governed by different code provisions, as illustrated by the distinction between BER Case 61-10 and the Citizens Committee scenario.
Systemic Inspection Failure Escalation Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern responsible for a public infrastructure inspection program who discovers evidence that a field inspector has systematically failed to identify or report a visibly obvious safety defect over multiple inspection cycles to treat that pattern as evidence of a systemic program failure — distinct from a single missed inspection — and to escalate the systemic failure to program supervisors, quality assurance personnel, or regulatory authorities with sufficient specificity to trigger a comprehensive program review, inspector retraining or removal, and audit of all inspections conducted by the implicated inspector.
Systemic Pattern Upward Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer or engineer intern who discovers, through retrospective review of records, a multi-year pattern of systematic failure by a subordinate inspector or technician — including repeated non-reporting of the same visibly obvious defect — must disclose that systemic pattern in its entirety to the supervising licensed professional engineer, prohibiting partial disclosure that reports only the current defect while omitting the historical pattern, on the grounds that the systemic pattern constitutes independent and material safety-relevant information that the supervising PE requires to assess program integrity, inspector competence, and the cumulative risk created by years of unreported deterioration.
Systemic Tract Development Defect Multi-Party Notification Obligation
Forensic Engineer was concerned that the beam appeared to be too light for the loads it carried, ran the appropriate structural calculations, and determined that the beam was seriously undersized.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, in the course of a forensic investigation of a single unit within a tract development, discovers a structural or safety deficiency that the engineer has reason to believe has been replicated across multiple identical units in the same development — by virtue of identical design or construction methods — to include that systemic concern in the written report and to notify individual homeowners, the local homeowners or community civic association, and local building officials of the findings, so that all parties at risk from the replicated deficiency are informed and can take protective action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, in the course of a forensic investigation, discovers a structural or safety defect that is likely replicated across multiple identical units — such as tract housing with identical designs — to take notification steps beyond reporting to the retaining client, including contacting local building officials, individual affected property owners, and relevant community associations, so that all parties at risk from the systemic defect are informed and can take protective action.
Team-Designed Patent Sole-Authorship Implication Prohibition Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who participated as one equal member of a multi-engineer team in the design of jointly-patented products to refrain from implying on a resume or professional profile that he personally and solely was responsible for those products — recognizing that even without an explicit false statement, the intentional implication of sole authorship through selective framing or omission of team context constitutes a misrepresentation that deceives prospective employers and violates the engineer's professional obligation of honesty in all professional representations.
Team-Designed Work Implied Sole Authorship Resume Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from including in a resume, qualification statement, or professional self-presentation any description of work products — including patented products, designs, or projects — that implies personal sole responsibility for work that was in fact designed or produced through the joint effort of a team of engineers, establishing that the prohibition applies even when the engineer does not explicitly claim sole authorship but instead uses framing, structure, or omission of collaborative context in a manner intended to obscure the team nature of the work and mislead a prospective employer, as established by NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness and non-deception and BER Case No. 86-6, which held that statements intentionally designed to mislead a potential employer by obscuring the truth about collaborative work constitute an ethical violation.
Team Contribution Sole Authorship Implication Non-Commission Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who participated as one member of a multi-engineer team to recognize that implying sole or primary personal responsibility for work that was in fact a joint team effort — even without explicitly stating sole authorship — constitutes an impermissible misrepresentation of qualifications intended to obscure truth to a prospective employer, and to refrain from such implication in resumes, qualification statements, or professional representations, drawing on BER Case 86-6's holding that such implications are intentionally designed to mislead.
Team Effort Acknowledgment in Resume Design Credit Obligation
we note that by his conduct, Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who participated as one member of a multi-engineer design team to affirmatively express on a resume or professional qualification document that design work attributed to the engineer was performed as a result of a team effort rather than an individual effort — without necessarily naming individual team members — so that a prospective employer can accurately assess the engineer's individual contribution and is not misled into believing the work was performed independently, consistent with the obligation to give due credit to professional colleagues under NSPE Code Section III.10.a.
Technical Competence Prerequisite for Expert Hearing Participation Constraint
Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer may participate as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing only if the engineer possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the specific area in which the engineer is testifying — prohibiting participation as an engineering expert witness in technical domains outside the engineer's demonstrated competence, and establishing that general engineering licensure does not confer competence to testify as an expert in all engineering sub-disciplines.
Technical Dispute Between Engineer and Superior on Regulatory Compliance Method State
State in which a professional engineer employed in a regulatory or public-sector capacity holds a technically grounded professional judgment that a proposed design or process does not meet applicable regulatory standards, while their superior holds a contrary technical view that the proposed approach does meet those standards — creating a genuine technical disagreement with direct regulatory compliance consequences, where the engineer must determine whether to defer to the superior's judgment or maintain their professional position.
Technical Fact Command and Reporting Readiness Capability
Professional engineers should be certain that they are in command of the facts and relevant technical information, may need to deliver recommendations that may not be well-received by the public or public officials
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to ensure they are fully in command of all relevant facts and technical information before delivering safety recommendations or escalation reports — including the ability to compile, verify, and organize technical evidence sufficient to support professional positions that may not be well-received by the public or public officials, and to present that information with sufficient rigor to withstand scrutiny in public and regulatory contexts.
Technical Facts Non-Adversarial Character Principle
Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.
Fundamental professional principle establishing that engineering and technical facts do not acquire an adversarial character by virtue of being generated, presented, or evaluated within an adversarial legal or quasi-legal proceeding — facts may be conflicting but are not inherently partisan, and engineers must treat technical findings as objective data regardless of the legal context in which they operate, refusing to allow adversarial interests to transform their role from exponent of technical truth to advocate for a preferred factual narrative.
Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer practicing in a specialized or hazard-sensitive domain to actively monitor, retrieve, and incorporate newly published technical literature — including updated design standards, codes, and research findings — into ongoing professional practice, such that the engineer's design methods reflect the current state of knowledge rather than outdated approaches, particularly in domains where new standards have been developed to address known hazards such as severe weather conditions.
Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer practicing in a specialized or hazard-sensitive domain to actively monitor and incorporate newly published technical standards, design methods, and peer-reviewed literature relevant to that domain — particularly where updated methods have been developed in response to known hazard conditions — so that designs reflect the current state of professional knowledge rather than only the methods known at the time of the engineer's initial training or prior project experience. This obligation is defeasible where newly published standards have not yet permeated professional practice to the degree that a reasonably diligent engineer would be expected to have encountered them, but the engineer bears the burden of demonstrating good-faith currency efforts.
Technical Recommendation Business Pressure Non-Subordination Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to make a technical recommendation — including a recommendation about additional safety testing — to base that recommendation solely on technical findings and professional judgment, keeping nontechnical business considerations (financial impact, competitive disadvantage, client pressure, job loss risk) separate and apart from the technical determination, so that the employer or client can make a fully informed decision grounded in accurate technical analysis rather than business-influenced advice.
Technical Recommendation Independence from Business Considerations
Professional principle requiring engineers who are asked to make technical recommendations — including recommendations about safety testing, system deployment readiness, or risk mitigation — to formulate those recommendations based solely on technical findings and professional judgment, maintaining strict separation between the technical recommendation and the business, financial, competitive, or political considerations that may bear on the ultimate organizational decision, so that decision-makers receive an uncontaminated technical assessment and can then apply business judgment to that assessment independently
Technical Segment Attribution and Exclusive Sealing Compliance Capability
Section II.2.c. establishes a hierarchy of responsibility by which engineers may coordinate and assume responsibility for entire projects as long as those individuals under the engineer's responsible control are identified as having prepared each technical segment of the work.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — whether serving as chief engineer or as a subordinate registered engineer — to correctly implement the NSPE Code Section II.2.c requirement that each technical segment of a multi-engineer project be signed and sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared that segment; including the ability to identify discrete technical segments within a complex project, attribute each segment to its qualified preparer, ensure that subordinate registered engineers affix their own seals to segments they prepared, and refrain from sealing segments prepared by others without having exercised responsible charge over those segments.
Technical Segment Attribution and Sealing Integrity Obligation
Domain-specific principle establishing that in multi-engineer projects where different engineers prepare distinct technical segments, each technical segment must be signed and sealed only by the qualified engineer who actually prepared that segment. This principle prohibits a single supervising engineer from sealing all segments regardless of who prepared them, and instead requires that the sealing engineer for each segment be the qualified engineer with direct responsibility for that segment's preparation. The principle operationalizes responsible charge at the segment level in complex, multi-disciplinary engineering projects.
Technical Segment Qualified Preparer Exclusive Sealing Constraint
we reiterate the language contained in Section II.2.c. noting that 'each technical segment [shall be] signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.'
Absolute regulatory and ethical constraint establishing that in multi-engineer or multi-disciplinary engineering projects, each discrete technical segment of the project documents must be signed and sealed exclusively by the qualified engineer who prepared that segment — prohibiting a chief or supervising engineer from sealing technical segments prepared by subordinates unless the subordinate's preparation and qualification are properly attributed, and requiring that the firm's organizational structure ensure segment-level sealing accountability rather than blanket sealing by a single supervising engineer across all technical domains.
Technical Segment Qualified Preparer Exclusive Sealing Obligation
we reiterate the language contained in Section II.2.c. noting that 'each technical segment [shall be] signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to sign and seal only those technical segments of a multi-engineer project that the engineer personally prepared or over which the engineer exercised responsible charge (direct control and personal supervision) — and to refrain from sealing technical segments prepared by other engineers over whom the sealing engineer did not exercise responsible charge — recognizing that Section II.2.c. establishes a hierarchy of responsibility in which each technical segment must be attributed to and sealed exclusively by the qualified engineer who prepared it, and that a chief or supervising engineer may coordinate and assume responsibility for an entire project only when the individual technical segment preparers are identified and each segment is sealed by its qualified preparer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who signs and seals engineering documents produced by other personnel using a CADD system to ensure, as a prerequisite to sealing, that those personnel worked under the engineer's genuine direction and control — meaning the engineer actively directed the technical approach, reviewed intermediate work product, exercised substantive supervisory judgment over the CADD-produced output, and maintained the level of engagement necessary to constitute responsible charge — and to refrain from sealing CADD-produced documents prepared by others absent such direction and control, regardless of whether the engineer holds a supervisory title or organizational authority over the preparers.
Technical Segment Responsible Sealing Engineer
each technical segment [shall be] signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer signs and seals only the specific technical segment of a project that they personally prepared, bearing obligations of individual authorship accountability and competence within that segment, as required by professional codes mandating that each technical segment be sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared it.
Technical Segment Sealing Attribution Obligation State
State in which a multi-disciplinary or multi-engineer project requires that each discrete technical segment of the work be individually signed and sealed exclusively by the qualified professional engineer who personally prepared that segment, rather than having a single supervising engineer seal all documents. This state arises when project complexity, disciplinary breadth, or organizational structure makes it impossible for any single engineer to have exercised responsible charge over all technical segments, triggering a segment-level attribution and certification obligation.
Technical Writing and Report Authorship Capability
Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing.
Capability to independently produce technically accurate, professionally written engineering reports and analyses that clearly communicate findings, data interpretations, and professional opinions, without reliance on AI-generated text or external drafting assistance, reflecting the engineer's own professional judgment and intellectual authorship.
Technically Confirmed Environmental Finding Omission Instruction State
Engineer A, therefore, had an obligation to include it in the written report and advise the client of its inclusion
State in which a client instructs a professional engineer to omit from a final written report a technically confirmed environmental or safety finding — one supported by the engineer's domain competence and consultation with qualified specialists, not based on mere speculation — where the omitted finding is material to a public authority's regulatory decision-making and where no affirmative confidentiality request was made by the client prior to the finding being reported, creating a direct conflict between client instruction and the engineer's obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports.
Technically True But Misleading Omission Prohibition in Regulatory Testimony Obligation
When asked at the end of his testimony if he was testifying on behalf of the U.S. DOE, Engineer A said, 'I am testifying on my own behalf.'
Duty of a licensed professional engineer testifying before a regulatory body to refrain from making statements that are technically accurate but structured to create a false impression through material omission — including responding to direct questions about the capacity of testimony in a manner that is literally true but omits decisive context (such as the existence of a compensated private consulting relationship) — recognizing that technically true but misleading testimony violates the core engineering ethics values of honesty and full disclosure in the same manner as an outright falsehood.
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
Professional honesty principle establishing that engineers may not make statements that are literally or technically accurate but are deliberately crafted to create a materially false impression in the listener's mind — including by exploiting outdated facts, selective framing, or misleading implication — because such 'artful' deception violates the same ethical obligations as outright falsehood; the ethical standard is not merely literal truth but the overall impression conveyed
Technically True Misleading Omission Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer testifying at a regulatory hearing from responding to direct questions about the capacity in which they are testifying with statements that are technically true in a narrow literal sense but materially misleading by omission — establishing that when a regulatory body or its members ask whether the engineer is testifying on behalf of a specific party or in a specific capacity, the engineer must provide a complete and non-misleading answer that discloses all material relationships, including private retainer arrangements, rather than exploiting literal truth to conceal a financially interested capacity, as the duty of non-deception encompasses both affirmative false statements and artfully misleading technically-true responses.
Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a statement that is technically accurate in a narrow literal sense is nonetheless materially misleading because it omits critical context, exploits ambiguity, or creates a false impression in the listener's mind — and to refrain from making such statements in professional contexts, particularly in regulatory testimony, understanding that professional ethics obligations prohibit deceptive statements regardless of their technical literal truth.
Technically Unsupported Client Heightened Disclosure Obligation
Relational principle establishing that when an engineer's client is a small public agency or other entity that lacks in-house technical resources to independently review engineering work products, the engineer bears a heightened obligation to disclose known deficiencies, limitations, and incompleteness in delivered work — because the client's inability to detect such deficiencies through independent review makes the engineer's disclosure obligation correspondingly more critical to the client's informed decision-making and to public welfare
[Case 85] Duty of a licensed professional engineer whose client is a small public agency or other entity that lacks in-house technical resources to independently review engineering deliverables to apply a heightened standard of proactive disclosure regarding the completeness, adequacy, and limitations of those deliverables — recognizing that the client's inability to detect deficiencies through independent review places a correspondingly greater burden on the engineer to surface and communicate those deficiencies, and that the absence of client technical capacity does not reduce but rather amplifies the engineer's disclosure obligation.
Technically Unsupported Client Heightened Proactive Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer whose client is a small public agency or other entity that lacks in-house technical resources to review engineering deliverables, to recognize that this technical asymmetry creates a heightened duty of proactive disclosure regarding the completeness, adequacy, and limitations of those deliverables — because the client cannot independently detect deficiencies — and to apply a correspondingly elevated standard of transparency and forthright communication about any material gaps, uncertainties, or incompleteness in the work product.
Technically Unsupported Client Proactive Incompleteness Disclosure Constraint
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose client is a small public agency or other entity that lacks in-house technical expertise to independently evaluate the completeness or adequacy of engineering deliverables must apply a heightened standard of proactive disclosure — affirmatively informing the client of any known material incompleteness, deficiency, or limitation in the work product before or at the time of delivery, and prohibiting the engineer from relying on the client's failure to detect deficiencies as a substitute for disclosure, given that the client's technical incapacity makes independent detection impossible.
Technically Unsupported Public Infrastructure Client
A small local public agency client role that retains engineering services for a federally-funded infrastructure project but lacks the in-house technical staff or expertise to independently review, evaluate, or verify the adequacy and completeness of submitted design drawings and specifications, thereby placing heightened reliance on the design engineer's professional integrity and disclosure obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A public agency client role held by a non-licensed administrative official who retains or solicits engineering advisory services for public infrastructure procurement decisions, bearing authority over project delivery method selection and subject to reliance on engineer expertise, establishing heightened engineer obligations of completeness, objectivity, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Technology-Neutral Seal Validity Principle
Professional principle establishing that the ethical and legal validity of an engineer's signature and seal on engineering documents is independent of the production technology used to create those documents — whether hand-drafted, typewritten, or CADD-generated — provided the engineer either personally prepared the documents or exercised genuine direction and control over their preparation. The medium of production does not alter the professional certification obligations or the responsible charge requirements that give the seal its meaning.
Technology-as-Supplement Non-Replacement Engineering Judgment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to treat computers, CD-ROMs, software libraries, technical databases, and all other technological tools as supplements to — and never as replacements or substitutes for — time-tested professional experience and independent engineering judgment, recognizing that professional engineering cannot be reduced to an activity whereby practitioners rely upon technology and technical information in lieu of substantive domain expertise, and that any technological tool adopted in practice must be used in conjunction with, not instead of, the engineer's own competence in the relevant technical domain.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed engineer to ensure that AI tools, software, or other technological aids are used as supplements to — and never as replacements or substitutes for — independent professional engineering judgment, including the duty to outline solution guidelines and constraints before delegating to AI, to critically challenge AI outputs, and to independently satisfy themselves that proposed solutions meet professional and regulatory standards before acceptance.
Technology-as-Tool Boundary Judgment Capability
Culminating in the key question: Is using AI adding a new tool to an engineer's toolbox, or is it something more?
Capability to recognize and maintain the boundary between using technology as a tool that supplements professional engineering judgment versus allowing technology to substitute for or replace that judgment, including the ability to apply this distinction to novel technologies (AI, CADD, CD-ROM design tools) and to recognize when reliance on a technology has crossed from appropriate tool use into inappropriate substitution for professional competence.
Technology-as-Tool Non-Substitution for Professional Judgment Principle
The key point is that the engineer must utilize such systems to assist the engineer in the performance of professional services and not employ such systems as a replacement for professional competence and expertise.
Professional principle establishing that engineering technologies — including CADD systems and emerging tools such as artificial intelligence — must be employed as instruments that assist the engineer in the performance of professional services, and must not be used as replacements for professional competence, expertise, or judgment. The engineer remains the locus of professional decision-making; the technology is a tool subject to the engineer's direction and critical evaluation. Reliance on technology outputs as substitutes for professional judgment creates liability exposure and constitutes an ethical failure.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle establishing that software tools, CD-ROMs, technical libraries, or other technological aids — however comprehensive — cannot substitute for, or serve as a basis for claiming, genuine domain expertise in engineering practice. An engineer who relies on a technological product to perform work in a field where they lack substantive education and experience is not rendered competent by that product, and such reliance constitutes a fundamental disregard for the public protection function of professional engineering. Technology is a legitimate aid to competent practice but never a replacement for the underlying professional judgment, education, and experience that competence requires.
Technology Non-Substitution for Domain Expertise Principle
Professional virtue principle establishing that software tools, CD-ROMs, technical libraries, or other technological aids — however comprehensive — cannot substitute for, or serve as a basis for claiming, genuine domain expertise in engineering practice. An engineer who relies on a technological product to perform work in a field where they lack substantive education and experience is not rendered competent by that product, and such reliance constitutes a fundamental disregard for the public protection function of professional engineering. Technology is a legitimate aid to competent practice but never a replacement for the underlying professional judgment, education, and experience that competence requires.
Technology Non-Substitution for Engineering Judgment Constraint
technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgement
Foundational ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting engineers from using any technological tool — including AI, CADD, or CD-ROM-based design systems — as a replacement or substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring that technology serve only as a supplement to professional expertise and that all outputs be evaluated against the engineer's own professional standards before acceptance.
Time-based constraint requiring that risk disclosures be made promptly upon identification of material risks, prohibiting deferral of safety-relevant communications to later project phases or more convenient moments, particularly when work suspension creates a natural communication opportunity.
[proethica-intermediate] Time-based limitations and deadlines (Govindarajulu & Bringsjord 2017)
If so, the Board finds no issue with Engineer J having worked for Firm BWJ back in the day.
State in which a potential conflict of interest arising from prior employment is assessed as ethically mitigated or resolved by the passage of sufficient time — typically one year or more — between the professional's departure from the private firm and the commencement of the project or approval activity in question, such that the prior relationship no longer creates an active ethical compromise, though the determination remains contingent on the actual elapsed time.
Temporal Recency Conflict Assessment Constraint
if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that the ethical significance of a conflict of interest arising from prior employment be assessed in light of the temporal proximity of the transition — establishing that conflicts arising from very recent transitions (less than one year) carry heightened ethical weight requiring recusal or disclosure, while conflicts arising from transitions of greater temporal distance may be assessed as sufficiently mitigated to permit continued participation, subject to the absence of direct project involvement during the prior employment period.
Tenant Direct Imminent Structural Danger Notification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who discovers structural defects constituting an immediate threat to building occupants during a forensic inspection to recognize the obligation to directly notify those occupants of the danger — beyond notifying only the retaining attorney or public authorities — ensuring that the at-risk parties have actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures, even when the occupants are adverse parties in the litigation that prompted the inspection.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural or safety deficiency affecting a property owner or third party — particularly one who may be unaware of the risk — to recognize the professional obligation to notify that third party directly and in writing, beyond any verbal notifications already provided to governmental authorities, ensuring that the at-risk party has documented, actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures.
Tenant Imminent Structural Danger Direct Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer retained as a forensic expert witness who discovers structural defects constituting an immediate threat to the safety of building tenants — who are identifiable third parties directly exposed to the danger — to directly notify those tenants of the imminent risk, notwithstanding any attorney-directed confidentiality instruction, recognizing that the tenants are the proximate victims of the hazard and that the engineer's paramount public welfare obligation requires direct notification to those at risk when no other party is positioned to protect them.
Tenants of an apartment building sue the owner to force him to repair many defects
A stakeholder role borne by building tenants who initiate legal action against a property owner to compel repair of building defects affecting habitability and quality of use, and who are simultaneously exposed to undisclosed structural safety hazards discovered during the litigation process.
Terminated-Connection Peer Review Notification Exemption Recognition Obligation
Duty of licensed professional engineers and ethics adjudicators to recognize that when an original engineer's connection with a project has been terminated — through completion of the engagement, full payment, and passage of time — a subsequently retained reviewing engineer is not required by the Code's peer review notification provision (NSPE Section 12(a)) to obtain the knowledge or consent of the original engineer before commencing review, because the notification requirement applies only when the original engineer's connection with the work has not been terminated; the termination of connection removes the predicate condition for the notification obligation.
Terminated-Connection Peer Review Permissibility Principle
Relational principle establishing that the ethical requirement for a reviewing engineer to notify an incumbent engineer before reviewing that engineer's work does not apply when the prior engineer's connection to the project has been formally terminated, because the rationale for the notification requirement — enabling the prior engineer to provide context for ongoing design decisions — no longer obtains once the engagement has concluded; in such circumstances, a successor engineer may review the original work without notification and without ethical violation.
Terminated Contract Post-Disclosure Reporting Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer whose contract has been terminated by a client following verbal disclosure of findings that reveal a public health, safety, or welfare risk — and who has been instructed not to file a written report — must nonetheless report those findings to the applicable regulatory or public authority when the client subsequently presents contradictory or misleading information at a public proceeding, prohibiting the engineer from treating contract termination and client instruction as a complete discharge of the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, as established by BER Case 76-4.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has been retained to evaluate a public health or environmental risk, reached a professional conclusion that minimum standards will not be met, and whose contract was subsequently terminated with instructions not to report — must nonetheless report their findings to the applicable regulatory authority when another engineer, unaware of the terminated engineer's findings, presents contradictory testimony at a public hearing that the standards will be met, prohibiting the terminated engineer from remaining silent when uninformed public testimony creates a false impression of safety compliance that the terminated engineer's professional findings directly contradict, as established by BER Case 76-4.
Terminated Contractor Professional Dignity Protection Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public evaluative role — such as part-time town engineer — to recognize that a contractor whose performance is being evaluated has a professional dignity interest in being evaluated impartially, and that conducting an evaluation while holding a private commercial interest in the outcome constitutes an injury to the evaluated engineer's professional reputation and livelihood that cannot be justified by the evaluator's subjective belief in the accuracy of the evaluation.
Terminated Engagement Confidential Information Perpetual Non-Adversarial-Use Constraint
Engineer A's services are terminated and his fee is paid in full.
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's duty to protect and refrain from adversarially deploying confidential information, documents, case strategy, and specialized knowledge obtained during a prior engagement survives the formal termination of that engagement — prohibiting the engineer from treating payment of the final fee and formal termination of the professional relationship as a complete discharge of the duty of trust and loyalty, and establishing that the confidentiality obligation persists at minimum for the duration of the matter in which the confidential information was obtained, as established by NSPE Code Section III.4 and BER Case No. 85-4.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has departed from an employer and established a competing practice remains subject to three distinct but related post-employment obligations derived from NSPE Code Sections III.4, III.4.a, and III.4.b: (1) the prohibition on using confidential information concerning the technical affairs or processes of the former employer; (2) the obligation to conduct promotional activities and negotiations for employment or business in conformance with ethical standards; and (3) the obligation to avoid improper conduct in adversarial situations relating to the former employer — establishing that these three obligations operate concurrently and that compliance with one does not discharge the others, as established by NSPE Code Sections III.4, III.4.a, and III.4.b.
Terminated Staff Engineer Subject to Credential Misuse
A licensed professional engineer who has been terminated or is departing from an engineering firm, whose name and qualifications continue to be listed in the firm's promotional materials without consent or accurate disclosure of their departure status, creating a misrepresentation of the firm's available expertise to prospective clients.
Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation to recognize that the mere cessation or termination of that engagement does not cure the ethical conflict that would arise from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same matter — because the engineer's prior access to the first party's confidential information, documents, and cooperative analytical access cannot be erased from professional judgment, and the termination of the formal relationship does not extinguish the continuing duty of trust, loyalty, and confidentiality owed to the former client for at least the duration of the proceeding.
Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Self-Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has been retained by one party in adversarial litigation to recognize that the mere cessation or termination of the professional relationship with the original retaining party does not cure or eliminate the ethical conflict that would arise from subsequently accepting retention by the opposing party in the same matter — including the ability to distinguish between resignation from a non-adversarial concurrent role (which may be an adequate remedy) and termination of a forensic engagement in which confidential information has already been transmitted (which is not an adequate remedy), and to apply this distinction correctly when evaluating whether post-termination adverse engagement is permissible, consistent with BER Case 85-4 and BER Case 76-3.
Testimony Incompleteness and Evasion State
State in which a licensed professional engineer, while testifying at a public hearing on which a regulatory body is relying, redirects or deflects questions or concerns raised by another engineer rather than addressing them substantively, resulting in testimony that is incomplete, potentially misleading, and inconsistent with the obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information — and that fails to either confirm that the raised concern was already evaluated and addressed, or to offer to re-examine the plans in light of the concern.
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
Engineer A had further responsibilities to take additional steps, including contacting local building officials, individual homeowners, and the local homeowners' or community civic association to advise them of the finding
Professional principle requiring engineers who discover safety deficiencies affecting identifiable third parties — such as property owners, homeowners, or building occupants — to directly notify those parties of the risk, in addition to or in lieu of notifying regulatory authorities, when regulatory channels have failed or when the third parties are directly exposed to the hazard and may not otherwise receive timely warning
[Case 132] Professional principle requiring engineers who discover safety deficiencies affecting identifiable third parties to directly notify those parties of the risk, in addition to or in lieu of notifying regulatory authorities, when regulatory channels have failed or when the third parties are directly exposed to the hazard.
[Case 136] Professional principle requiring engineers who discover safety deficiencies affecting identifiable third parties — such as property owners, homeowners, or building occupants — to directly notify those parties of the risk, in addition to or in lieu of notifying regulatory authorities, when regulatory channels have failed or when the third parties are directly exposed to the hazard and may not otherwise receive timely warning.
[Case 140] Professional principle requiring engineers who discover safety deficiencies affecting identifiable third parties — such as property owners, homeowners, or building occupants — to directly notify those parties of the risk, in addition to or in lieu of notifying regulatory authorities, when regulatory channels have failed or when the third parties are directly exposed to the hazard and may not otherwise receive timely warning.
[Case 78] Professional principle requiring engineers who discover safety deficiencies affecting identifiable third parties — such as property owners, homeowners, or building occupants — to directly notify those parties of the risk, in addition to or in lieu of notifying regulatory authorities, when regulatory channels have failed or when the third parties are directly exposed to the hazard and may not otherwise receive timely warning.
Third-Party Business Card Redistribution Non-Attribution Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer cannot be held ethically or legally responsible for the redistribution of a business card — originally distributed in a compliant context — by a third-party recipient into a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed, because the engineer's ethical obligations attach to the engineer's own acts of distribution and not to the independent acts of recipients who share the card without the engineer's knowledge or direction, prohibiting licensing boards and fellow engineers from attributing the third party's redistribution act to the original distributing engineer as a basis for a licensure violation finding.
Third-Party Business Card Redistribution in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State
State in which a professional engineer's business card — containing only licensed-jurisdiction information and distributed in a social rather than professional context — is subsequently shared by a third party into a jurisdiction where the engineer is not licensed, creating apparent but unintended representation of credentials in that jurisdiction and raising questions about whether the engineer bears ethical or regulatory responsibility for the third party's redistribution act.
Third-Party Career Advisor Non-Absolution Personal Ethics Responsibility Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that advice received from a non-engineering career counselor or employment advisor — even when sincerely offered and practically motivated — does not transfer or diminish the engineer's personal ethical responsibility for the accuracy and honesty of their own professional qualification representations, and to independently evaluate the ethical permissibility of a resume strategy recommended by such an advisor before implementing it.
Third-Party Career Advisor Non-Absolution Resume Honesty Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to maintain personal ethical responsibility for the accuracy and honesty of their resume and professional qualification documents, notwithstanding advice from a non-engineer third party — such as an employment counselor, career coach, or recruiter — that misrepresentation or selective distortion of qualifications is necessary or advisable to secure employment. The engineer cannot delegate or transfer ethical responsibility for resume honesty to a career advisor, and reliance on such advice does not constitute a defense to a professional ethics violation arising from resume misrepresentation.
Third-Party Career Advisor Non-Absolution of Engineer Ethical Responsibility
Professional virtue principle establishing that an engineer's reliance on advice from a non-engineer third party — such as an employment counselor, career advisor, or recruiter — does not transfer or diminish the engineer's personal ethical responsibility for the truthfulness of professional representations made on the basis of that advice; the engineer remains the sole accountable party for the accuracy and integrity of their own resume, qualification statements, and professional communications, regardless of whether a third party suggested or encouraged a particular framing strategy
Third-Party Career Advisor Resume Strategy Non-Absolution Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who receives advice from a third-party employment counselor, career advisor, or recruiter recommending a resume restructuring strategy that involves de-emphasizing or misrepresenting the balance of professional experience may not treat that third-party advice as an ethical absolution, defense, or mitigation for implementing a misrepresentative resume; establishing that the engineer bears independent personal responsibility for evaluating the ethical permissibility of any resume strategy before implementation, and that reliance on a non-engineer career advisor's commercially motivated recommendation does not satisfy or discharge the engineer's duty of non-deception in professional self-representation.
Third-Party Discovery Independent Reporting Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer retained by a third party to conduct an independent technical review discovers, through that review, evidence of serious professional misconduct, impaired practice, or systematic design incompetence by another licensee — requiring the reviewing engineer to independently report those findings to the State Board or appropriate regulatory authority, regardless of whether the retaining client chooses to report, establishing that the reviewing engineer's independent professional obligations are not discharged by the client's private confrontation with the offending licensee.
Third-Party Discovery Reporting Obligation State
it was Engineer R who technically uncovered the incompetent nature of Engineer B's design and construction documents
State in which a licensed professional engineer, retained by a third party to evaluate work product, discovers through that evaluation that another engineer's documents are incompetent or deficient, and subsequently becomes aware of the circumstances (e.g., medical impairment, responsible charge violations) that produced those deficiencies — thereby acquiring an independent obligation to report the violations to the State Board if the primary discovering party (e.g., the retaining engineer) fails to do so.
Third-Party Discovery Trust Retroactive Undermining Non-Exculpation Constraint
Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
Ethical constraint establishing that a professional engineer's decision not to disclose a pending ethics complaint or other material professional circumstance to a current client is not exculpated by the fact that the client eventually learns of the matter through a third party rather than from the engineer directly — and that third-party discovery retroactively undermines the trust foundation of the professional relationship in a manner that the engineer's initial non-disclosure decision must be understood to risk, constraining the engineer to weigh the foreseeable consequence of third-party discovery when assessing whether prudential disclosure is warranted.
Third-Party Engineer Negotiation Status Non-Misrepresentation Constraint
Engineer C had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but following consideration, Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from misrepresenting or materially misstating the current professional status, position, or interest of another engineer in the context of a business negotiation — including representing a third-party engineer as an active or interested competitor when that engineer has definitively withdrawn from consideration — establishing that the duty of honesty in professional dealings extends to accurate representation of other engineers' positions and that exploiting a third party's prior expressed interest, after that interest has been definitively withdrawn, to create false competitive urgency constitutes both a deception of the counterparty and an unauthorized and potentially reputation-affecting use of the third-party engineer's professional status, as established by NSPE Code provisions on truthfulness, non-deception, and collegial obligations to other engineers.
An independent licensed professional engineering firm or role engaged by a public entity to conduct objective technical review, modeling, and analysis of completed infrastructure or development projects following complaints or suspected design deficiencies, bearing obligations of independence, technical rigor, and objective reporting of findings to the engaging authority.
Third-Party Environmental Impact Disclosure Relevance Contested State
State in which an engineer presenting technical findings before a public body is aware of foreseeable third-party environmental or quality-of-life impacts (such as increased traffic, noise, or air pollution from a proposed commercial development) that fall outside the strict scope of the assigned engineering task, and must exercise professional judgment to determine whether those impacts constitute 'relevant and pertinent information' obligating unsolicited disclosure — where the ethical permissibility of non-disclosure turns on the reasonableness of the engineer's relevance determination rather than on a categorical duty to volunteer all known impacts.
Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who identify, through professional assessment, that a proposed infrastructure project will materially accelerate flood damage or uninhabitability risk to an identifiable upstream or downstream residential community to notify that community — or ensure that appropriate regulatory authorities are informed — of the identified risk, even when the affected community is not a party to the engineering engagement and the client has not authorized such notification
[Case 88] Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who identify, through professional assessment, that a proposed infrastructure project will materially accelerate flood damage or uninhabitability risk to an identifiable upstream or downstream residential community to notify that community — or ensure that appropriate regulatory authorities are informed — of the identified risk, even when the affected community is not a party to the engineering engagement and the client has not authorized such notification.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who discover safety deficiencies affecting identifiable third parties — such as property owners, homeowners, or building occupants — to directly notify those parties of the risk, in addition to or in lieu of notifying regulatory authorities, when regulatory channels have failed or when the third parties are directly exposed to the hazard and may not otherwise receive timely warning
the utility resource planners reviewed their current generation mix and believe that during extreme weather events, they may be forced to institute rolling outages
State in which a proposed design or operational change at a facility — such as elimination of on-site generation in favor of intermittent renewable sources without storage — is known by the responsible engineer to increase demand stress on the local utility grid, thereby elevating the probability of rolling blackouts or outages that would affect third parties beyond the immediate project site, triggering obligations to disclose this externality to the client and decision-making authority even when the project appears viable in isolation.
Third-Party Inducement to Incompetent Practice Prohibition
Now - - thanks to a revolutionary new CD-ROM - specifying, designing and costing out any construction project is as easy as pointing and clicking your mouse - no matter your design experience.
Domain-specific principle establishing that commercial entities, vendors, or third parties who actively solicit licensed engineers to accept work outside their competence — by falsely representing that software tools, libraries, or other products can substitute for genuine domain expertise — engage in conduct that is ethically incompatible with the professional engineering ecosystem. Such solicitations undermine the public protection function of professional licensure by creating market incentives for incompetent practice, and engineers who receive such solicitations bear an obligation to critically evaluate rather than accept the implied competence claims.
Third-Party Insurance Claimant Protection Obligation in Forensic Engineering
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers retained by insurance companies to conduct property damage assessments to recognize that their professional obligations extend to the property owners whose claims depend on the accuracy of the engineer's findings — prohibiting the engineer from acquiescing to insurer-directed alterations of findings that would wrongfully deny legitimate claims, and requiring the engineer to take protective action when they discover that their sealed reports have been altered to the detriment of property owners with legitimate claims
Third-Party Non-Client Welfare Consideration in Autonomous System Design
does the vehicle's software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers designing autonomous systems that operate in shared public environments — including autonomous vehicles, drones, and robotic systems — to give explicit and affirmative consideration to the welfare of third parties who are not clients, passengers, or system users but who are foreseeably exposed to risk from the system's operation, recognizing that the engineer's public welfare obligation extends to all persons who may be affected by the system's decisions, not merely to those who commissioned or operate the system
Third-Party Reputation Non-Impairment in Business Negotiation Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer engaged in business negotiations to recognize that misrepresenting a third-party engineer's position, status, or interest in a transaction — even without direct intent to harm — implicates that third party's professional reputation and collegial standing, and to refrain from such misrepresentation out of respect for collegial obligations and the professional standing of peers who are not party to the negotiation.
Third-Party Stakeholder Harm Weighting in Safety-Critical Algorithm Design Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer involved in the design or evaluation of safety-critical autonomous or automated systems to explicitly identify, assess, and present the welfare interests of third parties — including pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users — as distinct and morally significant considerations in algorithm design decisions, ensuring that third-party harm is not systematically subordinated to operator or passenger interests without explicit ethical justification and public transparency.
Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified, through professional judgment or analysis, that a proposed infrastructure project will materially accelerate flood risk or uninhabitability for an identifiable upstream residential community — even when that risk is based on preliminary professional judgment rather than confirmed quantitative analysis — to notify those affected third-party homeowners of the identified risk in writing, so that they can take protective action and participate meaningfully in regulatory proceedings, notwithstanding the absence of a completed specialized hydraulic study.
Threatened Species Environmental Reporting Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serving as a principal in an environmental engineering firm receives information from firm specialists (e.g., biologists) indicating that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' (though not 'endangered') by federal and state regulators, bearing obligations to include that information in written reports submitted to public authorities, advise the client of its inclusion, and refrain from omitting material environmental findings even when the species does not meet the highest regulatory protection threshold.
Threatened Species Environmental Reporting Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers conducting environmental assessments to include in written professional reports submitted to public authorities all material findings regarding threats to protected species — including threatened species that do not meet the higher threshold of 'endangered' status — when those findings are material to the public authority's regulatory decision-making, prohibiting the engineer from limiting disclosure to verbal mention to the client while omitting the information from the formal written report
Threatened Species Environmental Risk Report Inclusion Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a principal in an environmental engineering firm and who receives a credible report from a firm biologist that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators — even if not classified as 'endangered' — to recognize the professional obligation to include that threatened species information in any written report submitted to a public authority considering the development proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion, consistent with obligations to be objective and truthful and to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports.
Threatened Species Habitat Proximity Development State
State in which a proposed development project is located adjacent to or near habitat occupied by a federally or state-designated threatened species — not yet classified as endangered — where an internal technical expert has identified a credible risk that the project could harm that species or its habitat, triggering obligations to include that finding in professional reports submitted to public authorities even when the client has not requested its inclusion and the species lacks the full legal protections afforded to endangered species.
Threatened Species Non-Endangered Environmental Report Inclusion Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who receives a credible report from a qualified colleague — such as a firm biologist — that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators must include that information in any written report submitted to a public authority considering the development proposal — prohibiting omission of the threatened species finding on the grounds that the species is not formally classified as 'endangered,' and establishing that the engineer's obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports extends to threatened species findings regardless of the species' formal endangerment classification.
Threatened Species Protection Regulatory Framework
Federal and state regulatory frameworks governing the identification, protection, and consideration of threatened (non-endangered) species in environmental assessments and development approvals, including obligations of engineers and developers to disclose potential impacts on threatened species to public authorities.
Threatened Species Report Inclusion Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who is a principal in an environmental engineering firm and who receives a credible professional opinion from a firm biologist or specialist that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators — even if not classified as 'endangered' — to include that information in any written report submitted to a public authority considering the developer's proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion, recognizing that the public authority approving the development has a legitimate interest in all material environmental risk information and that omitting such information from a public authority report constitutes a violation of the objectivity and completeness obligations.
Threatened Species Written Report Inclusion Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a principal in an environmental engineering firm to recognize that a firm biologist's finding that a proposed development project could threaten a bird species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators — even if not classified as 'endangered' — must be included in any written report submitted to a public authority considering the development proposal, and to act on that recognition by including the finding in the written report and advising the client of its inclusion.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who is a principal in an environmental engineering firm and who receives a credible report from a firm biologist that a proposed development project could threaten a species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators — even if not classified as 'endangered' — to recognize the professional obligation to include that threatened species information in any written report submitted to a public authority considering the development proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion, consistent with obligations to be objective and truthful and to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports.
Threatened Species Written Report Inclusion Obligation
Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing Constraint
the Board has sought to strike a fair balance between the basic right of an individual engineer to demonstrate individual initiative and ambition in establishing an independent engineering business entity, coupled with the obligation and responsibility of that engineer to his/her former employer and/or clients
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that when a licensed professional engineer departs from an employer firm and establishes or joins a competing practice, the engineer must conduct all subsequent competitive activities in a manner that fairly balances three distinct and legitimate interests: (1) the client's right to retain the engineering firm of its choice; (2) the individual engineer's right to demonstrate initiative and establish an independent practice; and (3) the former employer firm's legitimate interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients — prohibiting the departing engineer from pursuing competitive advantage through means that systematically subordinate or destroy any one of these interests through misrepresentation, disparagement, or exploitation of insider knowledge, as established by NSPE BER precedent in Cases 77-11, 79-10, 86-5, and 97-2 and the principle that free competition must be conducted honorably.
Three-Party Engineer Departure Interest Balancing State
the Board noted the need to balance (1) the interests of the client in retaining the firm of its choice; (2) the interests of the individually employed engineers; and (3) the interests of the firm and its interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients
State arising when an engineer departs from a firm and establishes or joins a competing practice, requiring ethical evaluation that simultaneously balances three distinct and potentially competing interests: (1) the client's right to retain the engineering firm of its choice; (2) the individual engineer's right to professional mobility, initiative, and independent practice; and (3) the former employer firm's legitimate interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients. This tripartite balancing obligation is triggered by the departure event and persists through the resolution of competitive engagement questions.
Three-Provision Mutually Dependent Code Reading Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics adjudicators to recognize that NSPE Code Sections II.2.a (competence-based acceptance), II.2.b (direction-and-control sealing prerequisite), and II.2.c (technical segment qualified preparer identification) are mutually dependent provisions that must be read together as an integrated normative framework — understanding that each provision derives its full meaning only in relation to the others, and that applying any single provision in isolation produces an incomplete or distorted ethical analysis of sealing and responsible charge obligations.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that no single provision of the NSPE Code of Ethics should be read in isolation from the other provisions of the Code, and to correctly integrate multiple code sections — including Section III.4 (confidentiality), Section II.1.a (public safety primacy), and Section II.1.c (law-or-code-authorized disclosure exception) — into a unified, internally consistent normative framework when analyzing a factual situation that implicates more than one provision, thereby avoiding the error of treating any single provision as absolute or self-contained.
Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for designing roadway and hydraulic infrastructure that crosses environmentally sensitive tidal areas, including upgrading culverts to bridges, bearing obligations to evaluate climate-change-driven hydrological risks beyond minimum regulatory requirements, disclose potential upstream flood impacts to affected communities, and advise clients of the need for specialized analysis even when current codes and regulations have not yet incorporated updated climate projections.
Tidal Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade Third-Party Flood Impact Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing an infrastructure upgrade that materially increases the hydraulic capacity of a tidal crossing — such as replacing a culvert with a bridge — to assess and disclose the potential downstream and upstream flood impacts of that increased capacity on third-party properties and residents, including the accelerated uninhabitability of upstream homes due to increased tidal and storm surge penetration, even when such assessment is not explicitly required by local development regulations.
Tidal Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Capability
Technical capability to perform or evaluate complex hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of tidal crossing infrastructure — including assessment of sea level rise effects, tidal prism changes, storm surge interactions, and upstream flood propagation resulting from increased hydraulic capacity of tidal crossings — sufficient to predict flood damage to upstream properties under future climate and tidal conditions.
Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
Technical capability to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of proposed infrastructure modifications to tidal saltmarsh environments — including the replacement of culverts with bridges, changes to tidal prism, effects on saltmarsh hydrology, impacts on sensitive estuarine habitat, and implications for regulatory permitting — sufficient to identify material environmental risks and fulfill disclosure obligations to clients and regulatory authorities.
Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design Constraint
Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
Environmental and regulatory constraint arising when a proposed infrastructure project crosses or modifies a tidal saltmarsh — a sensitive coastal ecosystem subject to sea level rise, storm surge, and tidal dynamics — requiring that the engineer assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the proposed design on the saltmarsh environment, and prohibiting the engineer from treating local development regulation compliance as a complete discharge of environmental impact assessment obligations when the saltmarsh's ecological sensitivity and climate vulnerability create foreseeable impacts beyond the regulatory minimum.
Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer designing infrastructure that crosses or modifies a tidal saltmarsh — a sensitive ecological system — to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the proposed design on the saltmarsh environment, including the effects of increased hydraulic capacity on tidal flow patterns, saltwater intrusion, and marsh ecosystem integrity, consistent with environmental stewardship principles and sustainable development obligations.
Timely Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Obligation
The EI reported this misrepresentation to the marketing department, but after six months, the documents had not been corrected.
Duty of a licensed engineer intern or licensed professional engineer who has reported a qualification misrepresentation — including being listed as a PE when holding only EI status, or firm advertising misrepresenting staff credentials — to escalate the matter beyond the initial report if the misrepresentation is not corrected within a reasonable time, so that continued inaction does not become complicit acquiescence in ongoing unethical conduct.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed engineer intern who discovers that firm advertising or official documents misrepresent their licensure status — including listing them as a licensed professional engineer when they hold only engineer intern status — to promptly report the misrepresentation to the responsible party within the firm and, if not corrected within a reasonable time, to escalate the matter to ensure correction, so that the public and clients are not misled about the engineer's qualifications.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase
Duty to disclose identified or suspected risks to clients, employers, or relevant stakeholders promptly upon identification, even before full quantification is complete, when public welfare or safety may be implicated.
Engineer A, the town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the town council, collaborated on an assignment
A licensed professional engineering role serving as the designated engineer for a municipal government, responsible for overseeing engineering studies, design projects, and technical determinations on behalf of the town, bearing obligations to balance public safety, environmental concerns, and community needs in professional judgments.
Town Supervisor Verbal Acknowledgment Without Follow-Through State
State in which a governmental official (town supervisor or equivalent) has verbally acknowledged a reported safety concern and committed to investigate, but subsequently takes no action — leaving the safety risk unaddressed despite an apparent initial acceptance of responsibility, and creating ambiguity about whether the engineer's notification obligation has been discharged or whether further escalation is required.
Tract Home Systemic Defect Subdivision-Wide Notification Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers a structural defect in a tract home that is part of an identically designed subdivision must notify not only the retaining client but also the appropriate authorities or affected parties regarding the systemic risk to all identically constructed homes in the subdivision — prohibiting limitation of notification to the single structure under investigation when the engineer has reason to believe the same defect is replicated across multiple occupied or under-construction dwellings.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who discovers a structural or safety defect that is likely replicated across multiple structures — such as identical tract housing designs — must notify not only the immediate retaining client but also local building officials, individual affected property owners, and relevant community associations, prohibiting limitation of notification to the retaining client alone when the systemic nature of the defect creates public safety obligations extending beyond the immediate engagement.
Traffic Engineering Infrastructure Safety Standards Competence
Domain-specific technical competence in traffic engineering standards and best practices — including knowledge of applicable state and national standards for traffic control devices, intersection design, signalization, and related infrastructure — sufficient to evaluate whether a proposed ordinance change or infrastructure installation meets current safety standards, identify specific deficiencies, and communicate technical objections to non-engineer decision-makers.
Traffic Engineering Ordinance Safety Objection Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a proposed local ordinance change would install traffic engineering infrastructure contrary to established engineering standards, current best practices, and state law requirements to formally object to and document opposition to the proposed change — communicating to the city council the specific technical deficiencies, applicable standards violated, and state law prerequisites not met — before the council votes to proceed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Domain-specific technical competence in traffic engineering standards and best practices — including knowledge of applicable state and national standards for traffic control devices, intersection design, signalization, and related infrastructure — sufficient to evaluate whether a proposed ordinance change or infrastructure installation meets current safety standards, identify specific deficiencies, and communicate technical objections to non-engineer decision-makers.
Traffic Engineering Ordinance Safety Objection Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a proposed local ordinance change would install traffic engineering infrastructure contrary to established engineering standards, current best practices, and state law requirements to formally object to and document opposition to the proposed change, and to communicate to the decision-making authority the specific safety and legal consequences of proceeding with the ordinance amendment before that authority votes to proceed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has determined that a proposed accelerated schedule for a public infrastructure change poses material public health risks — specifically by compressing or eliminating a required evaluation and construction period for protective measures — to formally object to and document opposition to the accelerated timeline, and to communicate to the decision-making authority the specific public health consequences of proceeding on the compressed schedule before that authority votes to proceed.
contrary to established engineering standards
Professional norms, technical specifications, and regulatory requirements governing the design, installation, and evaluation of traffic engineering infrastructure, including standards for safety, best practices, and the requirement for engineering studies before implementing changes to traffic control systems or ordinances
Traffic Safety Standards Advocate Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, as a member of the local engineering community, identifies that a proposed municipal ordinance change would install traffic engineering infrastructure contrary to established engineering standards, current best practices, and applicable state law requiring an engineering study, bearing obligations to advocate for compliance with engineering standards and public safety before legislative or regulatory bodies, and to oppose ordinance changes that would create unsafe conditions for the public.
Training Fund Unavailability Non-Excuse for Competence Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that the unavailability of training funds or other resource constraints does not excuse the engineer from the competence requirement, and that the engineer must decline to perform or certify work in a domain for which comprehensive training exists but has not been completed — regardless of whether the failure to obtain training is attributable to the employer's resource allocation decisions rather than the engineer's own choices.
Training Funds Unavailable for Competence Remediation State
Engineer A had no significant training or knowledge in these areas
State in which a licensed engineer has been assigned tasks outside their current area of competence, comprehensive training programs exist that would enable competent performance, but institutional or budgetary constraints prevent the engineer from accessing those programs — creating a situation where neither the competence gap can be remediated nor the assignment ethically accepted, and where the resource constraint does not excuse the ethical obligation to decline the assignment.
Transitional Employment Ethics Framework
These transitional employment practices, in the spirit of NSPE Code of Ethics, are intended to help Engineer D engage only in conduct that is honorable, responsible, ethical, and lawful
A professional ethics framework governing the ethical obligations and constraints applicable to engineers and public officials who transition between public-sector and private-sector employment, addressing conflicts of interest, confidentiality, use of insider knowledge, procurement integrity, and the spirit of revolving door constraints even absent explicit legal prohibitions
A senior licensed professional engineering role held by a public official who is actively transitioning from a municipal engineering leadership position to private employment with a firm that conducted business with the municipality during their tenure, generating ethical obligations regarding conflicts of interest, public trust, and the appearance of impropriety even absent explicit contractual revolving-door prohibitions.
Transparent Advocacy Substitution for Policy Circumvention Obligation
Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine public need or beneficial outcome that conflicts with an explicit agency policy — and who is tempted to achieve that outcome through covert design manipulation or indirect policy circumvention — to instead pursue the beneficial outcome exclusively through transparent, institutionally sanctioned advocacy channels, including requesting joint meetings with relevant stakeholders, escalating through the chain of command, seeking policy exceptions through formal processes, or assisting affected parties with grant applications, rather than secretly implementing a policy-violating design.
Transparent Advocacy as Ethical Alternative to Policy Circumvention
Professional principle requiring engineers who identify a genuine public need or beneficial outcome that conflicts with applicable employer policy, procurement rules, or legal constraints to pursue that outcome through open, transparent, and institutionally sanctioned channels — such as escalation through the chain of command, joint stakeholder meetings, or grant assistance — rather than through covert circumvention of the applicable policy, recognizing that the availability of ethical alternatives forecloses the justification for unethical shortcuts
Transparent Alternative Pathway Available State
State in which a licensed professional engineer who has identified a genuine public benefit that cannot be achieved through currently authorized means has access to one or more transparent, authorized alternative pathways — such as escalating through the chain of command, requesting joint meetings, pursuing grant applications, or seeking formal policy exceptions — that could achieve the same or comparable benefit without violating employer policy, diverting public funds, or requiring deception, thereby creating an affirmative obligation to pursue those pathways before resorting to covert or policy-violating action.
Transparent Institutional Advocacy Pathway Identification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine public need or beneficial outcome that conflicts with existing institutional policy to recognize and identify the available transparent, institutionally sanctioned advocacy pathways — such as requesting joint meetings, escalating through chain of command, facilitating grant applications, or proposing policy exceptions through proper channels — as ethically permissible alternatives to covert policy circumvention, and to pursue those pathways rather than unilateral policy violations.
Transparent Institutional Advocacy Substitution Mandate Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who identifies a genuine public benefit that cannot be achieved within current employer policy must pursue that benefit exclusively through transparent, institutionally authorized advocacy pathways — including joint meetings, chain-of-command escalation, grant application assistance, and formal policy exception requests — prohibiting the substitution of covert design manipulation or policy circumvention for open advocacy, and establishing that the availability of transparent pathways to achieve the same public benefit renders covert circumvention ethically impermissible, as established by the present BER case analysis.
Travel Time Benefit Disproportionate Burden Proportionality Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint arising when a licensed professional engineer's preferred infrastructure route alignment achieves a quantifiable travel time benefit — such as a 30-minute savings on a two-hour trip — at the cost of condemning or destroying a historic property of significant cultural, familial, or community value, requiring the engineer to explicitly assess and disclose in the route recommendation whether the travel time benefit is proportionate to the burden imposed on the affected property owner and the historic resource, prohibiting the engineer from presenting the travel time savings as self-evidently justifying the condemnation without conducting and disclosing a proportionality analysis that accounts for the magnitude and irreversibility of the harm to the historic property.
Tripartite Departure Conduct Interest Balancing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer departing from an employer to evaluate departure-related conduct — including the timing and manner of client solicitation — by explicitly balancing three competing interests: (1) the departing engineer's legitimate interest in establishing a new practice and securing clients; (2) the former employer's legitimate interest in protecting existing client relationships and business continuity; and (3) the clients' legitimate interest in freely choosing their engineering service providers without being subjected to deceptive or manipulative solicitation. Enables the engineer to identify conduct that appropriately respects all three interests simultaneously.
Tripartite Departure Interest Balancing Framework Application Constraint
Ethical and analytical constraint requiring that any assessment of the ethical permissibility of a licensed professional engineer's departure from an employer firm and subsequent competition for former employer clients must balance three distinct and potentially competing interests: (1) the client's interest in retaining the engineering firm or individual of its choice; (2) the individually employed engineer's interest in professional mobility, career development, and economic freedom; and (3) the former employer firm's interest in maintaining business goodwill with its clients — establishing that no single interest is categorically paramount and that the ethical conclusion must reflect a reasoned weighing of all three interests in light of the specific facts, as established by NSPE BER Cases 77-11, 79-10, and 86-5.
Tripartite Interest Balancing Departure Conduct Self-Assessment Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who departs from an employer firm to establish an independent competing practice to evaluate the ethical permissibility of departure-related conduct — including solicitation of former clients, use of prior work product, and timing of competition — by explicitly balancing three distinct and equally legitimate interests: (1) the client's interest in retaining the engineer or firm of its choice; (2) the engineer's interest in professional autonomy and career mobility; and (3) the former employer firm's interest in maintaining business goodwill and client continuity — and to ensure that the method by which departure and subsequent competition is effected is fair and equitable to all concerned parties.
Tripartite Interest Balancing in Engineer Departure Scenarios
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer departs from an employer firm to establish an independent practice or join a competitor, the ethical evaluation of conduct must balance three distinct and equally legitimate interests: (1) the client's interest in retaining the engineering firm or individual of its choice; (2) the individual engineer's interest in professional autonomy, career mobility, and the right to establish independent practice; and (3) the firm's interest in maintaining business goodwill, continuity of service, and the value of its client relationships — with no single interest automatically overriding the others, and the ethical resolution depending on the specific facts of how each interest is affected
Triple-Role Self-Approval Structural Conflict Absolute Prohibition Constraint
Absolute ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from simultaneously occupying three mutually reinforcing roles — private designer of plans, governmental engineer with authority to recommend approval of those plans, and voting member of the approval body — establishing that this triple-role structure creates an irresolvable conflict of interest that cannot be cured by disclosure, abstention from a single step, or any other partial mitigation measure, and that the engineer must decline the private commission or resign from one or both public roles before accepting the private engagement, as the structural impossibility of ethical compliance in all three roles simultaneously renders the entire arrangement impermissible.
Triple-Role Self-Approval Structural Conflict Non-Acceptance Obligation
Doe prepared the plans for a subdivision development in his capacity as a consulting engineer, then as county engineer recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer to refrain from simultaneously occupying three mutually reinforcing roles — private designer of plans, public official recommending approval of those same plans, and voting board member approving those plans — recognizing that this triple-role structure creates an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest in which the engineer is, at each stage, acting in a self-serving capacity under the guise of independent public authority, and that no disclosure or consent can cure the structural impossibility of objective independent review when the designer, recommender, and approver are the same person.
Triple-Role Self-Approval Structural Conflict Prohibition
Domain-specific principle establishing that an engineer who simultaneously occupies three roles — private consulting designer, public recommending authority, and voting approval body member — with respect to the same project creates an irreconcilable structural conflict of interest that is categorically prohibited, because no disclosure or recusal at any single stage can cure the cumulative integrity failure arising from the engineer's ability to design, recommend, and vote to approve their own work through three distinct institutional channels
Triple-Role Self-Approval Structural Conflict Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that simultaneously occupying three mutually reinforcing roles — private designer of plans, public official with authority to recommend approval of those plans, and voting member of the approval body — creates a structural conflict of interest so severe that no procedural safeguard, disclosure, or abstention can cure it, and that the only ethically permissible response is to decline one or more of the roles before the conflict materializes.
Trustee-Agent Role Distinction Capability
We will explore the distinction between an agent and trustee with a somewhat simplified description: If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City's agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs them to do.
Capability to correctly identify and navigate the distinction between acting as a client's agent (executing specific client instructions) versus acting as a trustee (exercising discretionary professional judgment on behalf of a client who has delegated authority) — including recognizing which role applies at each phase of a project, understanding the different obligations each role entails, and transitioning appropriately between roles as project phases change.
Trustee Advisory Role Faithful Execution Capability
City B's City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
Capability to correctly identify when an engineering engagement requires the engineer to act as a faithful trustee and objective advisor — rather than as a service provider pursuing commercial interests — and to execute that trustee role faithfully by subordinating firm self-interest to the client's need for complete, objective, and unbiased professional advice, including refraining from selective presentation of options, omission of material information, and self-promotional conduct that would compromise the advisory relationship.
Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation
If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City's agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs them to do.
Professional principle distinguishing between an engineer acting as an agent (following explicit client instructions) and an engineer acting as a trustee (exercising discretionary professional judgment on the client's behalf), and requiring that when acting as trustee, the engineer exercise full professional competence and judgment to develop the best solution — but then defer to the client's ultimate decision authority once the engineer has presented complete, objective analysis, refraining from self-interested advocacy that would override or circumvent the client's lawful choice
Trustee Term General Loyalty Non-Fiduciary Interpretation Constraint
it is not clear from a plain reading of the Code whether the original drafters intended that the term 'trustee' embrace the fiduciary and confidentiality relationship or whether it was the intent of the drafters to express a more general duty of loyalty and fair dealing.
Interpretive and ethical constraint establishing that the term 'trustee' as used in NSPE Code Section II.4 — requiring engineers to act as 'faithful agents or trustees' — must be interpreted to refer to a general duty of loyalty and fair dealing rather than a strict fiduciary or confidential relationship, on the grounds that the Code separately and specifically addresses confidentiality obligations in Sections II.1.c, III.4, and III.4.a and b, making a fiduciary interpretation of 'trustee' in Section II.4 redundant — prohibiting engineers and ethics bodies from interpreting the faithful agent and trustee obligation as imposing a strict fiduciary duty of confidentiality beyond what is separately established by the Code's dedicated confidentiality provisions.
Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation
a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive
Duty of a licensed professional engineer and engineering firm to ensure that all advertising, marketing, and self-promotional communications — including business cards, brochures, and websites — are conducted in a manner that is truthful, not misleading, and not deceptive, satisfying both the letter and the spirit of the NSPE Code of Ethics, and consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession. This obligation applies regardless of the medium or context of the communication and is not extinguished by antitrust or commercial speech considerations, which merely constrain the scope of the ethics code rather than eliminating the truthfulness requirement.
Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition in Competitor Critique Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been asked to evaluate or criticize another engineer's work in a competitive context to recognize that subjective belief in the truthfulness of a critique does not render that critique ethically permissible — particularly when the critiquing engineer lacks full knowledge of the incumbent's circumstances — and to refrain from providing specific critical opinions on the basis of subjective truthfulness alone, recognizing that accuracy requires complete situational knowledge that a competitor typically does not possess.
UN Sustainable Development Goals Framework
The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development comprising 17 interlinked global goals addressing environmental, social, and economic sustainability, referenced by engineers as normative benchmarks for evaluating the sustainability of engineering projects and professional decisions.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, under management pressure and in the absence of the engineer of record, makes changes to engineering design documents prepared and sealed by another engineer without that engineer's knowledge, consultation, or approval, bearing obligations to refrain from modifying another engineer's sealed work without conferring with and obtaining approval from the responsible engineer, and to document any changes made.
Unauthorized Post-Seal Document Modification State
State in which a signed and sealed engineering document — representing the professional engineer's certification of responsible charge — has been modified by a party who neither drafted the original document nor exercised responsible charge over its preparation, without the knowledge or consent of the sealing engineer, thereby compromising the integrity and veracity of the professional certification process and creating a fraudulent misrepresentation of the engineer's professional conclusions.
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure Prohibition
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who prepares a confidential report for a client may not transmit that report — in whole or in part, or by carbon copy — to any third party who was not a party to the engagement agreement, without the client's prior knowledge and consent, because the report is prepared exclusively in the client's interest and any unauthorized disclosure prejudices the client's legitimate interests and violates the confidentiality inherent in the professional relationship.
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Disclosure State
State in which an engineer discloses a professional report or findings to a third party who was not party to the service agreement and whose receipt of the report prejudices the client's interests, without the client's prior consent, constituting an ethical violation of the client's confidentiality right.
Unauthorized Third-Party Report Recipient
A third-party entity (such as a real estate firm) that receives a copy of a confidential engineering inspection report without being a party to the inspection services agreement and without the client's prior consent, thereby gaining information that may affect the client's negotiating position in a property transaction.
Unavoidable Crash Scenario Technical Safety Analysis Capability
In the event of an unavoidable crash, does the vehicle's system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle's passengers
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to analyze specific unavoidable crash scenarios in autonomous vehicle operation — including identifying the range of possible outcomes, estimating injury probability and severity for each outcome path, evaluating the technical feasibility of each decision option for the operating system, and producing a technically grounded comparative safety analysis that informs harm minimization algorithm design.
Unbuildable Contract Bid Deficiency Reflection Capability
If the engineering documents were incomplete or inadequate, then Engineer C's bid should have reflected that fact and contained appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work for the benefit of the owner.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who also acts as a construction contractor to recognize, upon reviewing bid documents that contain incomplete or inadequate engineering drawings, plans, and specifications, that the bid price must reflect the material constructability deficiencies — including by incorporating appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work — rather than submitting a low bid that ignores known inadequacies and then attributing subsequent construction problems to the design engineer, recognizing that an engineer-contractor who submits a knowing low bid on an unbuildable contract has no one to fault but themselves for resulting problems.
Unbuildable Contract Bid Deficiency Reflection Obligation
Finally, the Board believes that Engineer C's actions in bidding on an 'unbuildable' contract is also very troubling.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who also acts as a construction contractor and submits a bid on a project to ensure that the bid accurately reflects any material constructability deficiencies, design inadequacies, or unbuildable elements that the engineer's professional review of the contract documents reveals — specifically by including appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work, or by requesting clarification from the owner or design engineer before submitting — and to refrain from submitting a low bid that ignores known inadequacies in the engineering documents, recognizing that an engineer-contractor who submits a bid on documents known to be incomplete or unbuildable without reflecting those deficiencies in the bid bears professional responsibility for the resulting construction difficulties.
Unbuildable Contract Bid Reflection Obligation
Domain-specific principle requiring an engineer-contractor who, upon reviewing bidding documents, identifies that the engineering documents are incomplete, inadequate, or would render the project unbuildable, to reflect that assessment in the bid by including appropriate bid items for additional services required to complete the work, or alternatively to seek clarification from the owner or design engineer before submitting — establishing that an engineer's professional knowledge creates an obligation to account for known deficiencies in the bid rather than submitting a low bid while knowing the documents are inadequate
Unbuildable Contract Bidding Engineer-Contractor
A professional engineering role held by an engineer who also acts as a construction contractor and submits a bid on a project whose design documents are incomplete or inadequate, bearing obligations to critically evaluate bidding documents using engineering expertise, reflect identified deficiencies in bid pricing or contingency items, seek clarification from the owner or design engineer before bidding, and accept responsibility for problems arising from knowingly bidding on deficient documents.
Underground Storage Tank Environmental Risk Communication Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize, analyze, and communicate the specific environmental risks posed by underground fuel storage tanks in proximity to waterways — including integrating state LUST database statistics, site hydrogeological conditions, fill material characteristics, and proximity to waterways — and to ensure that public testimony or professional reports address both above-ground spill scenarios and underground leak scenarios completely, without selective redirection to favorable aspects of a design while omitting substantive responses to identified underground leak risks.
Underground Storage Tank Proximity Risk State
Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek
State in which underground fuel storage tanks are proposed or installed in close proximity to a waterway, creek, or other environmentally sensitive water resource, where statistical evidence of tank leak rates and site-specific hydrological conditions create a documented risk of contamination to the waterway and downstream receiving waters, triggering heightened obligations to evaluate alternative tank placement and implement protective measures.
Underground Storage Tank Siting Standard
H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan
Professional norms, regulatory requirements, and industry guidelines governing the placement and siting of underground fuel storage tanks relative to waterways, flood plains, and environmentally sensitive areas, including setback requirements and spill containment design obligations.
Underserved Community Flood Risk Stakeholder
A community stakeholder role representing residents of a nearby underserved neighborhood who face disproportionate flood risk from infrastructure design decisions, particularly under low-probability but high-consequence failure conditions, establishing heightened engineer obligations to identify, disclose, and advocate for mitigation of inequitable impacts.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A community stakeholder role representing residents of a historically underserved, underrepresented, and overburdened neighborhood who are directly affected by a proposed public infrastructure project, establishing heightened engineer obligations to ensure genuine, accessible, and equitable public engagement and faithful representation of community input.
Undifferentiated Mixed-Authorship Design Submission State
State in which a successor engineer has submitted design documents that intermingle the predecessor engineer's original design elements with the successor's own modifications without any notation, marking, or delineation indicating which portions represent the predecessor's work and which represent the successor's redesign — creating a document set that is fundamentally ambiguous as to authorship, misrepresents the intellectual origin of design decisions, and prevents any meaningful accountability for the respective contributions of each engineer.
State in which AI tools have substantially shaped or generated a professional work product but that contribution has not been disclosed to the client or attributed in the work product, creating a transparency gap between the actual production method and the client's reasonable expectations, and potentially violating attribution and credit obligations.
State in which a professional has used AI-assisted tools to generate substantive work product (reports, design documents) without disclosing that use to the client or in the work product itself, creating a gap between the actual method of production and the client's reasonable expectations of professional authorship and accountability.
State in which a public agency possesses existing technical documents (such as as-built drawings) that are materially relevant to bidders' or contractors' ability to accurately scope and price work, but those documents are not referenced or made available in bid solicitation materials — creating an information asymmetry between the agency and prospective contractors, and raising ethical questions about whether the omission is equitable, whether selective post-award disclosure advantages some contractors over others, and whether pre-bid disclosure should be standard practice.
Undisclosed Private Interest Prohibition in Public Engineering Commentary
Relational principle establishing that engineers who issue public statements, criticism, or arguments on matters connected with public policy — including infrastructure routing decisions — must not do so on behalf of an undisclosed private interest; if the engineer's commentary is inspired or paid for by a private party, the engineer must identify that party, so that the public and decision-makers can properly assess the objectivity and motivation of the engineering opinion being offered.
Undisclosed Private Retainer Regulatory Testimony Prohibition Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer who is retained and financially compensated by a private party to testify at a governmental or regulatory hearing from failing to affirmatively disclose that private retainer relationship at the outset of testimony — establishing that the financial relationship between the engineer and the private retaining party is material information that the regulatory body and the public are entitled to know in order to properly evaluate the independence and potential bias of the testimony, and that the omission of such disclosure constitutes a deceptive practice that violates the engineer's duty of non-deception and the evolved conflict-of-interest disclosure standard.
Undisclosed Private Retainer in Regulatory Testimony State
State in which a professional engineer testifies at a regulatory proceeding on a matter directly affecting the interests of a private client who is paying for the engineer's attendance and testimony through a consulting arrangement, without disclosing this financial relationship to the regulatory body or the public — creating a material omission that prevents the regulatory body from properly weighing the testimony's objectivity and the engineer's actual interests.
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase
State in which a professional has identified a potential risk to third parties or public welfare but has not communicated that risk to the client or relevant stakeholders, creating a gap between known hazard and informed decision-making.
Undocumented Alteration Successor Design Engineer
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is retained by a client to review and redesign a project using a prior engineer's sealed plans as a guide, makes substantial design changes across multiple plan sheets without documenting the changes, without signing or sealing the altered sheets, and without communicating with the original engineer of record — leaving the prior engineer's seal and signature intact while purporting to accept responsibility for 'revisions' via a vague title-sheet notation, generating obligations of proper documentation, peer communication, independent sealing of altered work, and protection of the public from misleading plan authorship.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer, under management pressure and in the absence of the engineer of record, makes changes to engineering design documents prepared and sealed by another engineer without that engineer's knowledge, consultation, or approval, bearing obligations to refrain from modifying another engineer's sealed work without conferring with and obtaining approval from the responsible engineer, and to document any changes made.
Engineer T realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way
State in which a licensed professional engineer completed a design by selecting a single approach without exploring alternative design concepts that, in retrospect, would have been functionally equivalent but materially safer for construction workers or other affected parties, creating post-hoc uncertainty about whether the failure to explore alternatives constitutes a professional error.
State in which a professional employs a tool, technology, or method with which they have no prior experience or verified understanding of its accuracy, limitations, and failure modes, while using that tool to generate work product that will be sealed, certified, or submitted under their professional authority.
Uniform Cross-Membership Ethics Standard Enforcement State
the BER firmly believes that it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members
State in which a professional society's ethics body has determined that a single uniform standard of conduct must apply to all members regardless of nationality, country of residence, or country of practice — explicitly rejecting a two-tier system in which domestic members and international members are held to different standards. This state activates when the question of differential standards is raised and the ethics body resolves it by affirming universality, creating an obligation for the society and its members to treat all members identically under the code.
Uniform Ethics Standard Across Member Classes Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that a professional society's ethics code must be applied uniformly to all members regardless of their national origin, residency, licensure jurisdiction, or cultural background — prohibiting the application of a lower or different standard of conduct to one subset of members (e.g., non-U.S. international members) versus another (e.g., U.S.-licensed members) — because differential application would undermine the integrity, coherence, and global credibility of the profession's ethical framework
Uniform NSPE Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Application Obligation
Duty of NSPE as an institution — and of individual NSPE members in their professional conduct — to recognize and act upon the principle that the NSPE Code of Ethics must be applied uniformly to all NSPE members regardless of their national origin, country of residence, country of licensure, or the legal and cultural norms of their home country, and to refrain from conduct premised on the assumption that non-U.S. NSPE members are subject to a lower or different standard of ethical conduct than U.S. NSPE members.
Universal Code Applicability to PE-Supervised Firms
Professional principle establishing that the engineering ethics code applies universally to all licensed professional engineers and to firms in which licensed professional engineers hold supervisory or ownership roles — regardless of whether the specific services being provided are engineering services in the traditional design, calculation, or judgment sense — because the engineer's professional obligations run to their conduct as a licensee, not merely to the technical character of the work product
Universal Engineer Competence Scope Limitation Principle
NSPE has been supportive of the concept that a qualified individual engineer, regardless of his or her particular area of technical discipline, should be licensed as a 'professional engineer'. However, this position should not be understood to suggest that all engineers are free to practice without restriction in any and all areas within the practice of engineering.
Fundamental professional virtue principle establishing that while all qualified engineers may be licensed as 'professional engineers' regardless of technical discipline, this universal licensure does not authorize practice in any and all areas of engineering. Every engineer, regardless of license status, must exercise careful professional judgment and practice solely within their actual area(s) of competency. The breadth of the PE license is a credential of professional standing, not a grant of unlimited technical scope.
'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviews those documents for final approval, makes comments, and directs changes – all of which under the laws of the state constitutes the practice of engineering
A government agency staff member who holds an engineering-titled management position and performs engineering review and approval functions—including reviewing signed and sealed design documents, making technical comments, and directing changes—without possessing a professional engineering license or engineering degree, thereby engaging in unlawful practice of engineering under state law.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A government agency staff member who holds an engineering-titled position and performs engineering review and approval functions without possessing the required professional engineering license, thereby engaging in unlawful practice of engineering.
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Engineering Practice Determination Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who observes that a retired inspector — who is not a licensed engineer — has examined safety-critical infrastructure and made structural recommendations (such as recommending installation of crutch piles) to determine whether those activities constitute the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and to report that determination to the state engineering licensure board if the activities cross the threshold into unlicensed engineering practice.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability to recognize when an individual — including a government agency staff member, manager, or titled employee — is performing activities that constitute the practice of engineering under applicable state law without holding a valid professional engineering license or qualifying engineering degree, and to correctly classify such conduct as unlicensed practice regardless of the official title or institutional authority of the individual performing those activities.
Unlicensed Bridge Inspector Performing Engineering Assessment
A retired bridge inspector without a professional engineering license who is directed by a non-engineer public official to conduct a structural assessment of compromised bridge infrastructure and whose findings are used to justify reopening the structure, thereby engaging in unlicensed engineering practice and triggering reporting obligations for licensed engineers who observe the conduct.
Unlicensed Engineering Assessment Determination and Reporting Obligation
Engineer A should have also determined whether a basis existed for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that an unlicensed individual has been directed to perform what may constitute the practice of engineering — such as a retired bridge inspector conducting a structural assessment used to justify reopening a closed bridge — to determine whether that activity constitutes the unlicensed practice of engineering under applicable state law, and if so, to report the activity to the state engineering licensure board, so that the public is protected from unqualified engineering assessments being used to make safety-critical infrastructure decisions.
'Transportation Engineer' B, who personally reviewed those documents for final approval, made comments, and directed changes
A government agency staff member who holds an engineering-titled position and performs engineering review and approval functions without possessing the required professional engineering license, thereby engaging in unlawful practice of engineering.
Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation State
this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state
State in which an engineering firm conducts active business development activities — including distributing business cards, attending meetings, and prospecting for work — in a jurisdiction where neither the firm nor any of its engineers hold current licensure, such that the solicitation activity violates the spirit and intent of state engineering registration laws even if no formal engineering services have yet been rendered, triggering an obligation to cease solicitation until appropriate licensure is obtained.
Unlicensed Inspector Engineering Assessment Reporting Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who observes that an unlicensed individual — such as a retired bridge inspector who is not a licensed engineer — has performed what may constitute the practice of engineering (including structural assessment of safety-critical infrastructure) must determine whether those activities constitute the unlicensed practice of engineering and, if so, report that individual to the state engineering licensure board, prohibiting passive acquiescence in unlicensed engineering practice on the grounds that the assessment was commissioned by a non-engineer official or that the engineer disagrees with the assessment's conclusions.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware that another individual is engaging in the practice of engineering without fulfilling licensure requirements — including adequate education, examination, and experience — must report that individual to the appropriate authority, prohibiting passive acquiescence in or facilitation of unlicensed engineering practice.
Unlicensed Inspector Performing Engineering Evaluation State
State in which a person without engineering licensure (such as a retired bridge inspector or building inspector) is formally directed by an authority to perform a structural or safety evaluation that constitutes the practice of engineering — producing findings that are then used to authorize public use of a potentially dangerous structure — thereby triggering obligations for licensed engineers aware of the situation to assess whether unlicensed practice has occurred and to report it to the state engineering licensure board.
Unlicensed Inspector Substituted for Engineering Evaluation State
State in which a non-engineer (retired inspector, technician, or other unlicensed person) has been substituted for a licensed professional engineer to perform a structural or safety evaluation, resulting in a safety determination made without the required professional engineering competence and licensure.
Unlicensed Intern Responsible Charge Delegation State
Engineer B delegated practically all design work to Engineer Intern C, a graduate engineer employee with about two years' experience
State in which a licensed professional engineer, while remaining nominally responsible, has effectively transferred substantive engineering design authority and decision-making to an engineer intern or graduate engineer who lacks the licensure, experience, and independent judgment required to exercise responsible charge — with the licensed engineer affixing their seal to the resulting work product without meaningful review — thereby creating a structural violation of responsible charge requirements and exposing the public to the risk of defective engineering.
Unlicensed Jurisdiction Expert Witness Engineer
Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E)
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer provides forensic evaluation, expert opinion preparation, and testimony in a jurisdiction where the engineer does not hold a valid professional engineering license, bearing obligations to obtain proper licensure before performing engineering services in that jurisdiction, to accurately represent licensure status in all signed reports and testimony, and to refrain from obscuring or omitting licensure status through use of alternative credentials or titles.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineer who presents a project for regulatory approval in a jurisdiction where the engineer does not hold a valid professional engineering license, bearing obligations to obtain proper licensure before performing engineering services in the jurisdiction, and generating concerns about unlicensed practice and the validity of representations made to public bodies.
Unlicensed Practice Challenge and Refusal Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has been directed by an unlicensed individual to revise signed and sealed engineering documents to refuse compliance with such direction, challenge the unlicensed practice, and refrain from aiding or abetting the unlawful practice of engineering by an individual who lacks the requisite licensure and qualifications.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware of potential unlawful engineering practices — including procurement law violations or unlicensed practice — to refrain from aiding, abetting, or facilitating the continuation of those unlawful practices, and to take affirmative steps consistent with professional ethics to address them.
Unlicensed Practice Prohibition and Challenge Obligation
Engineer A learns that 'Transportation Engineer' B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer.
Domain-specific principle requiring licensed engineers who discover that an individual is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering without a license — including reviewing, directing changes to, and approving sealed engineering documents — to refuse to treat such directions as authoritative and to formally challenge or report the unlicensed practice to appropriate licensing authorities
[Case 132] Domain-specific principle requiring licensed engineers who discover that an individual is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering without a license to refuse to treat such directions as authoritative and to formally challenge or report the unlicensed practice to appropriate licensing authorities.
[Case 137] Domain-specific principle requiring licensed engineers who discover that an individual is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering without a license to refuse to treat such determinations as authoritative and to formally challenge or report the unlicensed practice to appropriate licensing authorities.
[Case 137] Domain-specific principle requiring licensed engineers who discover that an individual is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering without a license — including conducting structural assessments and directing remediation of condemned infrastructure — to refuse to treat such directions as authoritative and to formally challenge or report the unlicensed practice to appropriate licensing authorities.
[Case 140] Domain-specific principle requiring licensed engineers who discover that an individual is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering without a license — including reviewing, directing changes to, and approving sealed engineering documents — to refuse to treat such directions as authoritative and to formally challenge or report the unlicensed practice to appropriate licensing authorities.
Unlicensed Practice Recognition Capability
Capability to recognize when an individual — including a government agency staff member, manager, or titled employee — is performing activities that constitute the practice of engineering under applicable state law without holding a valid professional engineering license or qualifying engineering degree, and to correctly classify such conduct as unlicensed practice regardless of the official title or institutional authority of the individual performing those activities.
Unlicensed Practice Reporting Constraint
Engineer A learned that 'Transportation Engineer' B was neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer.
Ethical and regulatory constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who becomes aware that another individual is engaging in the practice of engineering without fulfilling licensure requirements — including adequate education, examination, and experience — must report that individual to the appropriate authority, prohibiting passive acquiescence in or facilitation of unlicensed engineering practice.
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing an engineer's duty to report or respond when they discover that individuals performing engineering functions — including review and approval of engineering documents — are not licensed as required by law, including obligations to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the profession
Unlicensed Practice Reporting and Challenge Capability
Capability to act on the recognition of unlicensed engineering practice by formulating, documenting, and communicating a professional challenge — including refusing to revise sealed documents at the direction of an unlicensed reviewer, reporting the unlicensed practice to the appropriate state licensure board or regulatory authority, and advising the employing agency or client of the professional and legal implications of permitting unlicensed individuals to perform engineering review and approval functions.
Unlicensed Practice Reporting to Professional Bodies Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to report Engineer B's violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f).
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who discovers that an unlicensed individual is performing acts constituting the practice of engineering — including reviewing and directing revisions to signed and sealed engineering documents — to report that individual's violation to appropriate professional bodies and licensing authorities, so that the public is protected from unqualified engineering practice and the integrity of the licensure system is preserved.
Unlicensed Practice by Third Party State
Engineer A had an obligation to report 'Transportation Engineer' B for unlicensed practice
State in which a professional engineer becomes aware that a third party — particularly one holding an official title implying engineering authority — is engaging in the practice of engineering without holding the required professional license, thereby triggering the licensed engineer's obligation to report unlicensed practice to the appropriate authority.
Unlicensed Responsible Charge Assignment Prohibition
Domain-specific principle prohibiting the formal assignment of 'responsible charge' over an engineering system or facility to a non-licensed technician or other unlicensed individual, regardless of administrative authority or organizational convenience. Responsible charge carries professional and legal accountability that can only be discharged by a licensed professional engineer, and any administrative assignment of that role to an unlicensed person is void as a matter of professional ethics and public protection.
Unlicensed Reviewer Approval Authority State
Transportation Engineer B is neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer
State in which a government or agency official holding a title implying engineering authority exercises statutory approval power over licensed engineers' sealed design documents — including reviewing, commenting on, and directing changes to those documents — without holding a professional engineering license or relevant engineering degree, thereby constituting unlicensed practice of engineering under state law and creating an invalid regulatory approval chain.
Unlicensed Reviewer Direction Compliance Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer from complying with, implementing, or treating as authoritative the technical review comments, revision directives, or approval decisions of an individual who lacks professional engineering licensure and is thereby engaging in the unlawful practice of engineering — establishing that the licensed engineer's obligation to maintain the integrity of sealed documents supersedes any institutional or hierarchical authority exercised by an unlicensed reviewer, and prohibiting the engineer from passively accepting such direction as if it carried legitimate engineering authority.
Unlicensed Technician Assigned Engineering Responsible Charge
City Administrator C removes Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the sanitary system
A non-licensed technical staff member who is formally assigned 'responsible charge' of a municipal engineering system by a non-engineer administrator, bypassing the licensed professional engineer, and instructed to report any 'interference' by the engineer to the administrator — creating an ethically and legally problematic arrangement in which unlicensed practice is institutionally mandated and the licensed engineer's professional authority is deliberately circumvented.
Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize when a non-engineer administrator has formally assigned engineering 'responsible charge' of a safety-critical municipal system to an unlicensed technician, to correctly identify this as an impermissible assignment that violates professional engineering practice standards and state law, and to resist and escalate the assignment through appropriate channels — including formal objection to the administrator, notification to the governing body, and if necessary to the state engineering licensure board — rather than acquiescing to the unlawful designation.
Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Resistance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who observes that a non-engineer municipal administrator has formally assigned 'responsible charge' of a safety-critical engineering system to an unlicensed technician — thereby removing the licensed engineer from the chain of command — to resist that assignment by escalating to appropriate authorities, recognizing that the formal assignment of engineering responsible charge to an unlicensed individual constitutes an unlawful and ethically impermissible act that endangers public safety and violates professional licensure law.
Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Assignment Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the impermissibility of assigning 'responsible charge' of engineering systems or infrastructure to unlicensed technicians or non-engineers, including the ethical and legal constraints on administrators who attempt to remove licensed engineers from oversight roles and replace them with unqualified personnel.
Unlicensed Technician Responsible Charge Delegation by Administrative Order State
State in which a non-engineer administrative authority, rather than a licensed professional engineer, formally reassigns responsible charge of a public engineering system from a licensed PE to an unlicensed technician via administrative directive — bypassing the professional engineering chain of command — creating a structural violation of responsible charge requirements and exposing the public to unqualified oversight of safety-critical infrastructure.
Unlicensed Title-Holding Engineering Staff
an engineering firm, ENGCO, that listed key personnel who did not hold engineering degrees with titles including 'Engineer' and 'Design Engineer'
A non-licensed, non-degreed individual employed by a firm or government agency who holds a title containing the word 'Engineer' (e.g., 'Associate Engineer,' 'Design Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer') without meeting state licensure or degree requirements, thereby misrepresenting qualifications to the public and potentially engaging in unlawful practice of engineering when not under direct personal supervision of a licensed PE.
Unlicensed Title Holder Exercising Engineering Authority State
State in which an individual who does not hold a professional engineering license or qualifying engineering degree holds a title implying engineering qualifications — such as 'Engineer,' 'Associate Engineer,' 'Building Engineer,' 'Forest Practices Engineer,' or 'Sanitation Engineer' — and is exercising engineering authority, conducting engineering reviews, or directing licensed engineers' sealed work, without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer, thereby endangering public health, safety, and welfare and diminishing the integrity of the engineering profession.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a government or agency official holding a title implying engineering authority exercises statutory approval power over licensed engineers' sealed design documents — including reviewing, commenting on, and directing changes to those documents — without holding a professional engineering license or relevant engineering degree, thereby constituting unlicensed practice of engineering under state law and creating an invalid regulatory approval chain.
Unlimited Personal Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that professional ethics bodies, employers, and the engineering profession must refrain from imposing upon a licensed professional engineer an unlimited personal and professional safety accountability obligation extending to every potential health and safety risk the engineer may incidentally observe during the course of a day that is essentially unrelated to the services for which the engineer is being professionally engaged — prohibiting the imposition of a never-ending scope of activities beyond what is reasonable, and recognizing that such unlimited imposition would expose the engineer to unlimited personal and professional liability that is disproportionate to the engineer's actual professional role and engagement.
Unlimited Professional Liability Exposure Recognition and Resistance Capability
an engineer cannot be expected to take on personal or professional responsibility for each and every potential health and safety risk they may be exposed to during the course of a day, which are essentially unrelated to the services for which the engineer is being professionally engaged
Capability of a licensed professional engineer, and of professional ethics bodies, to recognize that imposing upon an engineer an unlimited personal and professional safety accountability obligation for all potential health and safety risks observed during the course of professional activities — regardless of whether those risks fall within the engineer's contracted scope of responsibility — would expose the engineer to unreasonable personal and professional liability and thrust the engineer into a never-ending scope of activities beyond what is reasonable, and to correctly resist such unlimited scope imposition when calibrating professional obligations.
Unlimited Safety Scope Imposition Prohibition Obligation
Duty of professional ethics bodies, employers, and the engineering profession to refrain from imposing upon a licensed professional engineer an unlimited or open-ended personal and professional safety accountability obligation that extends to every potential health and safety risk the engineer may incidentally encounter during the course of a day that is essentially unrelated to the services for which the engineer is professionally engaged, recognizing that such unlimited imposition would expose the engineer to unreasonable personal and professional liability and thrust the engineer into a never-ending scope of activities beyond what is professionally reasonable.
Unpermitted Wetland Fill Violation State
the client has installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than ½ an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
State in which a property owner or client has installed fill material in a jurisdictionally delineated wetland area without obtaining required federal and state permits, variances, or permissions, constituting a substantial violation of environmental protection laws — such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and applicable state wetland regulations — and creating an active enforcement and remediation obligation for regulatory authorities and a reporting obligation for any licensed professional who becomes aware of the violation.
Unproven-But-Possible Violation Cloud-of-Doubt Ethics Standard
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that in professional ethics analysis, the inability to prove that specific improper conduct occurred does not fully discharge ethical concern when the structural circumstances of an arrangement create a realistic possibility that improper conduct could have occurred or did occur undetected; the 'cloud of doubt' standard holds that arrangements whose structure makes improper conduct possible — and whose outcome is consistent with improper conduct having occurred — implicate professional ethics even absent direct evidence of specific violations, particularly when the arrangement involves exploitation of insider advantages in competitive procurement.
The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to continue in the position
A person appointed to a public engineering or surveying position who does not hold the legally required professional licensure (e.g., PE), rendering them statutorily unqualified to continue in the role and generating obligations on the appointing authority to remove and replace them.
Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has previously rendered professional services to a party and subsequently accepts retention by an adverse party in an entirely unrelated matter to recognize, assert, and document that such engagement is ethically permissible under the NSPE Code — specifically because the new matter does not involve the same project, proceeding, or confidential information as the prior engagement — and to resist any characterization by opposing counsel or adverse parties that frames the sequential service as a conflict of interest, switching sides, or improper conduct, recognizing that the engineer's professional autonomy and independence are preserved when prior engagements are genuinely unrelated.
Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has previously rendered professional services to a party to correctly assess whether accepting a subsequent adverse forensic engagement against that former client is ethically permissible — including the ability to distinguish between same-matter side-switching (impermissible) and adverse engagement in a wholly unrelated matter (permissible), to recognize that prior service to a party does not create a perpetual bar to adverse engagement when the subject matter is entirely distinct, and to apply this distinction correctly when evaluating retention offers from parties adverse to former clients.
Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who has previously rendered professional services to a party may subsequently accept retention by an opposing party in an adversarial proceeding involving a matter entirely unrelated to the prior engagement — provided that no confidential information from the prior engagement is relevant to or deployable in the new matter — prohibiting the misapplication of the switching-sides prohibition to factually distinct and substantively unrelated matters, and establishing that the ethical bar to adverse engagement applies only where the new matter shares subject matter, confidential information, or specialized knowledge gained in the prior engagement, as established by NSPE Code Section II.4 and BER Case No. 98-4.
Unrelated Matter Adverse Former Client Engagement Permissibility Boundary Constraint
This is particularly true in the present case, where the matters at issue are not in any way related to any previous work Engineer A performed for either of her former clients.
Ethical constraint establishing the permissibility boundary for a licensed professional engineer accepting retention adverse to a former client: where the new engagement involves matters entirely unrelated to any prior work performed for the former client, and where no confidential information from the prior engagement is relevant to or deployable in the new matter, the engineer is not prohibited by the NSPE Code of Ethics from accepting the adverse engagement — establishing that the faithful agent and trustee obligation does not extend to a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity across all matters, and that the switching-sides prohibition applies only where the new matter shares subject matter, confidential information, or specialized knowledge gained in the prior engagement.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's faithful agent and trustee obligation to a former client does not create a duty of absolute loyalty in perpetuity — prohibiting the misapplication of the faithful agent standard as a basis for claiming that an engineer can never take a position adverse to a former client's interests in any matter, while simultaneously preserving the engineer's obligation to refrain from adverse participation in matters directly related to prior specialized knowledge gained on behalf of that client, as established by NSPE Code Section II.4 and BER Case No. 98-4.
Unrelated Matter Adverse Party Engagement Permissibility Principle
Relational principle establishing that an engineer who has previously rendered professional services to a client may ethically accept a subsequent engagement adverse to that former client — or may serve both a party and its adversary across separate, temporally distinct engagements — provided that: (1) the matters are factually and legally unrelated, (2) no confidential information from the prior engagement is used or disclosed in the subsequent adverse engagement, and (3) no specialized knowledge gained exclusively through the prior relationship is deployed against the former client; the mere fact of having served both sides across unrelated matters does not constitute an ethics violation and does not impair the engineer's professional independence
Unsafe Process Refusing Industrial Engineer
a group of engineers believed that certain machinery was unsafe
A professional engineering role in which a group of engineers, believing that certain machinery or industrial processes are unsafe, exercise their ethical right to refuse participation in the processing or production of the product in question, accepting the likely consequence of loss of employment as the cost of upholding their professional obligation to public safety.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A professional engineering role in which an engineer, believing a product to be unsafe, is ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of that product, even at the risk of loss of employment, as long as the engineer holds that view regarding the product's safety.
A professional engineering role in which an engineer, believing a product to be unsafe, is ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of that product, even at the risk of loss of employment, as long as the engineer holds that view regarding the product's safety.
Unsolicited Public Infrastructure Alternative Proposal Factual Grounding Capability
His letter stated disagreement with the cost estimates of the highway department and pointed out alleged disadvantages of the proposed route
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who, without formal retention, voluntarily proposes an alternative public infrastructure route or design in a public forum — such as an open letter to the press — to ensure that all claims, including cost estimate critiques, alleged disadvantages of existing proposals, and advantages of the proposed alternative, are grounded in established engineering facts and completed professional analysis rather than speculation, advocacy, or alignment with political allies, recognizing that the voluntary and public nature of the proposal does not reduce the engineer's obligation to factual accuracy and professional rigor.
Unsolicited Public Infrastructure Alternative Proposal Factual Substantiation Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who, without formal retention, voluntarily proposes an alternative public infrastructure route or design in a public forum — including through letters published in local press — must ground all claims, including cost estimate critiques and assertions of route superiority, in verifiable engineering facts and sound engineering knowledge, prohibiting the publication of unsolicited alternative proposals that rely on unverified assumptions, incomplete analysis, or advocacy-driven selective presentation of data, and establishing that the engineer's professional credibility and the public's reliance on engineering expertise impose a heightened factual substantiation obligation on unsolicited public proposals that goes beyond mere good-faith belief.
Unsolicited Public Route Alternative Proposal Factual Grounding Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who, without formal retention, voluntarily proposes an alternative public infrastructure route through public channels (e.g., open letters in local press) to ground all claims — including cost estimate critiques and alleged disadvantages of competing routes — in established engineering facts and documented analysis, rather than assertion or speculation, so that the public and decision-makers receive technically reliable information rather than unsupported advocacy.
Unsolicited Public Route Alternative Proposal by Connected Engineer State
The letter then suggested a fourth route ('D') which, it was claimed, would be superior to those previously suggested
State in which a consulting engineer, without being retained or solicited by any party for the purpose, publicly proposes a new infrastructure routing alternative not previously under official consideration — where the engineer's prior work on a connected project gives them specialized knowledge of the technical context, but also creates an appearance of self-interest in the outcome. The state raises ethical questions about whether the proposal constitutes constructive civic engineering service or an improper attempt to influence a government decision for competitive advantage, and whether the engineer's technical basis for the proposal is adequately grounded.
Unsupervised Engineer Intern Performing Licensed Work
A graduate engineer intern with limited experience who performs substantive structural engineering design and prepares construction drawings under the direction of a medically impaired licensed engineer who provides little to no actual supervisory review, while being fully aware of the supervising engineer's impaired condition, thereby participating in a practice arrangement that misrepresents responsible charge and endangers public safety.
Unsupervised Unlicensed Engineering Practice Public Safety Harm Recognition Obligation
Unqualified individuals providing these services when they are not under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer have caused harm to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Duty of licensed professional engineers, engineering firms, and government agencies to recognize and act upon the specific public safety harm caused when unqualified individuals perform engineering services without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer, and to take affirmative steps to ensure that all engineering services affecting public health, safety, and welfare are performed by or under the direct supervision of appropriately licensed professionals.
Unsupervised Unlicensed Practice Public Safety Harm Assessment Capability
Capability to recognize and assess the specific public safety harm caused when unqualified individuals perform engineering services without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer — including understanding that unsupervised unlicensed practice creates direct risks to public health, safety, and welfare, that such individuals bear no professional ethical or legal accountability, and that the harm is compounded when the unlicensed individual holds an engineering title that implies professional accountability to the public.
Unsupervised Unlicensed Practice Public Safety Harm Constraint
Safety and regulatory constraint establishing that unqualified individuals providing engineering services without being under the direct personal supervision of a licensed professional engineer create specific, cognizable harm to public health, safety, and welfare — thereby constraining licensed engineers, firms, and agencies from permitting, facilitating, or acquiescing in arrangements where unlicensed individuals perform engineering services outside of direct PE supervision, and establishing that the absence of direct personal supervision is itself the harm-creating condition that triggers the constraint.
Unverifiable Compliance Certification Request State
State in which a professional is requested to formally certify compliance with a body of regulations so detailed, extensive, and cross-referenced that a complete and exhaustive inspection or review would be required to truthfully make the certification, but the professional lacks the domain knowledge to conduct such an inspection — making any certification issued inherently misleading, deceptive, and a guarantee of facts the professional cannot substantiate.
Unverifiable Insider Advantage Fairness Determination State
It was not possible for the Board to meet and discuss the case and it could not bring in the witnesses for explanation or cross-examination
State in which a professional or board must assess whether insider knowledge and relationships acquired during prior public or employment service were used unfairly in subsequent private competition, but cannot make a definitive determination because witnesses are unavailable, evidence is circumstantial, and the mechanisms of potential unfairness — selective information withholding, misrepresentation of insider value, or below-cost pricing — cannot be confirmed or excluded. This state creates an irreducible ethical cloud over the enterprise that implicates profession-wide reputation even absent proven wrongdoing, activating obligations to protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding under applicable ethics canons.
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development
State in which a professional has identified a potential concern or suspicion about risk or harm but has not yet developed sufficient technical evidence or analysis to elevate that concern to the level of established fact, limiting disclosure obligations while still warranting prudential communication.
Unverified Risk Urgency Self-Assessment Prohibition Constraint
As a practical matter, revealing that the visibly obvious defect had been in existence and unchanged for at least five years might have actually reduced the urgency of any investigation, but Engineer Intern A was not yet qualified to either make that determination or evaluate the materiality of the information.
Competence and ethical constraint prohibiting an engineer intern or unlicensed subordinate from independently assessing whether a discovered safety risk is urgent, imminent, or reduced in severity — including assessments that a multi-year defect history might reduce rather than increase urgency — when the intern lacks the professional qualification to make such determinations, establishing that the intern must report all facts and defer urgency assessment entirely to the supervising licensed professional engineer.
Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community
the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
A community stakeholder role representing homeowners in a neighborhood upstream of a proposed tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade whose properties face accelerated flood risk and potential uninhabitability due to increased hydraulic capacity and sea level rise effects, establishing the engineer's paramount public responsibility obligations to evaluate, disclose, and advocate for mitigation of those risks even when the client directs otherwise.
Upstream Third-Party Flood Risk Identification Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer designing hydraulic infrastructure to identify, through professional judgment and available evaluation procedures, that a proposed infrastructure upgrade — such as increasing the hydraulic capacity of a tidal crossing — may accelerate or worsen flood risk to upstream third-party properties by altering tidal prism dynamics, increasing tidal intrusion, or modifying storm surge propagation, even when such effects are not required to be analyzed under applicable local regulations.
Vague Hazard Advisory Substituted for Mandatory Regulatory Notification State
State in which a professional engineer, having identified or strongly suspected a hazardous condition requiring mandatory federal and state regulatory notification, substitutes only a vague, informal advisory to the client (e.g., describing drums as containing 'questionable material' and suggesting removal) in place of the legally and ethically required explicit notification to regulatory authorities — leaving the client without actionable regulatory guidance and the authorities without legally required notice, while creating the appearance of having addressed the hazard.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a professional engineer has identified or has strong reason to believe that hazardous materials are present on a client's property, triggering mandatory federal and state notification and disposal obligations, but where the engineer has communicated the hazard to the client only in vague or indirect terms rather than explicitly recommending analysis and proper regulatory reporting — making the engineer a de facto accomplice to potential environmental law violations.
Vague Responsibility Assumption Insufficiency for Sealed Plan Modification
Engineer B placed a note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans, leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact, stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the 'revisions of the plans,' making no notation what those changes were.
Professional principle establishing that a general or non-specific declaration by a successor engineer that they 'take responsibility for revisions' to another engineer's sealed plans is ethically and professionally insufficient to satisfy the accountability obligations arising from material design changes — because such a declaration fails to identify what was changed, does not remove the original engineer's seal from altered work, and does not constitute the successor engineer's personal professional certification of the modified design through proper sealing of affected sheets.
Vague Successor Responsibility Claim Insufficient Sealed Plan Attribution Constraint
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that a general, unspecified claim of responsibility for 'revisions' placed on the title sheet of a predecessor engineer's sealed plan set — without identifying which sheets were modified, what specific changes were made, or which design elements were altered — is insufficient to satisfy the professional attribution and documentation obligations of a successor engineer who has made material design changes, prohibiting the use of vague blanket responsibility language as a substitute for specific, itemized change documentation on each affected sheet.
Vague Successor Responsibility Claim Without Change Specification State
State in which a successor engineer has placed a general note on a plan set claiming responsibility for 'revisions' without specifying what those revisions are, while leaving the predecessor engineer's seal and signature intact on all sheets — creating a document that is ambiguous as to authorship, misleading as to the scope of the successor's responsibility, and insufficient to protect the predecessor from liability for work they did not perform.
Vague Title-Sheet Disclaimer Insufficiency for Sealed Plan Modification Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who makes substantive changes to another engineer's sealed plan set to provide specific, itemized documentation of all changes made — and to refrain from substituting a vague, non-specific title-sheet disclaimer (such as claiming responsibility for 'revisions of the plans' without identifying what was revised) as a substitute for proper attribution, documentation, and re-sealing of modified sheets — recognizing that a general disclaimer without specificity fails to satisfy the responsible charge requirement, deceives parties relying on the documents, and leaves the original engineer's seal falsely certifying content the original engineer never reviewed.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer who modifies another engineer's sealed design documents — whether with or without that engineer's consent — to identify and document all actual changes made to the other engineer's work, so that the originating engineer and all parties relying on the documents can determine precisely what was changed, by whom, and when, recognizing that failure to document modifications to sealed documents undermines the integrity of the responsible charge process and deprives the originating engineer of the ability to assess and stand behind the modified work.
Vague Title-Sheet Disclaimer Insufficiency for Sealed Plan Modification Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who makes substantive changes to another engineer's sealed plan set to recognize that placing a vague, general disclaimer on the title sheet — such as a note stating responsibility for 'revisions' without specifying what was changed — is professionally and legally insufficient to satisfy the obligation of specific, itemized documentation of all changes made on each affected sheet, and that such vague disclaimers do not adequately protect the original engineer's professional reputation, inform reviewers of the scope of changes, or satisfy licensure board requirements for plan modification documentation.
Valence-Neutral Deception Assessment Capability
The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4, because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had. In contrast, the present case involves a situation that could reflect negatively on Engineer A and his firm.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or ethics reviewer to recognize that the ethical standard for evaluating whether a communication or omission is misleading or deceptive is independent of whether the information in question would reflect positively or negatively on the engineer or firm — understanding that the relevant question is not whether a client would be pleased or disappointed with the information, but whether the communication (or non-communication) amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client — and to apply this valence-neutral standard consistently across both self-enhancing misrepresentations (e.g., listing a departed key employee to inflate apparent qualifications) and self-damaging omissions (e.g., failing to disclose a pending ethics complaint that could reflect negatively on the engineer).
Valence-Neutral Misleading Information Standard in Professional Disclosure
The facts in the present case are somewhat different than those involved in BER Case Nos. 83-1 and 90-4 , because the earlier cases involved efforts by an engineering firm to enhance the firm's credentials by implying that the firm had a higher level of expertise than it actually had.
Professional virtue principle establishing that the ethical standard for evaluating whether an engineer's communication (or non-communication) misleads or deceives a client is determined by the nature and effect of the communication — whether it creates a false impression — and not by whether the information in question would reflect positively or negatively on the engineer; the positive or negative valence of the information is irrelevant to the ethical analysis, which focuses solely on whether the client is misled or deceived by what is communicated or withheld.
Valence-Neutral Misleading Omission Non-Disclosure Prohibition Obligation
However, the Board does not believe the nature of the information -- whether positive or negative -- is at issue.
Duty of a professional engineer to recognize that the ethical standard for evaluating whether a communication or omission is misleading or deceptive is valence-neutral — that is, it applies equally to information that would reflect positively on the engineer (such as inflated credentials) and information that would reflect negatively (such as a pending ethics complaint). The engineer may not justify non-disclosure of material information on the grounds that the information is unflattering or potentially damaging; the operative question is whether the omission amounts to an act that misleads or deceives the client, not whether the client would be pleased or disappointed by the information. This obligation requires engineers to apply the same honesty standard regardless of whether disclosure serves or harms their self-interest.
Variance Data Inclusion in Technical Report Obligation
In BER Case 85-5, the Board said it was unethical for an engineer to fail to include certain unsubstantiative data in a report.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer compiling data for a technical or research report to include all findings — including minority data points, ambiguous results, and data at variance with the report's primary conclusions — rather than omitting such data on the grounds that it detracts from or distorts the essential thrust of the report, recognizing that the professional challenge is not to develop consistent or precise findings that can be neatly categorized, but to wrestle head-on with difficult and sometimes insoluble issues that are at variance with other results, and that omission of variance data to protect the report's persuasive force constitutes a failure of objectivity and truthfulness under NSPE Code Section II.3.a.
Verbal-Only Disclosure Insufficiency for Public Authority Report Obligation
In subsequent discussions with the developer client, Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally mentioned a material environmental or safety concern to a client to recognize that verbal mention to the client alone does not satisfy the obligation to include that concern in a written report submitted to a public regulatory authority — and to ensure that all material findings communicated verbally to the client are also documented in written reports submitted to public authorities when those authorities are relying on the report for regulatory decision-making.
Verbal-Only Safety Advisory Without Written Record State
Doe has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report
State in which a professional engineer has communicated safety findings or standards-violation concerns to a client verbally but has been explicitly prohibited from producing a written report documenting those findings — leaving no formal engineering instrument of service on record, and creating a gap between the engineer's fulfilled verbal duty and the absent evidentiary record needed to protect the public and regulatory authorities.
[Case 132] State in which an engineer has communicated a safety advisory or recommendation verbally (in person or by telephone) without creating a written record, leaving the professional's fulfillment of safety notification obligations undocumented and potentially unverifiable.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] State in which a client, attorney, or retaining party has explicitly instructed a professional engineer to withhold, suppress, or not prepare a written report documenting findings that constitute a risk to public health, safety, or welfare — creating direct tension between the confidentiality or loyalty obligation to the instructing party and the paramount professional obligation to protect the public through disclosure to appropriate authorities.
Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint
Procedural and ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has made a verbal safety notification — whether to a client, property owner, or regulatory authority — must follow up that verbal notification with written documentation when the verbal notification is not acknowledged, not acted upon, or when the safety risk is of sufficient severity to warrant a documented record, prohibiting reliance on verbal communication alone as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation in circumstances where the recipient's response or the adequacy of the notification cannot be verified.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency affecting a property owner who was not the engineer's original client — including subsequent purchasers of property containing structures the engineer designed or evaluated — must notify that property owner in writing about the perceived deficiency, prohibiting reliance on verbal notification to governmental authorities alone as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation when the property owner is directly at risk.
Verbal-to-Written Finding Conversion Obligation Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that completed technical findings communicated verbally to a client carry the same professional weight as written findings, and that a client instruction not to render a written report does not extinguish the obligation to document and report those findings — particularly when the findings bear on public health, safety, and environmental welfare — and to act on that recognition by resisting suppression instructions and preserving the integrity of the professional record.
Verbal-to-Written Safety Notification Conversion and Monitoring Capability
Engineer A should make a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating Engineer A's concern and continue to monitor the situation
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally notified a public official of a structural safety concern to recognize that the verbal notification must be converted to written form to create a documented record, to follow up with a written confirmation restating the concern, and to continue monitoring the situation to determine whether adequate corrective steps are being taken within a reasonable period — thereby establishing both a documentary record and a basis for further escalation if the written notification does not produce adequate response.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally notified a public official or property owner of a structural safety concern to recognize that verbal notification alone is insufficient to discharge the professional obligation, and to follow up with written confirmation restating the concerns, creating a documented record of all communications, and establishing a basis for further escalation if the verbal notification does not result in adequate corrective action within a reasonable period.
Verbal-to-Written Safety Notification Follow-Up Obligation
Relational principle establishing that when an engineer has communicated a safety concern verbally to a responsible authority, the engineer must follow up that verbal communication with a written confirmation restating the concern — creating a documented record that is unambiguous, actionable, and preserves evidence of the engineer's discharge of professional obligation, and that positions the engineer to escalate further if the authority fails to act within a reasonable period.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who communicate safety concerns to clients, property owners, public officials, or regulatory authorities to document those communications in writing — including following up verbal communications with written confirmation — so as to create a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied, and that preserves the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation.
Verbal Client Disclosure Non-Substitution for Written Public Authority Report Constraint
In subsequent discussions with the developer client, Engineer A verbally mentions the concern, but Engineer A does not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority
Ethical and procedural constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's verbal mention of a material environmental or safety finding to a client does not satisfy the professional obligation to include that finding in a written report submitted to a public regulatory or decision-making authority — prohibiting the engineer from treating client-directed verbal disclosure as a complete discharge of the written reporting obligation to the public authority, and establishing that the public authority's independent interest in complete written information creates a non-waivable disclosure obligation that the client cannot extinguish through verbal acknowledgment alone.
Verbal Engineering Testimony Jurisdictional Licensure Constraint
In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction.
Regulatory and legal constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who provides verbal engineering input at a public regulatory hearing — where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making — is likely engaging in the practice of engineering in that jurisdiction, thereby requiring licensure in that jurisdiction, and prohibiting the engineer from presenting engineering opinions, analyses, or recommendations at such hearings without first verifying and obtaining required jurisdictional licensure, as established by state engineering practice acts and BER interpretation that verbal engineering input at decision-making public hearings constitutes engineering practice.
Verbal Finding Written Report Non-Suppression Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has reached definitive adverse findings — communicated verbally to a client — to resist client instructions to forgo the production of a written report of those findings, recognizing that the client's payment of fees and contract termination does not extinguish the engineer's obligation to document and preserve findings that bear on public health, safety, or environmental welfare, and that acquiescing to report suppression by omission constitutes a violation of the paramount public welfare duty even when no explicit written report was contractually required.
Verbal Mention Non-Substitution for Written Public Authority Disclosure Capability
In subsequent discussions with the developer client, Engineer A verbally mentions the concern
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that verbally mentioning a material environmental or safety concern to a developer client does not satisfy the professional obligation to include that concern in a written report submitted to a public regulatory authority, and to correctly distinguish between client-directed verbal communication and the independent duty to provide complete written disclosure to public authorities considering development proposals.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that completed technical findings communicated verbally to a client carry the same professional weight as written findings, and that a client instruction not to render a written report does not extinguish the obligation to document and report those findings — particularly when the findings bear on public health, safety, and environmental welfare — and to act on that recognition by resisting suppression instructions and preserving the integrity of the professional record.
Verbal Pre-Selection Acceptance Prohibition
Professional principle prohibiting engineers from accepting, soliciting, or acting upon informal verbal promises of contract award from public officials in advance of a lawful competitive selection process, recognizing that participation in such arrangements — even as the passive recipient of a promised benefit — corrupts the integrity of public procurement and confers an improper advantage inconsistent with free and open competition norms
Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm principal to recognize that receiving an informal verbal promise of future contract selection from a public procurement authority — even when offered as recognition for prior speculative contributions — constitutes an improper pre-selection arrangement that bypasses competitive procurement requirements, and to decline or actively repudiate such a promise rather than acquiesce to or rely upon it.
Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Acceptance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm that receives an informal verbal promise of future contract selection from a public procurement authority — including promises offered as recognition for prior speculative contributions — to decline or actively repudiate such a promise, and to refrain from acting upon or acquiescing to it, recognizing that acceptance or acquiescence makes the firm complicit in a procurement integrity violation and confers an unfair competitive advantage over other qualified firms.
Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer holding public procurement authority — such as a chief city engineer — to recognize that making informal verbal promises of future contract selection to a specific firm, even as an expression of gratitude for prior speculative contributions, constitutes an improper pre-selection commitment that bypasses competitive procurement requirements, and to refrain from issuing any such promise regardless of the benevolent motivation behind it.
Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer serving in a public agency procurement authority role to refrain from making verbal or informal promises of future contract selection to any engineering firm — including as recognition for prior speculative or at-risk contributions — recognizing that such promises circumvent competitive qualification-based selection processes, confer unfair advantage on the promised firm, and constitute a breach of the public trust inherent in the procurement authority role.
Verbal Procurement Promise Non-Reliance Constraint
Ethical constraint prohibiting a licensed professional engineer or firm from relying upon, acting in furtherance of, or structuring business expectations around an informal verbal promise of future public contract award made by a public official, establishing that such promises are ethically void and that the engineer must compete for any subsequent public contract through proper competitive or qualification-based selection processes regardless of any prior verbal commitment received.
Verbal Promise in Public Procurement Standard
Professional norms and ethical obligations governing the propriety of verbal commitments or promises made by public officials to award future engineering contracts as recognition or reward for prior services, including the ethical obligations of both the promisee engineer and the promising official in such situations
Voluntary Competitive Abstention Period Ethical Weight Recognition Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that voluntarily refraining from competitive solicitation for a period beyond any legal or contractual requirement — even in the absence of a no-compete agreement — constitutes ethically significant conduct that demonstrates good faith, mitigates the appearance of opportunistic departure, and strengthens the ethical defensibility of subsequent competitive solicitation, and to correctly weigh this voluntary abstention as a factor in the overall ethical assessment of departure conduct.
Voluntary Disability Disclosure Prudential Consequence Weighing Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer with an undisclosed ADA-protected condition to deliberately and systematically weigh the professional, relational, and career consequences of voluntarily disclosing that condition to a current employer — including assessing the risk of employer bias, the potential for career limitation, the self-advocacy benefits articulated in disability support communities, and the distinction between disclosure as an ethical obligation versus disclosure as a personal choice — in order to make an informed, autonomous decision about whether and how to disclose.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a professional engineer or engineer intern to foresee the relational and professional consequences of choosing not to disclose information that, while not ethically compelled, would — if disclosed and accepted by the employer — place the engineer in a significantly stronger professional and relational position in the event of subsequent adverse developments, and to weigh these prudential self-protective considerations alongside the ethical analysis when making disclosure decisions.
Voluntary Membership Competitive Disadvantage Acceptance Obligation
while the Board recognizes the reality that Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country, as noted before, Engineer A has voluntarily chosen to become a member of NSPE and is bound by the Code
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has voluntarily chosen to join a professional society such as NSPE to accept the competitive disadvantages that may result from adherence to the society's ethics code in jurisdictions or markets where competing engineers are not bound by equivalent standards, recognizing that voluntary membership constitutes an informed acceptance of the full scope of ethical obligations — including those that impose competitive costs — and that competitive disadvantage does not constitute a valid defense or exemption from ethics code compliance.
Voluntary Membership Full Code Acceptance Non-Selective Compliance Constraint
Engineer A, while not bound by U.S. law, has made a voluntary and conscious decision to be a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers and thereby adhere to the codes and standards of practice of NSPE
Ethical and regulatory constraint establishing that an engineer who has voluntarily and consciously chosen to become a member of NSPE has thereby accepted the full NSPE Code of Ethics without selective application, geographic carve-outs, or competitive-disadvantage exceptions — prohibiting the engineer from invoking the voluntary nature of membership as a basis for arguing that only portions of the Code apply, or that the Code's requirements should be relaxed where compliance creates competitive disadvantage, as established by the BER's determination that Engineer A's voluntary NSPE membership constitutes unconditional acceptance of the Code's standards.
Voluntary Non-Solicitation Commitment Temporal Compliance Monitoring Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has voluntarily committed to refraining from soliciting a former employer's clients for a defined period to accurately track the duration of that commitment, recognize when the commitment period has elapsed, ensure that solicitation activity does not commence before the voluntary period expires, and understand that the voluntary nature of the commitment — rather than diminishing its binding force — creates an independent ethical obligation of honesty and integrity that must be honored precisely because it was voluntarily undertaken.
Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period Engineer
Engineer A decides to establish his own firm in Clover City without soliciting work from ABC's clients, including Clover City for a period of time
A licensed professional engineer who, upon departing an employer to establish a competing firm, voluntarily refrains from soliciting the former employer's clients for a self-imposed period in the absence of any formal non-compete agreement, bearing obligations of honest dealing with the former employer, fair competition, and avoidance of misuse of confidential client relationships developed during employment.
Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period Ethical Transition Compliance Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who voluntarily commits to refraining from soliciting a former employer's clients for a defined period following departure to honor that voluntary commitment fully and consistently throughout the stated period, recognizing that the voluntary non-solicitation period — while not legally required in the absence of a no-compete agreement — represents an ethical undertaking that, once made, creates a binding professional obligation for its duration.
Voluntary Non-Solicitation Period as Ethical Transition Practice
Professional virtue principle recognizing that an engineer who voluntarily refrains from soliciting a former employer's clients for a reasonable period following departure — even absent a contractual no-compete obligation — demonstrates professional integrity and good faith toward the former employer, and that this voluntary restraint, while not ethically required in the absence of a no-compete agreement, reflects a higher standard of professional conduct that appropriately balances the engineer's competitive rights against the former employer's legitimate interest in an orderly transition of client relationships
Voluntary Professional Ethics Code Aspirational Elevation Principle
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that professional ethics codes — such as the NSPE Code of Ethics — represent a voluntary commitment by the profession to a standard of conduct higher than the legal minimum enforced by state licensure boards, reflecting the profession's self-imposed obligation to 'go the extra mile' in protecting public health and safety beyond what regulation strictly requires.
Voluntary Professional Membership Ethics Acceptance Principle
Fundamental principle establishing that when an engineer voluntarily chooses to join a professional society, that voluntary act constitutes an informed and binding acceptance of the society's full code of ethics — including all obligations that may place the member at a competitive disadvantage relative to non-members — such that the member cannot later invoke competitive hardship, cultural difference, or geographic distance as grounds for non-compliance with membership obligations
Voluntary Professional Society Ethics Obligation Acceptance State
State in which a non-U.S. engineer has voluntarily and consciously chosen to join a professional society (e.g., NSPE) whose code of ethics prohibits conduct that is legal and customary in the engineer's home country, thereby accepting binding ethical obligations that supersede home-country legal permissibility. The voluntary nature of membership is the critical factor: the engineer cannot invoke home-country law as a defense because the ethical obligations were self-assumed through the membership decision.
Voluntary Representation Truthfulness Self-Binding Recognition Capability
While Engineer A was not ethically obligated to make this statement, one must assume that Engineer A intended the statement to be a truthful and honest statement of fact.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize that a voluntary statement made to a former employer about future intentions — even when not legally required and not constituting a formal contractual commitment — creates a self-imposed ethical obligation of truthfulness and honesty, because the statement could materially affect how the former employer treats the departing engineer, and that subsequent conduct contradicting the voluntary statement constitutes a breach of the honesty and integrity standards of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Voluntary Resignation Notice-Period Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Conditional Permissibility Obligation
Obligation of an engineering firm principal to recognize that continued distribution of existing printed brochures listing a voluntarily departing non-key employee during the active notice period (e.g., two weeks) is conditionally permissible — and does not constitute a per se misrepresentation of a pertinent fact — where: (1) the departing engineer is not highlighted as a 'key employee' in the materials; (2) the engineer's area of expertise does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work; and (3) the listing does not create a false impression of the firm's overall qualification profile. The permissibility is conditional on the firm not affirmatively representing the departing engineer as available for future project work and on the firm taking expeditious corrective steps once the engineer has actually departed. This obligation requires a case-by-case materiality assessment rather than application of a categorical prohibition rule.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Obligation of an engineering firm to recognize that the ethical analysis of continued brochure listing of a departed or departing engineer is contextually sensitive to the significance of that engineer's role within the firm: where the departed engineer is not a 'key employee' — in the sense that their departure does not materially alter the firm's overall qualifications or capacity in the relevant practice area — continued listing may not constitute an overt misrepresentation of a pertinent fact, provided the listing does not create a false impression of the firm's expertise level. This obligation requires firms to assess the materiality of each named individual's departure to the firm's overall qualification profile before determining whether continued listing constitutes a misrepresentation.
Voluntary Self-Imposed Solicitation Moratorium State
State in which a departing engineer, in the absence of any contractual non-compete obligation, voluntarily refrains from soliciting a former employer's clients for a self-determined period of time as an ethical gesture — creating a temporary ethical constraint that the engineer has self-imposed, after which the engineer considers themselves free to compete for those clients.
Voluntary Solicitation Moratorium Self-Binding Ethical Compliance Constraint
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who voluntarily commits — without contractual compulsion — to refraining from soliciting a former employer's clients for a defined period after departure is ethically bound by that voluntary commitment as a matter of professional honor and non-deception, prohibiting the engineer from treating the absence of a formal written non-compete agreement as a basis for disregarding the voluntary moratorium before its natural expiration, and establishing that voluntary professional representations made to manage the transition from employment to independent practice carry binding ethical force equivalent to explicit contractual commitments, as derived from NSPE Code non-deception and professional honor provisions.
Volunteer Standards Committee Chair Forensic Expert
Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer serves as a volunteer chair of a technical standards-setting committee within a professional or technical society and is simultaneously retained as a private forensic expert witness in litigation involving the subject matter of those standards, bearing obligations to fully disclose the committee chair role to retaining legal counsel, disclose the opposing expert's role as a subcommittee member within the same committee, avoid ex parte communications with the opposing expert about pending litigation, and exercise independent professional judgment in rendering expert opinions separate from the committee role.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineer who chairs a technical standards-setting committee within an engineering society and is simultaneously retained as a forensic expert witness in litigation involving the subject matter of those standards, bearing obligations to fully disclose the committee chair role to retaining counsel, disclose the opposing expert's role as a subcommittee member, and avoid ex parte communications with the opposing expert about pending litigation.
Volunteer Standards Committee Role Expert Witness Dual Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves as a volunteer chair of a technical standards-setting committee and has been retained as a forensic expert witness in litigation to disclose to retaining counsel: (1) the engineer's own role as committee chair, and (2) the opposing expert's membership in a subcommittee within that same committee structure, so that retaining counsel can assess potential conflicts, manage the litigation relationship appropriately, and make informed decisions about the engagement — distinguishing this volunteer standards role from a governmental or commercial dual-role conflict, where the volunteer role does not per se bar forensic service but does require full disclosure.
Volunteer Standards Committee Role Non-Preclusion of Expert Witness Service Constraint
In the present case, Engineer A is serving as a volunteer to a technical society standards-setting committee to develop fact-based objective technical codes and standards for the benefit of the public.
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer's volunteer service as chair or member of a technical standards-setting committee does not per se preclude the engineer from serving as a forensic expert witness in litigation — provided that the engineer fully discloses the committee relationship to the retaining attorney, exercises independent professional judgment in rendering expert opinions, and refrains from engaging in litigation-related communications with fellow committee members without direction from legal counsel — prohibiting the inference that volunteer committee leadership automatically creates a disqualifying conflict of interest absent other direct business or professional relationships with the opposing expert.
Volunteer Standards Role Expert Witness Conflict Assessment State
State in which a licensed professional engineer serving in a volunteer leadership role on a technical standards-setting committee within a professional or technical society is simultaneously retained as a forensic expert witness or technical consultant in litigation or adversarial proceedings involving subject matter within the scope of that committee's standards — requiring assessment of whether the volunteer role creates a conflict of interest with the expert witness role, and triggering disclosure obligations to retaining counsel and constraints on direct communication with opposing experts who are also committee members.
Volunteer Standards Role Forensic Expert Conflict Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who serves as a volunteer on a technical standards-setting committee to assess whether accepting a forensic expert witness engagement — in litigation involving subject matter within the committee's scope — creates an impermissible conflict of interest, distinguishing between cases where the volunteer role creates a genuine organizational or professional conflict versus cases where the engineer's independent technical expertise can be exercised without conflict, and correctly determining that volunteer service does not per se preclude forensic expert service absent other direct business or professional relationships.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Capability of a licensed professional engineer who serves in a leadership or membership role on a technical standards-setting committee within an engineering society to recognize when acceptance of an expert witness engagement in litigation involving subject matter within the committee's scope creates a dual role conflict — particularly when a peer committee member serves as the opposing expert — and to proactively disclose both the committee leadership role and the peer's committee membership to the retaining attorney before or at the time of engagement.
Volunteer Standards Role Forensic Expert Conflict Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and procedural constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who serves as a volunteer chair or member of a technical standards-setting committee and is simultaneously retained as a forensic expert witness in litigation involving a fellow committee member serving as the opposing expert must fully disclose to the retaining attorney: (1) the engineer's own leadership role on the shared committee, and (2) the opposing expert's membership on a subcommittee within that same committee — prohibiting acceptance of the expert witness engagement without such disclosure, and establishing that the volunteer nature of the committee role does not diminish the disclosure obligation, as established by BER Case 19-3 and the principle that dual-role relationships between opposing experts must be transparently disclosed to enable informed assessment of potential conflicts.
Volunteer Standards Role Independence Preservation in Forensic Engagements
Professional virtue principle recognizing that an engineer's volunteer service on a technical standards-setting committee does not per se create a conflict of interest that bars the engineer from serving as a forensic expert in cases involving those standards, provided the engineer exercises independent professional judgment in the forensic role that is informed — but not controlled — by committee experience, and provided all relevant committee roles and relationships are disclosed to retaining counsel
Volunteer Standards Role Non-Preclusion of Forensic Expert Service Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who serves as a volunteer on a technical standards-setting committee — and of ethics reviewing bodies evaluating such service — to recognize that volunteer standards committee service does not per se create a conflict of interest barring forensic expert witness service, provided: (1) the engineer offers opinions as an independent technical expert informed by but not subordinated to the committee role, (2) there is no direct business or professional relationship beyond the committee supervisory relationship, (3) full disclosure is made to retaining counsel, and (4) the engineer exercises independent judgment and discretion in rendering opinions — distinguishing volunteer public-benefit standards service from governmental employment or commercial dual-role conflicts.
Vulnerable Population Consideration in Grid Reliability Engineering
It is not difficult to imagine, for example, the stress placed upon elderly or confined individuals as well as those with medical conditions if they are left without a comfortable environment during an extreme weather event such as California and Texas recently experienced - and which led to rolling blackouts.
Domain-specific principle requiring engineers who evaluate energy system design alternatives — particularly decisions affecting grid reliability — to explicitly consider and disclose the foreseeable impact of reduced reliability on vulnerable populations, including elderly persons, individuals with medical conditions, and confined individuals, who face disproportionate harm from grid failures such as rolling blackouts during extreme weather events
Vulnerable Population Energy Reliability Impact Assessment Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer evaluating an energy system replacement proposal to identify, analyze, and communicate the specific foreseeable impacts of reduced energy reliability — including increased probability of rolling blackouts — on vulnerable populations such as elderly individuals, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions who depend on stable energy supply for health and safety, and to incorporate this population-specific impact analysis into advisory reports to decision-makers.
Vulnerable Population Extreme Weather Energy Reliability Disclosure Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified that a proposed energy system replacement may increase the probability of rolling blackouts during extreme weather events must explicitly disclose in any advisory report the foreseeable impact of those blackouts on vulnerable populations — including elderly individuals, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions dependent on continuous electricity — prohibiting the omission of vulnerable population impact on the grounds that the risk is contingent on extreme weather or that the harm is speculative, and establishing that the engineer's obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare paramount requires explicit identification of disproportionate harm to vulnerable groups.
Vulnerable Population Grid Reliability Impact Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer preparing an advisory report on an energy system replacement proposal to explicitly identify and disclose the foreseeable impact of reduced grid reliability — including increased probability of rolling blackouts — on vulnerable populations such as elderly individuals, confined individuals, and those with medical conditions who depend on continuous electric supply for health and safety, so that decision-makers can weigh those human welfare consequences in their policy determination.
Wastewater Overflow Environmental River Contamination Risk Assessment Capability
It becomes obvious to those involved that if waste water from the ponds containing the domestic waste is not released to the local river, the ponds will over flow the levees and dump all waste into the river
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to assess the environmental risk posed by an imminent wastewater overflow event — including evaluating the volume and composition of domestic and industrial waste in disposal ponds, the hydraulic consequences of levee overtopping, the contamination impact on receiving waterways (rivers and streams), and the public health implications of untreated waste discharge — and to communicate this risk assessment with sufficient technical specificity to support mandatory regulatory reporting and emergency response decisions.
advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water
State or regional regulatory framework governing the permitting process for industrial discharge of manufacturing wastes into receiving bodies of water, including minimum water quality standards that must be maintained post-discharge
Water Pollution Reporting Obligation Standard
State legal requirements mandating that engineers or responsible parties report conditions of actual or imminent water pollution — including overflow of waste ponds into rivers or streams — to the designated state water pollution control authority, establishing the threshold conditions that trigger mandatory reporting and the identity of the responsible reporting party.
reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates
A community stakeholder role representing members of the public who are served by a municipal water utility, bearing interests in both affordable water rates and safe drinking water quality, and who may be directly harmed by decisions to change water supply sources without adequate treatment safeguards — particularly regarding lead contamination from aging service pipes.
Water Resource Infrastructure Multi-Criteria Engineering Analysis Capability
A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and production of electric power
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to conduct and present comprehensive multi-criteria engineering analysis of large water resource infrastructure alternatives — such as comparing a series of low dams versus a single high dam — evaluating dimensions including engineering efficiency, economic cost, flood control effectiveness, water supply adequacy, electric power production, environmental impact, and constructability, and synthesizing these criteria into a defensible professional recommendation that can withstand legislative and public scrutiny.
Water Rights Adjudication Legal Framework
The legal and procedural framework governing water-rights analysis and court adjudication processes, including application, engineering support, public objection, rebuttal, mediation, and trial stages, which must be approved by local courts and which create professional obligations for engineers who stamp supporting documents
A licensed professional engineering role responsible for performing and stamping water-rights analyses that quantify water resources and establish terms and conditions for future use, subject to judicial approval through a multi-step court process involving public objections, rebuttals, and mediation or trial.
Water Rights Engineering Technical Competence
Domain-specific technical competence to perform water-rights analyses, including quantifying water resources, formulating terms and conditions for future water use, and producing technical reports suitable for submission in court proceedings — encompassing knowledge of the multi-step water rights adjudication process (application, engineering support, objections, rebuttal, mediation/trial) and the technical standards applicable to such analyses.
Water Source Transition Public Health Risk Communication Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer serving a public water utility to communicate the full scope of public health risks associated with a proposed water source transition — including lead contamination pathways, corrosion chemistry, timeline dependencies, and consequences of proceeding without adequate pre-conditions — to a public authority decision-making body in a manner that is technically accurate, complete, and accessible to non-engineer decision-makers.
Water Supply Contamination Reporting Public Engineer
Engineer A has an obligation to report the matter to her employer
A licensed professional engineering role held by a city engineer or director of public works who discovers conditions posing a risk of contamination to the public water supply, bears a paramount obligation to report such conditions first to internal supervisors and elected officials, and — when those channels are systematically ignored or blocked — bears an ethical obligation (not merely a right) to escalate to state or other external regulatory authorities, withdraw from further service on the project, and refuse to allow her professional authority to be circumvented by non-engineer administrators, with inaction rendering the engineer an accessory to ongoing legal violations endangering public health.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role serving as a city engineer or director of public works who discovers ongoing regulatory violations (such as unreported sewage overflow capacity problems) within their jurisdiction, attempts internal reporting to supervisors and city council members, and bears an obligation to escalate to state or other external authorities when internal channels are systematically blocked or ignored — with failure to escalate making the engineer an accessory to the ongoing violation.
A community stakeholder role borne by members of the public who rely on a municipal water supply for drinking and sanitation, whose health and safety are directly endangered by conditions of water supply contamination, and whose welfare constitutes the paramount public interest that overrides competing institutional and employment loyalties of the responsible engineer.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A local municipality stakeholder role whose water utility infrastructure is affected by a state DOT highway reconstruction project, bearing a financial interest in the cost allocation of water main replacement or upgrade work, and whose financial constraints create the context in which improper design manipulation may be contemplated to shift costs from the municipality to the state DOT project budget contrary to agency policy.
Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source
A consulting professional engineering role retained by a public water utility to evaluate water treatment requirements associated with a proposed change in water supply source, bearing obligations to provide technically sound, complete, and timely recommendations regarding capital investments, treatment improvements, and timelines needed to protect public health — particularly regarding corrosion control and drinking water safety standards.
Water Treatment Facility Design Engineer
Engineer A is assigned work on the design of the water treatment facility
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer is assigned to design a public water treatment facility for a municipal client, bearing obligations of technical competence, public safety, faithful agency to the employer and client, and avoidance of conduct that confers unfair competitive advantage on prospective construction bidders during the design phase.
Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC)
A senior licensed professional engineering role serving as superintendent and chief engineer of a public water utility, bearing authority over technical operations and engineering recommendations, with obligations to advise the governing authority on public health and safety risks associated with changes to water supply infrastructure, and to advocate for adequate safeguards before operational changes are implemented.
Technical capability to design stormwater management systems that adequately protect surface water watersheds and drinking water sources, incorporating protective measures, environmental compliance requirements, and risk mitigation strategies
Duty of a stormwater design engineer to ensure that engineered systems adequately protect surface water watersheds used as public drinking water sources, including accounting for cumulative and future risk increases from development-induced stormwater flows.
Wave Equation Analysis Application Capability
Technical capability of a licensed professional engineer to apply accepted wave equation calculation methods to pile driving records — including blow count data and penetration depth records — to evaluate pile load-carrying capacity, and to recognize when wave equation analysis of available pile driving records would yield materially different capacity conclusions than skin friction area calculations alone, including the ability to identify when piles driven to essential refusal would indicate strength multiples over calculated load requirements.
applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements
A structured technical methodology for analyzing pile driving resistance and load-bearing capacity using wave equation calculations, used to evaluate whether driven piles meet design strength requirements based on blow count records and soil mechanics principles
Weight Limit Violation on Open Structurally Restricted Infrastructure State
State in which infrastructure has been reopened with an official weight restriction but vehicles exceeding that restriction are actively and regularly using the structure, with no enforcement occurring, creating compounded structural risk beyond what the remediation was designed to address.
Weight Limit Violation on Structurally Restricted Infrastructure State
State in which vehicles exceeding the posted or engineering-mandated weight limit are observed crossing infrastructure that has been conditionally reopened with explicit load restrictions, indicating that the safety conditions of reopening are not being enforced.
Wetland Delineation Environmental Engineer
Engineer A, an environmental engineer, performed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer performs wetland delineation services for a client and subsequently discovers that the client has illegally filled or altered the delineated wetlands without required permits, bearing obligations to confront the client about the violation, advise on remediation and compliance with applicable environmental laws, and report the violation to appropriate authorities if the client fails to take corrective action.
Wetland Delineation Professional Practice Standard
Engineer A performs wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
Professional norms, technical methodologies, and regulatory guidance governing the conduct of wetland delineation services by environmental engineers, including the scope of post-engagement obligations when an engineer discovers that a former client has violated wetland regulations on a site the engineer previously assessed.
Wetland Fill Permit Regulatory Compliance Constraint
Legal and regulatory constraint arising from federal statutes (including Clean Water Act Section 404) and state wetland protection laws establishing that the placement of fill material in jurisdictionally delineated wetlands without required permits, variances, or permissions constitutes a substantial violation of law — constraining all parties, including engineers with knowledge of such violations, from facilitating, ignoring, or remaining silent about unpermitted wetland fill activity, and establishing the legal baseline against which the engineer's professional reporting obligations are measured.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Constraint arising from local, state, or regional environmental statutes and regulations requiring that engineering designs and project execution include measures to safeguard public water sources and natural watersheds, binding both the engineer and the client regardless of budget preferences.
Wetland Fill Permit Regulatory Framework
Federal and state laws, regulations, and permitting requirements governing the placement of fill material in wetlands, including Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and analogous state statutes, establishing the legal obligations of property owners and the professional duties of environmental engineers who discover unpermitted wetland fill activities.
Wetland Fill Remediation Technical Assessment Capability
Technical capability of a licensed environmental engineer to assess the remediation requirements for unauthorized wetland fill — including evaluating the extent of fill material, identifying applicable restoration standards, understanding the regulatory process for obtaining after-the-fact permits or variances, and formulating technically sound remediation direction that would bring the client into compliance with federal and state environmental laws — sufficient to provide actionable remediation guidance to a client who has committed an unauthorized fill violation.
Wetland Regulatory Framework Knowledge Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — particularly an environmental engineer — to understand, retrieve, and apply the federal and state regulatory framework governing wetland protection, including the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit requirements, state wetland protection statutes, and the conditions under which fill material installation constitutes a substantial violation of law, sufficient to recognize an unauthorized wetland fill as a legal violation and to identify the applicable regulatory authorities.
the facts in the present case indicate a violation of the federal and state laws and regulations
A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer performing services for a client discovers that the client has violated federal and state environmental laws and regulations relating to wetland mitigation, bearing obligations to confront the client directly about the violations, monitor remediation efforts, and report to appropriate authorities if the client fails to take adequate corrective action.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] A licensed professional engineering role in which an engineer performs wetland delineation services for a client and subsequently discovers that the client has illegally filled or altered the delineated wetlands without required permits, bearing obligations to confront the client about the violation, advise on remediation and compliance with applicable environmental laws, and report the violation to appropriate authorities if the client fails to take corrective action.
When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection Capability
In the seventies, the Board of Ethical Review noted that the so-called 'When in Rome...' rule, whereby engineers could engage in the legal and ethical practices of the host country was not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics (see BER Case 76-6).
Capability of a licensed professional engineer — including an NSPE International Member practicing outside the United States — to recognize and reject the 'When in Rome' reasoning pattern, which holds that engineers may engage in the legal and ethical practices of the host country even when those practices violate NSPE Code of Ethics provisions. This capability includes the ability to identify when situational ethics reasoning is being applied to justify conduct that would be impermissible under NSPE standards, and to correctly conclude that professional ethics obligations are not situationally variable based on geographic location, host-country custom, or local legal permissibility.
if an engineer feels strongly that an employer's course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment
State in which a professional engineer who believes an employer's course of conduct is improper on public-interest grounds faces a personal conscience decision about whether to escalate or publicly disclose — with the recognized consequence that doing so may result in loss of employment — such that the ethical duty or right to act becomes a matter of personal conscience rather than a mandatory professional obligation, absent a direct danger to public health or safety.
Whistleblower Employment Loss Acceptance Mandatory Cost Constraint
the engineer who makes the decision to 'blow the whistle' will in many instances be faced with the loss of employment
Ethical constraint establishing that a licensed professional engineer who determines that public safety, health, and welfare are endangered must accept the potential loss of employment as a mandatory cost of fulfilling the obligation to report to proper authorities and withdraw from the project — prohibiting the engineer from treating the prospect of employment loss as a sufficient justification for failing to fulfill mandatory safety reporting obligations, and establishing that the Code's requirements in matters of public safety supersede employment self-preservation.
Whistleblower Non-Constraint Acknowledgment Obligation
Duty of the engineering profession, ethics bodies, and engineering employers to recognize and affirm that no professional ethics provision, employer loyalty obligation, or faithful agent duty should be construed as a constraint on an engineer functioning as a whistleblower when public health and safety is at risk — including when the engineer has already discharged formal professional reporting obligations — so that engineers are not deterred from whistleblowing by misapplication of collegial or employer loyalty norms.
Whistleblower Non-Public-Safety Personal Conscience Right Acknowledgment Obligation
the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
Duty of professional ethics bodies and individual engineers to recognize that when an engineer's concern involves unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds — rather than a direct danger to public health or safety — the engineer does not bear a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy after employer rejection or to escalate to external authorities, but retains an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience, and that exercising this right may carry personal professional consequences (including loss of employment) that the engineer must be prepared to accept.
Professional norms, ethical provisions, and legal protections governing engineers who disclose public health and safety risks beyond formal reporting channels, including the distinction between professional obligations and personal citizen actions, and the conditions under which whistleblowing is ethically permissible or encouraged
Whistleblowing Employment Price Personal Acceptance Capability
We recognized in that case that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
Capability of a licensed professional engineer to recognize and accept that choosing to blow the whistle on an employer's improper course of conduct related to public concerns — particularly where the concern does not rise to the level of a mandatory public safety duty — may require the engineer to pay the personal price of loss of employment, and to make that choice knowingly and with full awareness of the personal consequences, understanding that the ethics code permits but does not compel such action in non-safety public interest contexts.
Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Non-Mandatory Duty Recognition Obligation
the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to a proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
Duty of professional ethics bodies and the engineering profession to recognize that when an engineer's safety or public welfare concern does not rise to the level of a direct danger to public health and safety — such as a claim of unsatisfactory plans or unjustified expenditure of public funds — the engineer does not have a mandatory ethical obligation to continue internal advocacy campaigns or to report concerns to external authorities after the employer has rejected the engineer's reports, and that any such continued action is a matter of personal conscience and ethical right rather than professional duty, so that engineers are not unjustly censured for declining to continue advocacy beyond the point of employer rejection.
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Duty of a licensed professional engineer — and of the profession collectively — to recognize that clear, complete, and technically unambiguous notification of public health and safety risks to appropriate authorities constitutes full discharge of the engineer's formal professional ethical obligations, and that any subsequent advocacy steps beyond that threshold are a matter of personal choice rather than professional requirement, so that engineers are not held to an unlimited escalation duty that would extend professional obligations indefinitely beyond the formal reporting threshold.
Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination Capability
the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to a proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience
Capability of a licensed professional engineer and ethics reviewing bodies to correctly distinguish between situations in which an engineer has an ethical right to escalate concerns — including whistleblowing on employer misconduct related to public concerns — as a matter of personal conscience, versus situations in which a mandatory ethical duty to escalate exists, recognizing that the absence of a mandatory duty does not eliminate the permissibility of voluntary escalation, and that the engineer may exercise the right to escalate at personal cost (including potential loss of employment) without that right constituting a professional obligation.
Whistleblowing as Personal Conscience Right Without Mandatory Duty Principle
In BER Case No. 82-5 , where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to report his concerns to a proper authority, but had an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer's safety or public welfare concern does not rise to the level of a clear danger to public health or safety — but instead involves claims of improper conduct, unjustified expenditure of public funds, or unsatisfactory plans — the engineer's ethical right to continue internal advocacy or to 'blow the whistle' publicly becomes a matter of personal conscience rather than a mandatory professional obligation, such that the ethics code does not impose a blanket duty to continue a campaign within the organization or to make the issue one for public discussion, while preserving the engineer's right to do so.
[Case 175] Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer's safety or public welfare concern does not rise to the level of a clear and imminent danger — or when the engineer has already discharged the mandatory obligation by refusing to participate and formally reporting internally — further external public advocacy becomes a matter of personal conscience rather than a mandatory professional obligation.
[Case 79] Professional virtue principle establishing that when an engineer's safety or public welfare concern does not rise to the level of a clear danger to public health or safety — but instead involves claims of improper conduct, unjustified expenditure of public funds, or unsatisfactory plans — the engineer's ethical right to continue internal advocacy or to 'blow the whistle' publicly becomes a matter of personal conscience rather than a mandatory professional obligation
Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard in Engineering Employment
while it may have appeared that the employer was seeking information related to Engineer F's practice of engineering, it should have been equally clear to Engineer F that the employer's questions sought to elicit information concerning Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer
Fundamental ethical principle establishing that when an engineer seeks employment, the employer's questions about disciplinary history and professional conduct must be interpreted by the engineer not merely in their literal technical scope but as inquiries into the engineer's overall character, integrity, and credibility as a professional — such that an engineer who provides a technically accurate but contextually incomplete answer that conceals material character-relevant information violates the ethical standard of honesty and candor, even if no literal falsehood is uttered
Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation State
State in which the ethical evaluation of a professional engineer's conduct must extend beyond the specific practice of engineering to encompass the engineer's personal conduct, character, and integrity across all professional domains — activated when the engineer has engaged in conduct outside the strict practice of engineering (such as contractor license fraud) that nonetheless reflects on the engineer's honesty, integrity, and fitness as a professional, and where the NSPE Code's purpose of maintaining public confidence in professional integrity requires that such conduct be subject to ethical scrutiny regardless of its domain.
Whose Interests Are Being Served Self-Assessment Constraint
it is appropriate to ask, 'Whose interests is the engineer (Engineer W) serving? Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer's own interests?
Ethical constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who is directing design decisions or professional actions that deviate from employer policy must affirmatively self-assess whose interests are being served by those decisions — including whether the engineer is serving the employer's interests, the public's interests, a third-party beneficiary's interests, or the engineer's own interests — and must refrain from proceeding with policy-deviating conduct when that self-assessment reveals that the engineer is placing a third party's interests above the employer's interests in violation of the faithful agent obligation, as established by the present BER case analysis drawing on BER Case 05-5.
Winding-Down Firm Staff Engineer Seeking Independent Project Completion
In Case No. 79-10, the Board determined that an engineer employed by a firm that was winding down its operations, who sought to offer his services to complete projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of the principal of his employing firm, was ethical.
A licensed professional engineer employed by a firm that is winding down its operations who seeks to offer services to complete ongoing projects under their own responsibility and risk, without the concurrence of the employing firm's principal, bearing obligations of honest dealing and avoidance of misappropriation of firm client relationships.
Withdrawn Competitor Interest Accurate Status Disclosure Obligation
Duty of a licensed professional engineer acting as a negotiator in a professional business transaction to accurately represent the current status of any third party's interest in the subject of negotiation — specifically, to refrain from characterizing a definitively withdrawn interest as active or ongoing — so that the counterparty is not pressured into decisions based on a false competitive landscape. This obligation is violated when an engineer references a party's past interest as though it remains present and active, knowing that the party has conclusively decided not to proceed.
Withdrawn Competitor Status Accurate Disclosure Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer acting as a negotiator in a professional business transaction to accurately represent the current status of third-party competitors or prospective buyers — specifically, to recognize when a competitor or other party has definitively withdrawn from consideration and to disclose that withdrawal accurately rather than allowing a prior expression of interest to create a false impression of ongoing competitive pressure, in fulfillment of professional obligations of full disclosure and non-deception in business negotiations.
Withdrawn Engineering Acquisition Prospect
A licensed professional engineer or engineering firm principal who initially expressed interest in acquiring an engineering firm or subsidiary but subsequently and definitively decided not to pursue the acquisition, whose prior interest is nonetheless misrepresented by the seller to manufacture false competitive pressure on the active prospective buyer.
Workable Corrective Design Implementation Constraint
Ethical, regulatory, and public safety constraint requiring that when a licensed professional engineer's design is confirmed to have caused regulatory non-compliance and resulting harm, the engineer and responsible firm must not merely acknowledge the error but must proceed to identify, design, and implement a workable corrective solution that brings the project into compliance and protects affected citizens — prohibiting acknowledgment of error without follow-through to corrective design completion, and establishing that the professional obligation extends through remediation to actual compliance restoration.
Worksite Hazard Requiring Pre-Design Corrective Action State
State in which a professional engineer, prior to completing design and assembly of inspection or construction infrastructure (such as scaffolding), has identified an active safety hazard at the planned worksite — specifically, illegal commercial vehicle traffic on a restricted roadway — that must be addressed through notification and corrective action before design work proceeds, because the hazard creates foreseeable risk to inspection and construction employees and the public that cannot be adequately managed through design alone.
Written Communication Follow-Up After Verbal Safety Notification Capability
Engineer A should have made a written record of his communication with the owner and town supervisor and follow the verbal communication up with a written confirmation to the town supervisor, restating his concerns
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has verbally notified a public official or property owner of a structural safety concern to recognize that verbal notification alone is insufficient to discharge the professional obligation, and to follow up with written confirmation restating the concerns, creating a documented record of all communications, and establishing a basis for further escalation if the verbal notification does not result in adequate corrective action within a reasonable period.
Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who communicate safety concerns to clients, property owners, public officials, or regulatory authorities to document those communications in writing — including following up verbal communications with written confirmation — so as to create a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied, and that preserves the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation.
[Case 132] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who communicate safety concerns to clients, property owners, or regulatory authorities to document those communications in writing — including following up verbal communications with written confirmation — so as to create a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record.
[Case 132] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who communicate safety concerns to clients, property owners, public officials, or regulatory authorities to document those communications in writing — including following up verbal communications with written confirmation — so as to create a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied, and that preserves the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation
[Case 137] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who communicate safety concerns to clients, property owners, public officials, or regulatory authorities to document those communications in writing — so as to create a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied, and that preserves the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation.
[Case 137] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who communicate safety concerns to clients, public officials, or regulatory authorities to document those communications in writing to create a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied.
[Case 140] Professional virtue principle requiring engineers who communicate safety concerns to clients, supervisors, public officials, or regulatory authorities to document those communications in writing — including following up verbal communications with written confirmation — so as to create a clear, unambiguous, and actionable record that cannot be misunderstood, ignored, or denied, and that preserves the engineer's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation
Engineer A should again contact the town supervisor in writing and indicate that if steps are not taken within a specific period of time to adequately address the situation, Engineer A will be required to bring the matter to the attention of county or state building officials, as appropriate
State in which a professional engineer, having already provided written safety notification to a governmental authority without adequate response within a reasonable period, is obligated to issue a formal written ultimatum specifying a defined timeframe within which corrective action must be taken — and explicitly stating that failure to act within that timeframe will compel the engineer to escalate the matter to higher or alternative authorities (e.g., county or state building officials). This state represents an intermediate escalation step between initial written notification and full multi-authority reporting.
Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
Constraint requiring that engineers include all relevant and pertinent factual information — including identified risks and threats — in written reports submitted to public authorities, prohibiting selective omission of known facts even when verbally communicated to the client.
Written Report Completeness Obligation to Public Regulatory Authority
Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare written reports that will be submitted to a public authority for regulatory decision-making to ensure that all material technical and environmental findings — including findings that may be adverse to the client's development interests — are included in the written report, and prohibiting the practice of verbally disclosing material findings to the client while omitting those findings from the written submission to the regulatory body, on the grounds that the public authority's decision-making function depends on the completeness and accuracy of the written record before it
[proethica-intermediate-extended] Professional principle requiring engineers who prepare written reports or analyses that will be submitted to a public authority for regulatory decision-making to include all relevant and pertinent information — including information that may be adverse to the client's interests — so that the public authority can exercise genuinely informed judgment, recognizing that the engineer's duty of objectivity and truthfulness to the public decision-making process supersedes the client's preference to suppress unfavorable findings
Written Safety Notification Recipient Municipal Supervisor
prudent action would involve Engineer A notifying in writing the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction.
A town supervisor or equivalent senior municipal official who is the designated recipient of written safety notifications from a licensed engineer regarding a structural hazard within the jurisdiction, bears authority to direct corrective action, and whose inaction within a reasonable period triggers the engineer's obligation to escalate the matter to county or state building officials.
Written Safety Notification Third-Party Owner Constraint
Engineer A should also have notified the new owner in writing about the perceived deficiency.
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency affecting a property owner who was not the engineer's original client — including subsequent purchasers of property containing structures the engineer designed or evaluated — must notify that property owner in writing about the perceived deficiency, prohibiting reliance on verbal notification to governmental authorities alone as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation when the property owner is directly at risk.
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Building Owners Constraint
Ethical and professional constraint requiring that a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural safety deficiency affecting building owners must notify those owners in writing about the structural deficiency — in addition to any verbal recommendation — prohibiting reliance on verbal-only notification to building owners as a complete discharge of the safety notification obligation when the safety risk is of sufficient severity to warrant a documented record.
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
Capability of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural or safety deficiency affecting a property owner or third party — particularly one who may be unaware of the risk — to recognize the professional obligation to notify that third party directly and in writing, beyond any verbal notifications already provided to governmental authorities, ensuring that the at-risk party has documented, actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures.
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Obligation
the Board concluded that while Engineer A had acted ethically by taking prudent action in notifying the town supervisor, the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction, Engineer A should also have notified the new owner in writing about the perceived deficiency.
Duty of a licensed professional engineer who has identified a structural or safety deficiency affecting a property owner or other third party — particularly a new owner who was not party to the original design — to notify that third party in writing about the perceived deficiency, in addition to any verbal notification given to public officials, so that the affected party has a documented record of the risk and can take informed protective action.
Wrong-Office Delivery Non-Acceptance Constraint
all submittals must be received by the city in the city clerk's office no later than 10:00 am on January 30
Procedural and ethical constraint establishing that a public agency engineer administering a competitive procurement process must not accept or treat as validly submitted a Statement of Qualifications or other procurement document delivered to a city office other than the designated submission location — even when the envelope is addressed to the evaluating engineer by name — prohibiting the routing of misdirected submissions into the evaluation process and establishing that delivery to the wrong office is an independent disqualifying defect separate from and cumulative with any deadline violation.