It was ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C. It was not ethical for Engineer A to make representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, that 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. As an observation, the Board believes it was unethical for Engineer A to make misleading statements about Engineer C’s future plans.

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. 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. These cases are often not easily resolved because the two competing considerations are generally viewed as important positive values that should be encouraged for the benefit of the public as well as the engineering profession as a whole. As examples of earlier Board review of these important considerations, in Case No. 86-5, a city requested proposals from various consulting engineers for a major job that was planned. Engineer A, a principal in a large engineering firm in the city decided to have his firm submit a proposal. Engineer A asked three engineers on his staff, Engineers X, Y, and Z, to develop the proposal for the firm. Engineers X,Y, and Z developed the proposal which was ultimately submitted to the city. Soon thereafter, the city learned that Engineers X, Y, and Z were the engineers who actually developed the proposal for the firm and 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. Engineers X, Y, and Z disclosed the facts to Engineer A, resigned from the firm, and entered into negotiations with the city. The Board concluded that, according to a strict interpretation of the Code, it would be ethical for Engineers X, Y, and Z to agree to a contract for consulting services independent of Engineer A’s firm. In reaching its conclusion in Case No. 86-5, the Board reviewed two earlier BER cases, Nos. 77-11 and 79-10. In Case No. 77...

Engineer A, a professional engineer working for a small private practice firm, leaves the employment of Firm X. 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.A month after Engineer A departs from Firm X, 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.Soon thereafter, Engineer B learns that 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.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C? Was it ethical for Engineer A to make representations to Firm X’s clients 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 the clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services?