Situation 1. Engineer A’s actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.Situation 2. Engineer A’s actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.Situation 3. Engineer A’s actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.Situation 4. Engineer A’s actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics

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. Opinions have ranged from classified advertising to the use of the Engineers' Creed in political advertisements, to calendars and pencils, to direct mail solicitation, and more. In fact, the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations. Clearly, the subject of advertising has been among the most examined ethical issues considered by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. It is also appropriate to observe that opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time. As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations. In particular, BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective. This Board believes that contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics. First, a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive. Second, such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice. In both cases, the engineer’s obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code, consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession. Other observations also have a direct bearing on the ethics of advertising relative to the use of business cards. With respect to regulation of the practice of engineering, this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state. Further, some states have regu...

Situation 1. Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D. 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.Situation 2. Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D. Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E. The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A’s mailing address, etc. in State E.Situation 3. 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. Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B. Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.Situation 4. 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. Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C. Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.

Were Engineer A’s actions ethical in situations (1), (2), (3), and (4)?