It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described.It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as a expert witness under the circumstances.

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. This Board has examined situations involving a professional engineer working in both the public and the private sector during the same period of time. For example, in the early BER Case No. 67-1, 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, recommended approval of his plans to the county planning board. As a member of the county planning board, he later voted to approve these plans. In finding that Doe’s actions were unethical, the Board found it abundantly clear that Doe's operations were in direct conflict with the NSPE Code of Ethics. In his capacity as an engineer in private practice, Doe had prepared plans for approval by a governmental body on which he served as a member. Said the Board, “(Doe) would be in violation of NSPE Code 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.”  Thirty-five years later in BER Case No. 02-8, Engineer A served as a traffic engineer for the State Department of Transportation. Engineer A reviewed private engineering firm contracts and traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates submitted from outside entities (developers, municipalities, etc.) for traffic signal work performed on the state highway system. Prior to Engineer A’s employment with the State DOT’s traffic engineering division, Engineer A performed airport design through a consulting ...

Engineer A serves on the State X Environmental Quality Council. The State Y Environmental Quality Council conducts a hearing on proposed rules for coal bed methane discharge permits. Engineer A was retained to testify by a coal bed methane company. In State Y, Engineer A began his testimony by stating that he was a licensed professional engineer only in State X. Engineer A then stated that he is employed by the U.S. Department of Energy, working in the coal bed methane arena. Engineer A’s PowerPoint presentation listed his job title with the U.S. DOE.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. 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.”Later, a newspaper article on the hearing reports that a “U.S. DOE researcher” testified at the hearing, and information is later revealed that Engineer A’s attendance at the hearing was paid for by the coal bed methane company through his consulting business.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described?Was it ethical for Engineer A to serve as a expert witness under the circumstances?