It was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C.

The obligation of the engineer to be honest and truthful and to avoid acts that might be viewed as misleading and deceptive is clearly stated in various sections of the NSPE Code of Ethics (See NSPE Code Sections II.3.a., II.4.a, II.5.a. and III.3.a.). These include the obligations to be truthful in public statements, act as a faithful agent and trustee in dealings with clients, not falsify or misrepresent their professional qualifications, and avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact. 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. For example, in Case No. 83-1, Engineer A worked for Engineer B. Engineer B notified Engineer A that Engineer B was going to terminate Engineer A because of lack of work. Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the termination notice. During that period, 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. 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. 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. 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. Another way to characterize pertinent facts is as those that are "relevant and highly significant." We determined whether (1) Engineer B in fact misrepresented "pertine...

Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility. Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule.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. Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question. Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B’s attention.

Was it unethical for Engineer A to not report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C?