Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 22-8 (2022) · Independence of Peer Reviewer

Case Precedents
How this case resolved it

No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.

Resolved without defeat

The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.

dissolution
Analytical conclusion 3: Q201: Engineer B's obligation to notify Engineer A does n...
Given that Engineer B declined only the covert condition and remained willing to serve Owner once Engineer A was notified, the Board concluded that faithful agency and the notification duty were not in true conflict, since serving Owner's substantive interest never required concealment from Engineer A.
specification
Analytical conclusion 1: The tension between Client Loyalty in Peer Review and Pee...
Given Owner's instruction for a covert review and Engineer B's insistence on advising Engineer A first, the board concluded that faithful agency to Owner does not extend to executing instructions that conceal review from the engineer whose work is being scrutinized.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 22-8:
  • Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review. It is not necessary for Engineer B to provide that notice personally, but Engineer B must know either that Engineer A has been advised or that Engineer A has been terminated from the project.
  • Owner and Engineer B are not required to obtain Engineer A’s consent to the peer review, merely to assure that Engineer A has been informed of the peer review. Especially in the face of known design defects in the first tower, Engineer A may not ethically object to the peer review.
Recorded violations: Refusal to Consent violates Engineer A Public Safety Duty Refusal to Consent violates Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Duty Refusal to Consent violates Engineer A Client Best Interest Duty
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3