Engineer B was not unethical in performing services for the client without first notifying Engineer A. Engineer B was unethical in making changes on specific sheets of a set of drawings without clearly indicating those changes. Engineer B was unethical in failing to note his assumption of full responsibility for the entire set of drawings.

The issue of one engineer reviewing the work of another engineer has been the subject of many Board decisions over the years. Section III.8.a. admonishes engineers against reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client except with the expressed knowledge of the engineer or unless the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated. In Case 79-7 an engineer was asked to inspect mechanical and electrical engineering work performed seven years earlier. The Board concluded that the engineer notified the former engineer that the engineer was being retained to perform review and inspection services and that the review would entail a review of the original design. Said the Board: "It may be helpful for future guidance to again point out that the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit ... comments or explanations for... technical decision, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing . . . comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client." While the facts of Case 79-7 are different from those in the instant case in that in the instant case the client clearly discharged Engineer A from his services, we think that many of the reasons for Section III.8.a. as stated in Case 79-7 are relevant to the discussion of the facts present in this case. While this Board concedes that Engineer B did not act unethically in agreeing to review the work of Engineer A without notifying Engineer A, we are troubled by much of the actions undertaken by Engineer B subsequent to his review of Engineer A's work. While it is true that Engineer A had been "discharged" by the client, Engineer A still maintained a connection with the work which he had performed by virtue of the fact that the client passed along Engineer A's wor...

Some of Engineer A's work was retained. Engineer B did not originate that work and was not in responsible charge of it. Also, case facts indicate Engineer B reviewed A's work without benefit of the basis of design, design calculations, and technical specifications. Pertinent to this case, but not covered in the case text, is Code II.2.c. requiring each technical segment of a project to be "signed and sealed only by the qualified engineer who prepared the segment." There appears to be no major difference in ethical concept between identifying responsibility for each technical segment and this case where Engineers A and B, of different business entity, contributed to project design. Under these conditions Engineer B could not ethically assume responsibility for the entire design. Dissenting Opinion: This case is one of many which can be expected to produce painful conflicts for the engineering profession in the marketplace of liability. The high public esteem which our profession has enjoyed in public opinion polls is due, in part, to the premise that the interest of the public and the client is paramount, and this view has been reaffirmed in numerous BER opinions. Question 3 poses a particularly ominous dilemma for the practicing professional and clearly delineates a conflict between ethical standards of the highest order and legal liability. Section III.9. brings this issue into sharp focus on the instant case. A literal application of this Code section was applied in the majority opinion on Question 3. It is obvious, however, that such a strict application places Engineer B in an untenable position of " . . . accept(ing) personal responsibility for all professional activities," a position of virtually unlimited liability thrust upon him by the manner in which his client chose to handle the situation. To argue that III.9. can be applied equally to Engineer A is to negate the application of III.8.a. to Question 1. On Question 3 the Board should have found that Eng...

Engineer A prepared subdivision plans for a client. These plans included a 5-sheet set of grading plans and a 38-sheet set of public improvement plans. Each set had a cover sheet and all sheets in each set were signed and sealed by Engineer A.The client was not satisfied with the plans, so he discharged Engineer A after paying the complete fee for production of the plans. The client asked Engineer A for his original drawings. Engineer A complied, retaining a set of reproducibles.Engineer B was later retained by the client to review and redesign the project. The client gave Engineer B the set of plans produced by Engineer A to use as a guide in the redesign.Engineer B reviewed the original drawings, made changes on the grading plans, including deletion of one sheet, raising the elevation of the housing pads and changing routing of the street. Engineer B did not note what changes were made nor did he sign any of the sheets, including the cover sheet.Engineer B also made major design changes to the storm drains, pipe dimensions, sewers, and utilities in the public improvement plans. He made no notation of the changes, did not sign the plans, and left Engineer A's seal and signature intact.Engineer B placed a note on the title sheet of the public improvement plans, leaving Engineer A's signature and seal intact, stating that he, Engineer B, is taking responsibility for the "revisions of the plans," making no notation what those changes were.At no time after Engineer B was retained were there any communications between the two engineers.

Was Engineer B unethical in performing services for the client without notifying Engineer A? Was Engineer B unethical in making changes on specific sheets of a set of drawings without clearly identifying those changes? Was Engineer B unethical in failing to note his assumption of responsibility for the entire set of drawings?