It was not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.

In recent years, the engineering profession much in the same manner as the legal and medical professions, has seen a virtual explosion of activities on the part of individual practitioners as well as firms to heighten their level of recognition in the eyes of prospective clients. Although some practitioners have attempted to resist the trend, it can be safely stated that a majority of engineering practitioners engage in some level of promotional activity in order to increase the visibility and activity of their firm. With the virtual elimination of legal as well as ethical proscriptions which for many years limited the ability of engineers and other professional groups to advertise, we have entered a "brave new world" where it often seems, "anything goes." The Board has, in recent years, had occasion to consider a case similar to the instant case. In Case BER 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 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 ...

Engineer X is employed by Firm Y, a medium-sized engineering consulting firm controlled by Engineer Z. Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work. Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm. Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.

Was it ethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described?