Case Repository
Filtering by:
Licensure Laws
2025
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Practice
Case #24-02
Synthesized
Questions:
- Was Engineer A’s use of AI to create the report text ethical, given that Engineer A thoroughly checked the report?
- Was Engineer A’s use of AI-assisted drafting tools to create the engineering design documents ethical, given that Engineer A reviewed the design...
- If the use of AI was acceptable, did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to disclose the use of AI in any form to the Client?
Conclusions:
- Engineer A's use of AI in report writing was partly ethical, and partly unethical. Engineer A was competent and did thoroughly review and verify the AI-generated content, ensuring accuracy and compliance with professional standards. However, Engineer A did not obtain client permission to disclose private information, nor did Engineer A document required technical citations. Ethical use of AI to create the report text must satisfy all pertinent requirements.
- The use of AI-assisted drafting tools by Engineer A was not unethical per se. However, Engineer A’s misuse of the tool, by failing to maintain Responsible Charge over the AI tool and its output before sealing the document and providing it to Client W, was unethical.
- Similar to other software used in the design or detailing process, Engineer A has no professional or ethical obligation to disclose AI use to Client W (unless such disclosure is required under Engineer A’s contract with Client W). However, at the time of the BER’s review of this case there is no universal guideline mandating AI disclosure in engineering work. Ethical principles favor transparency when AI plays a substantial role in generating work products. To uphold ethical standards, engineers integrating AI into their practice should adopt rigorous verification processes and consider disclosing AI involvement when it plays a significant role in the final product.
Public Contracting Practices
Case #24-03
Synthesized
Questions:
- Was it ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A?
- Were Engineer A’s actions in investigating City D’s contracting practices ethical?
- Because City D’s Engineer refuses to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, what steps must Engineer A take?
Conclusions:
- It was not only ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A, it was ethically required that Engineer B report his belief that statutory obligations were not being followed.
- It was ethical for Engineer A to investigate City D’s contracting practices, both as a part of A’s own familiarization process and to follow up on Engineer B’s complaints.
- Since the City D Engineer indicated they have no plans to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, Engineer A is obligated to take appropriate action.
2022
Unlicensed Practice by Nonengineers with “Engineer” in Job Titles
Case #22-1
Synthesized
Questions:
- Is it ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering when “Transportation Engineer” B is not qualified for...
- If “Transportation Engineer” B is practicing engineering, does Engineer A have an obligation to report “Transportation Engineer” B for the...
Conclusions:
- It is unlawful and therefore not ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure: adequate education, rigorous examination, and substantial experience.
- Since “Transportation Engineer” B is practicing engineering (as defined by the state in question), Engineer A has an obligation to report “Transportation Engineer” B for unlicensed practice.
Duty to Report Misconduct
Case #22-4
Synthesized
Questions:
- Are the proposal techniques of Engineer B ethical with respect to the NSPE Code of Ethics?
- Does Engineer A have an obligation to report a violation to the Engineering Licensing Board in State Q? In State Z?
Conclusions:
- The proposal practices of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were not unethical from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
- Engineer A does not have an obligation to report Engineer B’s proposal/marketing practices to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
- Engineer B’s proposal/marketing practices would constitute professional misconduct per licensure law in State Z, and Engineer A has a clear obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Z.
Siting a Truck Stop
Case #22-6
Synthesized
Questions:
- Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?
- Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?
- After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities? Note that in the public record, H is...
- ... and 1 more
Conclusions:
- Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony. If R believes that there is a danger to public health, safety and welfare, R could choose to raise the concerns to a higher regulatory authority.
- Engineer H’s testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical. [However, practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.]
- Engineer R has an obligation to report H’s unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
- Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning, whether by explaining how the issue had been addressed or by agreeing to re-examine the plans in light of the issue.
Impaired Engineering
Case #22-7
Synthesized
Questions:
- Was it ethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B?
- Were Engineer B’s actions ethical?
- Were Engineer Intern C’s actions ethical?
- ... and 2 more
Conclusions:
- It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
- It was unethical for Engineer B to continue work in an impaired state in which he could not competently perform engineering design, could not guide and direct his subordinates, or properly review their designs or drawings.
- Engineer Intern C’s complicity in helping Engineer B to continue work was unethical.
- Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. As Engineer B’s friend and with Engineer B’s approval, once the matter was reported to the Board, it would have been permissible for Engineer A to help cooperatively identify a temporary practice management alternative that supported the professional and ethical practice of engineering work in Engineer B’s business, until Engineer B returned to full duty.
- Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. If Engineer A did the reporting as noted above, Engineer A’s report could be styled to indicate Engineer R’s concurrence.