Case Repository

1. It was not unethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about unquantified increased risk. Later, Engineer L did comply with Code provisions that require engineers to notify their employers or clients if a project will not be successful.
2. It would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L. Continuing to work on the project after concerns about runoff were quantified would in effect mean Engineer L was placing the clients’ financial interest above the engineer’s paramount obligation to the public health, safety, and welfare. This, the engineer cannot ethically do.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

1. Engineer M should challenge the validity of Firm DBA’s report as Firm DBA did not abide by the Code in a number of instances.
2. Engineer M should first confer with Firm DBA to correct all discrepancies in the report. If no agreement can be made going forward, Engineer M should confer with the City to outline the ethical obligations. Engineer M should also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
3. The actions of Firm DBA are not ethical under the Code as the services provided were under the supervision and ownership of licensed professional engineers.

1. It was ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude no error had been made in design, based on review and analysis of the facts from both from a legal/contractual perspective and from an ethical perspective. Engineer T’s design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care.
2. It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error. However, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project may have prevented the accident and worker injury, and this was a missed opportunity to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare. Engineer T is encouraged to share this hard “lesson learned” as part of continued professional development.
3. It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error. Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.

1. The proposal practices of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were not unethical from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
2. Engineer A does not have an obligation to report Engineer B’s proposal/marketing practices to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
3. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.]
3. Engineer R has an obligation to report H’s unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
4. 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.

1. It would not be ethical for Engineer Intern D to accede to Engineer W’s veiled directive to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project.
2. It would not be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on a design altered so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project. Engineer W would not be acting as a faithful agent of the DOT.

It was not ethical for Engineer Intern A to fail to report to Engineer B that the defect had been missed for at least five years. That is material information that could have been critical to Engineer B’s decision-making.

Provided that Engineer A qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications, Engineer A’s self-presentation as a consultant-expert without identifying status as a licensed professional engineer was not unethical. However, when Engineer A claimed status as a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A’s self-presentation became unethical.

It was imprudent but not unethical for Engineer Intern A not to have mentioned at the interview his two previous failures to pass the PE exam, as the question was not asked by XYZ Consultants. More specifically, Engineer Intern A’s failure to disclose the two previous exam failures seriously undermined his trust relationship with XYZ Consultants.

Engineer A is certainly free to disclose his autism if he so chooses. However, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure nor does a failure to disclose somehow constitutes a “deception.”

Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise Attorney X. Since Attorney X was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant’s attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for Attorney X to have in his possession.

It was ethical for Engineer B to make the FOIA request in connection with the state’s procurement of engineering services, pursuant to the State’s RFQ procedures. However, in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Engineer B should have made the FOIA request subsequent to Engineer B’s firm’s submitting its RFQ.

1. It was unethical for Engineer A to provide expert testimony in the manner described.
2. It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as a expert witness under the circumstances.

It was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer’s proposal. Engineer A should have included it in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.

It was not unethical for Engineer X to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.

It was unethical for Engineer A to make the statement to Engineer B in an effort to move the negotiations forward.

Situation 1. Engineer A’s actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.Situation 2. Engineer A’s actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.Situation 3. Engineer A’s actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.Situation 4. Engineer A’s actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics

Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor’s license.

1. It was not ethical for Engineer A to submit drawings and specifications for review and approval that he knew were incomplete.
2. It was not ethical for Engineer B to approve a set of incomplete drawings on behalf of the Federal government for competitive bidding.
3. It was not ethical for Engineer C, owner of the Hi-Lo Construction firm, to submit a bid on a construction contract that he later characterized as “unbuildable” without major changes.

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

It is not ethical for ENGCO to refer to it's non-degreed/non-registered personnel as "engineers".

1. It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment.
2. It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project.
3. It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction.
4. It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal.

Engineer A should raise the issue of the error with a principal in the firm and note the appropriate requirements under the state board's rules of professional conduct in writing.

1. It was unethical for Engineer B to merely inform the client of the presence of the drums.
2. It was unethical for Engineer B to fail to advise his client that he suspected hazardous material and provide a recommendation concerning removal and disposal in accordance with federal, state and local laws.

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

1. It was unethical for Engineer A to notify clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start a firm and would appreciate being considered for work while still in the employ of Engineer B.
2. It was not unethical for Engineer B to distribute a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee provided Engineer B apprised the prospective client during the negotiation of Engineer A's pending termination.
3. It was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.