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. Engineer K should present both approaches to the City if Engineer K believes both are viable solutions.
2. Because Engineer K has entered into a contract to design the new flood water control system, Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee. Engineer K is ethically obligated to fulfill their contractual obligations to the City and continue to design the Traditional Approach as approved by the City.

1. Given the facts, the Board interprets that Engineer J’s transition from the private sector to the public sector was not recent and there does not appear to be a conflict between J’s former work at BWJ and their current work for City C.
2. Although flood damage and independent consultant Firm IBM’s analysis show larger flows, Principal Engineer R and Principal Engineers R’s firm should confirm whether an error exists – essentially, they should re-review Firm IBM’s analysis. If Firm BWJ determines they made a mistake, Principal Engineer R is responsible to acknowledge errors.

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. 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.
2. 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.

1. It was ethical for Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task.
2. As a matter of personal conviction, it was ethically permissible, but extreme, for Engineer Intern Wasser to refuse the task of design development for the proposed irrigation system. Performing the design task would not have been manifestly unethical, and refusal likely cost Wasser his job.
3. Under the facts, traditional lawn irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work. In awareness of sustainability principles, Engineer Jaylani’s firm is in a position to better serve its clients and the public by introducing and offering “green” irrigation alternatives.

1. Clear reporting of unresolved public health and safety risks to “appropriate authorities” satisfies Engineer B’s obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare.
2. Any additional steps taken beyond the notification of appropriate authorities are not an obligation of Engineer B but rather a personal choice as a citizen, and should be taken with due consideration of the multiple stakeholders in this matter and the engineer’s many ethical obligations.

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 was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
2. 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.
3. Engineer Intern C’s complicity in helping Engineer B to continue work was unethical.
4. 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.
5. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

If Engineer A reasonably believes that the probability of property damage is high and that the probable amount of property damage is significant, Engineer A has a duty to advise the Owner/Client of the risk.If Engineer A reasonably believes that frozen pipes would cause the sprinkler system to become inoperable, Engineer A could reasonably conclude that there is an imminent risk to the public’s health, safety, and welfare, triggering a duty to report the issue to the Owner/Client.

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.

1. Engineer A has an obligation to consider potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, regardless of whether that is required by applicable law, including changing weather patterns and climate.
2. If Engineer A is reasonably certain that the project will result in adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare, and if the Client B denies the requisite evaluation, Engineer A should include the concern regarding potential adverse public health, safety, and welfare impacts in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.

1. Engineer A has an ethical obligation to include information about the utility generation mix and potential rolling blackouts in a report to the organization’s board.
2. Engineer A’s report should also include information about cost of battery storage and the potential consequences of not having battery storage on system reliability relative to public safety, health, and welfare.

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.

1. In fulfillment of their ethical obligations under the Code, Engineers A and B should formally communicate their concerns to the MWC, including that they believe the project will not be successful.
2. Both Engineers A and B have ethical obligations to notify the MWC and other appropriate authorities that prematurely changing the water source puts the public health and safety at risk. Furthermore, Engineers A and B have independent obligations to formally and in writing report their concerns to the state regulatory agency. While they may provide a joint and cooperative report, each has an independent obligation. Neither the consent nor opposition of the client is a factor in their fulfillment of this obligation.

Engineer A had an obligation to continue to pursue a resolution of the matter by working with Client B and in contacting in writing the supervisor of the county official, the fire marshal, or any other agency with jurisdiction, advising them of the structural deficiencies.

Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage. If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A’s design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.

Contrary to the advice of the State Board of Professional Engineers, Engineer A did not fulfill his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code of Ethics by only providing the report to the insurance company that retained him. Engineer A had a responsibility to take additional steps beyond merely submitting a written report to the insurance company, including contacting local building officials, individual homeowners, and the local homeowners or community civic association to advise them of his findings.

Engineer A has an obligation to further report the situation to the appropriate the local, state, and/or federal authorities to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.

The NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X’s product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X. If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.

Engineer A has a responsibility to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team, clearly and unambiguously express any and all concerns he has regarding the safety of the proposed autonomous vehicle operation system, and explore additional potential technical options that could mitigate the risks identified in the proposed system. In light of the fact that engineers should strive to do no harm in the performance of their professional services, if necessary, Engineer A should propose that further study be undertaken by the company before the autonomous vehicle operating system is utilized. That being said, to address the specific question posed in the case, Engineer A has an obligation to state that the prime ethical obligation of the vehicle operation is to minimize harm to affect the least number of persons.

Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on all feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter, consistent with the interests of the public, including physically moving the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party.

Engineer A has an obligation to seek an understanding of his company’s actions and, if there is an effort to misrepresent the conclusion contained in Engineer A’s report, to seek an immediate correction by contacting appropriate authorities, including the state engineering licensure board and other enforcement officials as appropriate.

Engineer A should immediately notify verbally (and in writing if necessary) Engineer A’s immediate supervisor at OPQ Construction of the safety hazards to employees (and others) due to commercial vehicles passing by while inspection and repair is being performed on the ramps.

Engineer A should bring this potential safety issue to the attention of Engineer A’s supervisor and ES Consulting. The Board assumes that the potential safety issues do not pose an imminent danger; therefore, Engineer A does not have an obligation to report this issue beyond his superiors in ES Consulting.

It was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that if prompt measures are not taken to correct the problem, he will be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency. Instead, Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps are being taken to address the concerns. However, if after making additional inquiries, Engineer A determined that no meaningful action was being taken to address the issue, Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue. Only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action.

Engineer A should contact the client and inquire about the actions the client has taken and point out the action is a violation of the law and that steps need to be take to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities. In this connection, the engineer should advise that the remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include the review of a licensed engineer. If appropriate steps are not taken by the client, Engineer A has an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

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

Engineer A should take immediate steps to go to Engineer A’s supervisor to press for strict enforcement of the five-ton limit, and if this is ineffective, contact state and/or federal transportation/highway officials, the state engineering licensure board the director of public works, county commissioners, state officials, and such other authorities as appropriate. Engineer A should also work with the consulting engineering firm to determine if the two crutch pile with five-ton limit design solution would be effective and report this information to his supervisor. In addition, Engineer A should determine whether a basis exists for reporting the activities of the retired bridge inspector to the state board as the unlicensed practice of engineering.

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 not ethical for Engineer A to offer facilities design and construction services under the facts presented.

It was not ethical for Engineer A to agree to concur with the chairman’s proposal under the facts. Additionally, it was not ethical for Engineer A to sign inadequate inspection reports. (See Code Section II.1.b.).

1. It was ethical for Engineer A to retain the information in his engineering notes but not include it in the final written report as requested.
2. It was ethical for Engineer A not to report this information to any other public agency or authority as long as corrective action is taken by the public agency within a relatively short period of time.

1. It would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
2. Engineer A has an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.

1. It would not have been ethical for Engineer A to withdraw from further work on the project.
2. It would not have been ethical for Engineer A to issue the permit.
3. It was ethical for Engineer A to refuse to issue the permit.

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.

It was unethical for Engineer A to not report the information directly to the tenants and public authorities.

It was unethical for Engineer A not to report the safety violations to the appropriate public authorities.

Engineer A did not fulfill her ethical obligations by informing the City Administrator and certain members of the city council of her concerns.

It was unethical for Engineer A to proceed with work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time, on-site project representative.

Engineer A does not have an ethical obligation to continue his effort to secure a change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.