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. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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. Inasmuch as no “revolving door” contractual (i.e., legal) prohibition exists to private employment, it would be ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with firm AE&R. This finding is consistent with a long history of NSPE cases; engineers are free to move and work where they would like.
2. As to whether it would be ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City, the answer is mixed as multiple considerations and details will affect the outcome. For example, participation in ongoing projects for which Engineer D has particular specialized knowledge may be ethical with disclosure and consent. Likewise, situations such as negotiating change orders (potential conflict of interest) might also be cured by disclosure and consent. However, for complex situations (e.g., perception of influence relative to solicitation of a contract) or prohibitive situations (e.g., divulging confidential information) a voluntary embargo by Engineer D for a specified period of time may be efficacious. In positive ways, such practices facilitate conduct which is honorable, responsible, ethical and lawful so as to enhance the honor, reputation and usefulness of the engineering profession.

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 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. It is ethical for Engineer D to make it known that as-built drawings are available; but they should be readily available to contractors as part of the standard project delivery process to assure that all contractors have equal access to the information.
2. It is unethical for Engineer D to share as-built documents selectively pre-bid. D should work to make as-built documents available for all bidders as part of contract documents.

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.

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.

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.

Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question. If Engineer A is not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X’s explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board.

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.

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

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.