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. 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 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.

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.

It would not be unethical for Engineer A and his firm ABC Engineering to participate in a design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project, as long as the state agency approves and the work complies with state laws and regulations.

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.

It is unethical (and perhaps illegal) for Engineer A to privately discuss constructability issues with Contractor B or any contractor who may bid on the water treatment facility construction contract following the design phase. Instead, Engineer A could conduct a publically advertised constructability meeting, inviting all interested contractors to provide Engineer A with the input necessary to achieve a better design and construction outcome. Engineer A may also want to consider hiring a consultant to advise on constructability issues.

Engineer A clearly has an ongoing duty to honor his obligations both to his former employer and the private client. Engineer A should be assigned other duties by the state remain isolated from the State's water rights case involving Engineer A's former employer and its client—and the state should recognize and respect Engineer A's ethical obligations in this matter.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

It would be unethical for Engineer A to serve on a part-time basis in seeking contracts with municipalities for design work associated with the airport improvements (master plans, runway extensions, etc.) while continuing to work as an employee with the State DOT.

It was ethical for Engineer A to provide services to the parties in the manner described under the facts.

1. It was ethical for Engineer A to establish his own firm in Clover City.
2. It was ethical for Engineer A to begin soliciting work from ABC’s clients, including Clover City after a year had passed.

1. Engineer B's act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser was not consistent with the Code.
2. The Board was split on the second question and could not reach agreement.

It would be unethical for Engineer A to have found in the Owner's favor, contrary to his considered professional findings in this matter.

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.

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.

Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the home inspection to the real estate firm representing the owners.