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 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.

It was unethical for Engineer B to accept the rural roadway design contract under these circumstances.

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. 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. It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation. Engineer A should have included evaluation of all available delivery methods rather than including only two, including one that A’s firm could provide. Engineer A could also have referred City Administrator to 3rd-party resources.
2. It was ethical for Engineer A to recommend progressive design build is the best choice, as long as reasons are objective, described, valid, and compared against all available and appropriate delivery methods. Unfortunately, Engineer A did not provide objective support for the recommendation. Consequently, Engineer A’s conduct was unethical.
3. It was not unethical to include marketing materials that display Engineer A’s firm’s qualifications.

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.

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.

1. Engineer A’s role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
2. Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
3. Engineer A has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.

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 should return the submittal to Firm B unopened with the explanation that the bid was received late.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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 not unethical for Engineer Z to continue to represent Engineer X as an employee of Firm Y under the circumstances described.

It was unethical for Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of the products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.

It was unethical for Engineer A to agree to provide a separate engineering and safety analysis report.

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.