Case Repository

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 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. 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.

In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.

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 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. 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.

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.

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

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.

1. It is ethical for Engineer A to contact Smithtown and advise the town that Engineer B’s performance on the contract did not meet the standards as outlined in Engineer B’s contract with the town.
2. It would not be ethical for Engineer A to offer and agree to perform the work for Smithtown.

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.

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

It was ethical for Engineer A to submit an anonymous letter to the state engineering licensure board as long as the state engineering licensure board has a procedure for accepting anonymous complaints.

1. It was ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C.
2. It was not ethical for Engineer A to make representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, that Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services. As an observation, the Board believes it was unethical for Engineer A to make misleading statements about Engineer C’s future plans.

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

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 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.