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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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 is certainly free to disclose his autism if he so chooses. However, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure nor does a failure to disclose somehow constitutes a “deception.”

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.

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.

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

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

It was not ethical for Engineer C to promise to select Engineer A’s firm on a future engineering project for City X.

Engineer A has fulfilled his ethical obligation by taking prudent action in notifying the town supervisor—the individual presumably with the most authority in the jurisdiction. However, Engineer A should also notify the new owner in writing of the perceived deficiency.

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 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 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.

It was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to follow the most recent design parameters for structural design in severe weather areas published in the most recent technical literature.

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.

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 would be ethical for Engineer A’s firm, WXY Engineers, to serve as city engineer for City H, perform general consulting services, and be under contract to provide specific design services.

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 would not be ethical for Engineer A to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials.

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

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

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.).

It would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks as requested by the Army official.

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.

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.

If Engineer A determines that Engineer B’s work is or may be in violation of state and local safety requirements and endangers public health, safety and welfare, the appropriate action is for Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue. If Engineer A and Engineer B are unable to resolve the issue, Engineer A must inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, his only alternative is to notify and inform the proper authorities as indicated above.

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 was unethical for Engineer A to serve as city engineer and also provide review and inspection services for private developers within the city.

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. 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 would not be ethical for Engineer A to continue to require a broad indemnification provision in all of his agreements where he provides pollution-related services. Engineer A should tailor the indemnification agreement to accept reasonable liability and consider current availability of professional liability insurance as appropriate to the project.

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 not report the information directly to the tenants and public authorities.

1. It was ethical for Engineer A, a registered professional engineer to sign and seal documents he prepared using a CADD system.
2. It was ethical for Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, to sign and seal documents which are the work of others using a CADD system working under his direction and control.

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 is unethical for Engineer A to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or which he has not checked and reviewed in detail.

1. Engineer B was not unethical in performing services for the client without first notifying Engineer A.
2. Engineer B was unethical in making changes on specific sheets of a set of drawings without clearly indicating those changes.
3. Engineer B was unethical in failing to note his assumption of full responsibility for the entire set of drawings.

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 accept the position as county surveyor.

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

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.

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.

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.

It would not be ethical for Engineer A to be retained as an expert witness for the contractor under these circumstances.

1. The submission of a price proposal by the engineering principals of Firm A was not unethical.
2. The engineering principals of Firms B and C were not unethical in filing a public protest and calling for a public hearing regarding the award.

Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner.

It was ethical for Firm A to seek to alter its qualification proposal in order to improve its position to secure the contract.

1. The four engineers who founded firm B did not violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former clients of Engineer A, but they were in violation of the code with regard to projects for which they had particular knowledge while in the employ of A.
2. The four engineers comprising Firm B acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services.
3. Engineer A acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Firm B to provide quality services.

Doe has an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing.

It would unethical for Roe to accept the contract and make the gifts as described.

Personal misconduct of the types described is a violation of the Code of Ethics.

Because it is considered that the engineer, in this case, is not a bona fide "employee" of the municipality but a consultant called the "municipal engineer," whose compensation is on a retainer or fee basis, it is not unethical for him to serve as the "municipal engineer" and participate in a consulting firm providing engineering services to the same municipality under the conditions stated above.

1. It is ethical for a partner of Engineer A to request the local chapter to endorse a project in which he is directly involved.
2. It is ethical for members of the local chapter to take a public position on a controversial question in which a member of the chapter is involved.

Doe was not in violation of the code for rewriting his employment resume to emphasize his managerial and administrative experience and play down his technical experience in order to obtain new employment.

1. It was not ethical for Firm A or Firm B to offer its services as the prime professional under the stated circumstances.
2. It was consistent with the Code of Ethics for the agency to contact Engineer X as the proposed prime professional directly rather than through Firms A or B.
3. It would be ethical for Engineer X or his firm to accept the contract under the stated circumstances.

Engineer Doe's activities, as described, are in conflict with the Code of Ethics, and are therefore unethical.

1. Engineer A was not in violation of the Code of Ethics.
2. Engineer B was in violation of the Code of Ethics.

The ethical obligations of the engineers of Company "B" are to notify their employer of possible dangers to the public safety and seek to have the design and specifications altered to make the machinery safe in their opinion; if the opinions cannot be reconciled they should propose submission of the problem to an independent and impartial body of experts: unless and until the engineers of Company "B" are satisfied that the machinery would not jeopardize the public safety they should refuse to participate in any engineering activity connected with the project.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ethical for an engineer to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route.

It is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.

The provisions of the Canons and Rules do not apply to services solely of a sub-professional nature.

The Board believes that the men in question have violated the spirit of the Canons and Rules, although the evidence does not prove them to be in violation of specific paragraph, as now worded. The Board believes that it makes little difference in the basic ethics of the problem whether a man leaves the employ of the Government to open his own consulting office or whether he goes to work on a salary for a consulting engineer; it tends to bring dishonor to the profession of engineering if the man devotes his energies, while still employed, to promote his future practice or employment on the basis of having inside information which would lead" to greater profits, if he can secure a position or enter into contract to work on further details of the identical project. In the hope of deterring and ultimately eliminating such practices, the Board proposes the following rule to supplement Section 27 of the Canons: "He will not enter into promotional efforts or negotiations for work or make arrangements for other employment as a principal or to practice in connection with a specific project for which he has gained particular and specialized knowledge while in such employment."