This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-10-24 07:57; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 147: Duty To Disclose Disciplinary Complaint To Client

R Roles
3
Classes
4
Individuals
S States
4
Classes
4
Individuals
Rs Resources
0
Classes
0
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

15 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
3
changed
ClientRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Client Role
C147
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
The participant role borne by a party that retains an engineer to perform professional services on a project, with standing in the case but no profession-generated duties.
Inherited from ClientRole · note
The role borne by the party that commissions the project work. This is the occupational archetype; the duty relationship is carried separately by :ProviderClientRole.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility."
"relating to services provided on a project for Client C"
Confidence: 0.95
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features: Commissions and receives professional engineering services rather than providing them
[facts] "Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.; relating to services provided on a project for Client C
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Commissions and receives professional engineering services rather than providing them
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
DesignEngineerRole
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C147
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A professional engineering role responsible for producing plans, specifications, and project schedules such as a Critical Path Method schedule for a client's facility project.
Inherited from DesignEngineerRole · note
An engineer responsible for producing a design (plans, calculations, specifications, drawings) for a project. Project and discipline are case context, not separate role kinds.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility."
"Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule."
Confidence: 0.92
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
Distinguishing Features: Produces plans, specifications, and project schedules for a client rather than reviewing another engineer's work
Professional Scope: Design services including preparation of plans, specifications, and a Critical Path Method schedule for a facility project
Typical Qualifications:
  • Professional Engineer license
  • Design experience in the relevant discipline
Associated Virtues:
  • Competence
  • Honesty
  • Candor toward the client
[facts] "Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility. Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the C..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.; Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule.
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Produces plans, specifications, and project schedules for a client rather than reviewing another engineer's work
  • professionalScope content: Design services including preparation of plans, specifications, and a Critical Path Method schedule for a facility project
  • typicalQualifications content: Professional Engineer license; Design experience in the relevant discipline
  • associatedVirtues content: Competence; Honesty; Candor toward the client
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Regulatory Authority
rdfs:subClassOf Roles
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C147
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
The participant role of a state board of professional engineers that receives and processes ethics complaints against engineers and contacts the engineer regarding a pending complaint.
Inherited from RegulatoryAuthorityRole · note
The role borne by a body or official exercising statutory oversight of engineering practice (a licensure board, a code-enforcement agency, an inspector, or an ethics review board) as a participant in the case. Oversight duties are statutory or institutional case facts, not profession-generated obligations; the engineer-side duty toward such bodies is carried by the reporting and disclosure obligations of the professional roles. No IFC equivalent (IFC has no regulator role).
Properties
Text References:
"the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C"
Confidence: 0.9
Role Kind: participant
Distinguishing Features: Exercises statutory oversight of engineering practice by receiving and acting on ethics complaints
[facts] "During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
  • roleKind content: participant
  • distinguishingFeatures content: Exercises statutory oversight of engineering practice by receiving and acting on ethics complaints
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Roles Individuals
4
Engineer A Design Engineer
Design Engineer Role
Linked
Design Engineer Role
C147
Text References:
"Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility."
"Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule."
"Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Confidence: 0.92
Actor: Engineer A
Role Class: Design Engineer Role
Role Category: provider_client
Role Kind: professional
License: Professional Engineer
Specialty: Design services and Critical Path Method scheduling
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'subjectOfComplaintBefore', 'target': 'State Board of Professional Engineers', 'quote': 'the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C'}
Case Involvement: Retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a CPM schedule for a manufacturing facility, prepares the plans, specifications, and CPM schedule, becomes subject of an ethics complaint by Client C alleging lack of competence, and decides not to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
Pending ethics complaint: Ethics complaint filed with the state board of professional engineers by Client C alleging lack of competence
Hasclient: Client B
"Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility."
Hasclient: Client C
"relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B"
[facts] "Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility. Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the C..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Engineer A
  • attributes: {'pending_ethics_complaint': 'Ethics complaint filed with the state board of professional engineers by Client C alleging lack of competence'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Client B', 'quote': 'Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.'}; {'type': 'hasClient', 'target': 'Client C', 'quote': 'relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.; Engineer A prepares the plans and specifications and the CPM schedule.; Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • roleClass content: Design Engineer Role
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • roleKind content: professional
  • license content: Professional Engineer
  • specialty content: Design services and Critical Path Method scheduling
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'subjectOfComplaintBefore', 'target': 'State Board of Professional Engineers', 'quote': 'the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a CPM schedule for a manufacturing facility, prepares the plans, specifications, and CPM schedule, becomes subject of an ethics complaint by Client C alleging lack of competence, and decides not to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Linked
Client Role
C147
Text References:
"an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C"
"Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question."
Confidence: 0.93
Actor: Client C
Role Class: Client Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'filedEthicsComplaintAgainst', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C'}
Case Involvement: A prior client of Engineer A on a similar project who files an ethics complaint with the state board of professional engineers alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
Complaint allegation: Alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
[facts] "During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Client C
  • attributes: {'complaint_allegation': 'Alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C; Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
  • roleClass content: Client Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'filedEthicsComplaintAgainst', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C'}
  • caseInvolvement content: A prior client of Engineer A on a similar project who files an ethics complaint with the state board of professional engineers alleging that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
State Board Regulatory Authority
Regulatory Authority Role
Linked
Regulatory Authority Role
C147
Text References:
"the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C"
Confidence: 0.9
Actor: State Board of Professional Engineers
Role Class: Regulatory Authority Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'contactsRegardingComplaint', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C'}
Case Involvement: Contacts Engineer A regarding the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C while Engineer A is rendering services to Client B.
[facts] "During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating ..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: State Board of Professional Engineers
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
  • roleClass content: Regulatory Authority Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'contactsRegardingComplaint', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Contacts Engineer A regarding the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C while Engineer A is rendering services to Client B.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Client B Client
Client Role
Linked
Client Role
C147
Text References:
"Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility."
"Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations"
Confidence: 0.95
Actor: Client B
Role Class: Client Role
Role Kind: participant
Additional Relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.'}
Case Involvement: Retains Engineer A for design services and a CPM schedule for a manufacturing facility, later learns through another party of the ethics complaint against Engineer A and tells Engineer A he is upset that the matter was not brought to his attention.
Project: Manufacturing facility
[facts] "Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matt..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • actor: Client B
  • attributes: {'project': 'Manufacturing facility'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.; Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations
  • roleClass content: Client Role
  • roleKind content: participant
  • additionalRelationships content: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A', 'quote': 'Engineer A is retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.'}
  • caseInvolvement content: Retains Engineer A for design services and a CPM schedule for a manufacturing facility, later learns through another party of the ethics complaint against Engineer A and tells Engineer A he is upset that the matter was not brought to his attention.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95

S States

States Classes
4
changed
PendingAdjudicationState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Pending Investigation State
C147
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A regulatory condition in which an ethics complaint filed against a professional is pending before the state board of professional engineers and remains unresolved, here the complaint filed by Client C against Engineer A alleging lack of competence in services similar to those being performed for Client B.
Inherited from PendingInvestigationState · note
A regulatory condition in which an official investigation of a professional matter by state authorities is underway and unresolved, here the permit case currently being investigated by state authorities.
Properties
Text References:
"the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are simila..."
"Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question."
Confidence: 0.92
State Category: regulatory
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: An ethics complaint is filed against the professional with the state board of professional engineers
Termination Conditions: The state board resolves or dismisses the complaint
Obligation Activation: Duty of the engineer to respond to and cooperate with the state board regarding the complaint
Principle Transformation: The pendency of the complaint raises the question whether candor to the current client requires informing that client of the matter while services on a similar project continue.
[facts] "During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B; Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
  • stateCategory content: regulatory
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The pendency of the complaint raises the question whether candor to the current client requires informing that client of the matter while services on a similar project continue.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: An ethics complaint is filed against the professional with the state board of professional engineers
  • terminationConditions: The state board resolves or dismisses the complaint
  • obligationActivation: Duty of the engineer to respond to and cooperate with the state board regarding the complaint
changed
SelectiveReportingState
rdfs:subClassOf States
Review
Disclosure Absence State
C147
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which a professional has made no disclosure to the current client of material information bearing on the engagement, here Engineer A withholding from Client B the fact of the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C over similar services.
Inherited from DisclosureAbsenceState · note
A disclosure condition in which a departing engineer has made no disclosure to the employer of the client's interest in the engineer's independent services before resigning, so the information about the developing client relationship is withheld from the employer. Here, unlike the engineers in the cited precedent who disclosed before resigning, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC, a difference the Board, weighing all factors, does not consider particularly significant.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Confidence: 0.9
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The professional learns of a matter material to the client and does not notify the client
Termination Conditions: The client learns of the matter, whether from the professional or from another source
Obligation Activation: Duty asserted by Client B that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
Principle Transformation: The withholding of the pending complaint places the engineer's judgment about necessity of notice in tension with the client's expectation of being informed.
[facts] "Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The withholding of the pending complaint places the engineer's judgment about necessity of notice in tension with the client's expectation of being informed.
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The professional learns of a matter material to the client and does not notify the client
  • terminationConditions: The client learns of the matter, whether from the professional or from another source
  • obligationActivation: Duty asserted by Client B that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
changed
DisclosureJudgmentState
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C147
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
An epistemic condition in which a professional holds a judgment about whether it is necessary to notify a client of a matter, here Engineer A's belief that it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending ethics complaint.
Properties
Text References:
"Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: epistemic
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: The professional forms a judgment about whether notice to the client is necessary
Termination Conditions: The professional revises the judgment, for example after the client learns of the matter and objects
Principle Transformation: The belief that notice is unnecessary is the ground on which the engineer refrains from disclosure, making the epistemic condition the pivot for whether the disclosure duty is discharged.
[facts] "Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • stateCategory content: epistemic
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The belief that notice is unnecessary is the ground on which the engineer refrains from disclosure, making the epistemic condition the pivot for whether the disclosure duty is discharged.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: The professional forms a judgment about whether notice to the client is necessary
  • terminationConditions: The professional revises the judgment, for example after the client learns of the matter and objects
changed
ThirdPartyInformationDiscoveryState
rdfs:subClassOf States
New C147
Definition
Extracted from facts primary
A disclosure condition in which a client learns material information about the retained professional from a third party rather than from the professional, here Client B learning through another party of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A.
Properties
Text References:
"Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A"
Confidence: 0.85
State Category: disclosure
Persistence Type: inertial
Activation Conditions: A third party informs the client of the matter the professional had not disclosed
Obligation Activation: Duty asserted by Client B that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
Principle Transformation: The client's discovery through another party converts the earlier nondisclosure into an articulated grievance, the client stating the engineer should have brought the matter to his attention.
[facts] "Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
  • stateCategory content: disclosure
  • persistenceType content: inertial
  • principleTransformation content: The client's discovery through another party converts the earlier nondisclosure into an articulated grievance, the client stating the engineer should have brought the matter to his attention.
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
Derived (reconstructable from the graph)
  • activationConditions: A third party informs the client of the matter the professional had not disclosed
  • obligationActivation: Duty asserted by Client B that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
States Individuals
4
changed
Complaint Nondisclosure To Client B
Disclosure Absence State
Review
Disclosure Absence State
C147
Text References:
"Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Confidence: 0.9
State Class: Disclosure Absence State
Subject: The fact of the pending ethics complaint, withheld by Engineer A from Client B
Active Period: From the state board contacting Engineer A until Client B learns of the complaint through another party
Triggering Event: The state board contacts Engineer A about the complaint and Engineer A does not notify Client B
Terminated By: Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party
Affected Parties:
  • Client B
  • Engineer A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • stateClass content: Disclosure Absence State
  • subject content: The fact of the pending ethics complaint, withheld by Engineer A from Client B
  • activePeriod content: From the state board contacting Engineer A until Client B learns of the complaint through another party
  • triggeringEvent content: The state board contacts Engineer A about the complaint and Engineer A does not notify Client B
  • terminatedBy content: Client B learns of the ethics complaint through another party
  • affectedParties content: Client B; Engineer A
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Engineer A Notice Unnecessary Belief
DisclosureJudgmentState
New C147
Text References:
"Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Confidence: 0.85
State Class: Notification Necessity Belief State
Subject: Engineer A's belief that it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
Active Period: From the state board contacting Engineer A until Client B confronts Engineer A about the allegations
Triggering Event: The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding the ethics complaint
Terminated By: Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Client B
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A does not believe it is necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint.
  • stateClass content: Notification Necessity Belief State
  • subject content: Engineer A's belief that it is not necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
  • activePeriod content: From the state board contacting Engineer A until Client B confronts Engineer A about the allegations
  • triggeringEvent content: The state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding the ethics complaint
  • terminatedBy content: Client B tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Client B
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Pending Complaint Against Engineer A
Pending Investigation State
Review
Pending Investigation State
C147
Text References:
"the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are simila..."
"Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question."
Confidence: 0.92
State Class: Pending Investigation State
Subject: Engineer A, against whom an ethics complaint filed by Client C is pending before the state board
Active Period: From the filing of Client C's complaint, during the rendering of services to Client B, until the board resolves the complaint
Triggering Event: Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A with the state board of professional engineers alleging lack of competence
Terminated By: Resolution of the complaint by the state board, not stated in the case facts
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Client B
  • Client C
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "During the rendering of services to Client B on this project, the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the state board of professional engineers contacts Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C that are similar to the services being performed for Client B; Client C alleges that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question.
  • stateClass content: Pending Investigation State
  • subject content: Engineer A, against whom an ethics complaint filed by Client C is pending before the state board
  • activePeriod content: From the filing of Client C's complaint, during the rendering of services to Client B, until the board resolves the complaint
  • triggeringEvent content: Client C files an ethics complaint against Engineer A with the state board of professional engineers alleging lack of competence
  • terminatedBy content: Resolution of the complaint by the state board, not stated in the case facts
  • affectedParties content: Engineer A; Client B; Client C
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Client B Indirect Discovery
ThirdPartyInformationDiscoveryState
New C147
Text References:
"Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matt..."
Confidence: 0.88
State Class: Indirect Disclosure State
Subject: Client B, who learned of the ethics complaint against Engineer A through another party rather than from Engineer A
Active Period: From the moment Client B learns of the complaint through another party onward
Triggering Event: Another party informs Client B of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
Terminated By: Not stated in the case facts
Affected Parties:
  • Client B
  • Engineer A
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matt..."
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Later, through another party, Client B learns of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and tells Engineer A that he is upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B’s attention.
  • stateClass content: Indirect Disclosure State
  • subject content: Client B, who learned of the ethics complaint against Engineer A through another party rather than from Engineer A
  • activePeriod content: From the moment Client B learns of the complaint through another party onward
  • triggeringEvent content: Another party informs Client B of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
  • terminatedBy content: Not stated in the case facts
  • affectedParties content: Client B; Engineer A
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium

Rs Resources

No new resources were extracted for this section.

The extraction did not find any resources to add. This typically means the case text doesn't contain relevant resources for this section, or extraction hasn't been run yet.

Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3