Step 4: Review

Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.

Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.

Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or practice in connection with a specific project for which the engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.

Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.

The Board cited this prior case, which held that engineers could ethically seek work from former clients of a previous employer but not use particular knowledge gained from specific projects, and then distinguished it because in the instant case Engineer A contacted current (not former) clients while still employed by Engineer B.

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.

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.

It was unethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination.

The Board's finding that Engineer A acted unethically implies that receipt of a termination notice does not diminish the faithful-agent duty owed to the employer; that duty remains fully intact until the actual termination date. This creates a bright-line rule: employment status, not notice status, is the operative trigger for when solicitation of an employer's clients becomes permissible. The several-month gap between notice and termination does not create a permissible gray zone for client solicitation, even though it may create ambiguity in other respects (e.g., brochure use).

Engineer A's ethical failure was compounded by a lack of transparency toward Engineer B: rather than disclosing his intent to start a competing firm and seek permission or guidance on how to proceed, Engineer A unilaterally contacted clients without Engineer B's knowledge. A more ethical path would have been for Engineer A to inform Engineer B of his plans, allowing Engineer B to decide whether continued interim employment was appropriate given the conflict of interest. This suggests that the violation lies not merely in the act of solicitation itself, but in the covert manner in which it was undertaken while a faithful-agent relationship was still legally and ethically in effect.

The contrast between the Board's permissive finding on brochure use during the notice period and its condemnation of continued use after actual termination reveals that the ethical distinction turns entirely on disclosure to prospective clients, not on the mere fact of a pending or completed personnel change. During the notice period, the brochure's listing of Engineer A was not itself misleading so long as Engineer B affirmatively informed prospective clients of the pending termination; after termination, no such disclosure could cure the inaccuracy, since the statement was now simply false rather than merely outdated. This implies Engineer B had an ongoing, escalating duty to correct the brochure's representations as facts changed, culminating in an affirmative obligation to cease distribution once termination became final.

Regarding Q101, the Board's reasoning implies that Engineer A's faithful-agent obligations did not diminish upon receipt of the termination notice. The notice period was not a state of reduced fidelity but rather a continuation of the employment relationship with full duties intact, since Engineer A continued to draw a salary and represent Engineer B's interests for several months. The unethical character of the solicitation stemmed precisely from this continued employment status, not from any residual loyalty owed only up to the notice date.

In response to Q102, a more ethical course for Engineer A would have been to disclose his intentions to Engineer B directly, rather than covertly contacting clients. Such disclosure would have allowed Engineer B to make informed decisions about brochure use, client relationships, and the transition, and would have preserved the faithful-agent relationship instead of undermining it through undisclosed solicitation.

On Q103, the Board's distinction between conclusions 2 and 3 implies an affirmative duty on Engineer B's part to eventually update or cease using the brochure, but this duty only ripened at actual termination, not at notice. During the notice period, Engineer B's obligation was satisfied through disclosure to prospective clients rather than immediate brochure withdrawal, reflecting a graduated rather than immediate compliance standard.

Regarding Q104, the several-month gap does not create true ambiguity for ethical evaluation. The Board's differentiated conclusions show that ordinary standards remained fully applicable throughout: Engineer A's duty of fidelity continued unabated during the notice period, while Engineer B's duty regarding brochure accuracy shifted from a disclosure-based standard during the notice period to an absolute cessation standard after actual termination.

In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective Engineer A did violate the duty of faithful agency simply by soliciting clients while employed, irrespective of whether any client relationships were actually diverted or any measurable harm occurred. The duty of loyalty under Code provision I.4 is owed categorically during the employment relationship, making the act wrong in itself rather than wrong only if harmful consequences followed.

On Q302, the continued distribution of the brochure after actual termination produced a consequentialist harm distinct from any convenience Engineer B gained: prospective clients were misled about the firm's actual staffing and capabilities, since Engineer A no longer worked there. This misrepresentation directly implicates client decision-making about engineering services, and the resulting deception outweighs any administrative benefit of not having to reprint materials.

In response to Q303, Engineer B acted with professional integrity during the notice period specifically because disclosure to prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termination cured what would otherwise have been a misrepresentation. Integrity in this context was preserved not by withdrawing the brochure but by supplementing it with truthful verbal or written disclosure, satisfying the substance of the accuracy requirement even though the printed materials remained technically outdated.

Regarding Q304, Engineer A's continued faithful work for Engineer B for several months after soliciting clients does not redeem the earlier ethical violation; professional integrity is not restored retroactively by subsequent compliant behavior. The solicitation itself created an irreconcilable conflict between self-interest and loyalty at the moment it occurred, and this breach stands independently of Engineer A's later conduct.

In response to Q401, even if Engineer A had waited until actual termination to contact Engineer B's clients, the Board would likely still have found the solicitation unethical if it occurred using client information or relationships developed while employed, since the underlying concern is the use of the employer's client base for personal gain rather than the precise timing relative to the notice date. However, the ethical weight of the violation would likely have been considered less severe, since the ongoing faithful-agent relationship would have concluded.

On Q402, the Board's finding in conclusion 2 is explicitly conditioned on disclosure of Engineer A's pending termination; had Engineer B failed to disclose this fact while distributing the brochure, the Board's conclusion would very likely have mirrored conclusion 3, treating the omission as a misrepresentation of firm personnel akin to the post-termination brochure use.

Regarding Q403, had Engineer B promptly ceased or updated the brochure immediately upon Engineer A's actual termination, the Board would likely have found no ethical violation at all, since the core problem identified in conclusion 3 was the continued misrepresentation of firm personnel well after the factual basis for the listing had changed, not the initial printing or use of the brochure itself.

The Board resolved the tension between Engineer A's Loyalty to Employer and his interest in Proper Competition by treating employment status, not the mere existence of a termination notice, as the operative dividing line. Receipt of a termination notice does not relax the faithful-agent duty owed to the current employer; solicitation of the employer's clients remains impermissible for as long as the employment relationship continues, even if its end date is already fixed. This establishes a bright-line prioritization: formal employment status trumps anticipated future competitive interests until the employment relationship actually ends.

The tension between Honesty in Firm Brochure Representation and the Client Right to Select Engineer was resolved not by prohibiting continued use of pre-printed materials outright, but by conditioning permissible use on disclosure. As long as Engineer B affirmatively apprised prospective clients of Engineer A's pending termination during negotiations, the brochure's technically accurate-at-printing content did not become a material misrepresentation. This shows that in matters of professional representation, disclosure duties can cure an otherwise stale or misleading credential rather than requiring immediate destruction of legitimate marketing materials, so long as the underlying business relationship still technically exists.

Once Engineer A's employment actually ended, the same disclosure-based cure was no longer available and the balance shifted decisively toward Honesty in Firm Brochure Representation over any residual convenience to Engineer B. The case teaches that principle prioritization is not fixed in the abstract but is triggered by discrete factual events: the transition from 'employed-but-notified' to 'actually terminated' converts a permissible representation into an impermissible misrepresentation, imposing an affirmative Brochure Cessation Duty on the employer that did not exist during the notice period.

Was it ethical for Engineer A to notify clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start a firm and would appreciate being considered for future work while still in the employ of Engineer B?

Was it ethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee in view of the fact that Engineer B had given Engineer A a notice of termination?

Was it ethical for Engineer B to distribute a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee after Engineer A's actual termination?

Once Engineer B gave Engineer A formal notice of termination, did Engineer A's faithful-agent obligations to Engineer B diminish, or did full fidelity duties continue unchanged until the actual termination date?

Should Engineer A have disclosed to Engineer B his intent to solicit clients and start a competing firm, rather than approaching clients without Engineer B's knowledge?

Did Engineer B have an affirmative duty to update or withdraw the brochure promptly once notice of termination was given, rather than waiting until actual termination occurred?

Does the several-month gap between the termination notice and actual termination create an ambiguous period in which neither Engineer A's solicitation nor Engineer B's brochure use can be judged by ordinary employment-ethics standards?

How should Engineer A's Loyalty to Employer be balanced against his right to Proper Competition once he had already received notice that his employment was ending?

Does the Duty of Disclosure to Employer conflict with Engineer A's personal interest in securing future work by contacting clients before formally leaving the firm?

How should Honesty in Firm Brochure Representation be weighed against the Client Right to Select Engineer when a brochure lists a departing employee whose termination status is not disclosed?

Is there a tension between Loyalty in Client Solicitation While Employed and the Client Right to Select Engineer, given that clients might benefit from knowing early about Engineer A's plans to start a new firm?

From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate the duty of faithful agency owed to Engineer B by soliciting clients while still employed, regardless of whether any actual harm resulted?

Did the continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A after his actual termination produce consequences (such as client deception about staffing) that outweighed any administrative convenience to Engineer B in not updating the materials?

Did Engineer B act with professional integrity by continuing to use a brochure listing a soon-to-be-terminated employee without disclosing the pending termination to prospective clients?

Did Engineer A act with professional integrity in continuing to work faithfully for Engineer B for several months after soliciting Engineer B's clients, given the tension between self-interest and loyalty owed to the employer?

If Engineer A had waited until actual termination (rather than immediately after receiving notice) to contact Engineer B's clients about the new firm, would the Board still have found the solicitation unethical?

If Engineer B had disclosed Engineer A's pending termination to prospective clients while distributing the brochure during the notice period, would the Board's conclusion that this brochure use was not unethical still hold in the same form?

If Engineer B had promptly updated or ceased distributing the brochure immediately upon Engineer A's actual termination, rather than continuing its use afterward, would the Board still have found Engineer B's conduct unethical?

Distributing brochures during the interim period violates the duty to inform prospective clients of the pending termination, and this omission causally misleads potential clients about Engineer A's true availability, a deception that later matures into the Section II.5.a misrepresentation violation once the brochures are used post-termination.

Though the termination notification itself fulfills and violates nothing, it is the triggering event that sets in motion both the legitimate employment termination and Engineer A's subsequent solicitation of current clients, making it the causal hinge on which the later violations depend.

Although not itself tagged with a violation, the solicitation of current clients immediately following termination notice is the direct cause of the Section I.4 breach of faithful agency, showing that the wrongdoing lies less in the bare act than in its foreseeable disloyal consequence.

Failing to disclose competing activity to the employer simultaneously breaches the duty of faithful agency, the duty of disclosure to interested parties, and the prohibition on questionable competition, because concealment allowed Engineer A to compete unfairly while still drawing on the employer's trust and resources.

Remaining employed during the interim while secretly pursuing competing interests compounds the breach of faithful agency, since continued access to the employer's clients and resources under false pretenses directly enables the disloyal solicitation and nondisclosure that follow.

Because Engineer B continued distributing the brochure after Engineer A's termination, the outdated materials misrepresented Engineer A's continued association with the firm, which directly caused clients to be misled about pertinent facts and thus violated the prohibitions on misrepresentation, misleading statements, and the specific duty to cease using the brochure once termination had occurred.

The question arises because a single act, contacting an employer's clients before leaving the firm, sits at the intersection of employee loyalty obligations and an individual's right to seek future business, and the Code does not clearly resolve which principle governs while employment is still ongoing.

The question arose because Engineer B's dual actions of terminating Engineer A and simultaneously representing Engineer A as a current key employee to prospective clients created an apparent contradiction between stated organizational reality and public representation, prompting scrutiny under the brochure accuracy and misrepresentation provisions of the Code.

The question arose because Engineer B kept circulating promotional material naming Engineer A as a key employee after actually terminating him, creating a gap between public representation and employment reality that the Code's accuracy and cessation provisions both address but do not clearly reconcile.

The question arose because Termination Notification created a gap between formal employment status and practical expectation of departure, and the Board had to decide whether Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty applies with full force during Post Notice Continued Employment or whether the impending Employment Termination event itself rebuts the ordinary strength of that duty.

The question arises because Engineer A's simultaneous status as trusted employee and prospective competitor creates a structural conflict between loyalty obligations to Engineer B and legitimate rights to seek future employment, and the lack of disclosure obscures which principle should govern the transition.

The question arose because Stale Brochure Personnel Listing and Post Notice Continued Employment created a gap between formal accuracy and practical accuracy, forcing the Board to decide whether an affirmative duty attaches to notice of a future change or only to the change itself.

The question emerged because the case facts introduce a temporal gap (Employment Termination following a delayed notice) that does not fit cleanly into existing BER precedent (BER Case 77-11) governing either current employees or former employees, forcing the Board to decide whether the interim period should be judged under strict employment-ethics standards or some modified standard.

The question arises because Engineer A's status shifted from ordinary employee to a known short-timer, creating ambiguity about which point in that transition triggers a change in obligation from strict loyalty toward permissible competitive conduct.

The question arises because Engineer A's timing, contacting clients before formal departure, blurs the line between permissible future job-seeking and impermissible current disloyalty, forcing the Board to weigh employer fidelity against individual competitive freedom.

The question arises because a single document, the brochure, simultaneously serves as a representation of firm honesty and as the informational basis for client choice, and Engineer B's failure to update it after Termination Notification puts these two obligations into direct conflict.

The question arises because Engineer A's dual position as employee and prospective competitor creates a genuine conflict between duties owed to the current employer and the client's independent interest in choosing freely, with no clear rule resolving which duty is primary during the interim period.

The question arises because Engineer A's solicitation occurred entirely within the employment relationship with no disclosure to Engineer B, creating a direct clash between the duty of loyalty to a current employer and the recognized right to prepare and compete for future business, and the deontological framing forces a decision on the act's inherent wrongness independent of consequences.

The question emerges because the brochure's continued use after termination creates a gap between formal accuracy obligations and practical business realities, forcing the Board to weigh harm against reasonableness.

The question arises because the timing gap between Engineer B's private knowledge of the coming termination and the public brochure's continued use creates ambiguity about when a duty to disclose or stop using outdated materials actually begins.

The question arose because Engineer A's continued faithful performance for several months coexisted with an undisclosed act of soliciting the employer's clients, creating an unresolved conflict between the duty of loyalty as an employee and the legitimate interest in establishing a competing practice.

The question arose because the timing of solicitation relative to notice versus termination is ambiguous in the facts, creating doubt about whether the same faithful agency warrant that condemned the actual conduct would still apply if the act were delayed until formal termination.

The question arises because the Board's original ruling addressed only the accuracy of the brochure's content at time of use, not an affirmative act of concealment toward prospective clients, so hypothesizing that concealment creates a new fact pattern that tests whether the same lenient conclusion still applies.

The question arose because the Board's finding rested on the brochure being stale after termination, and it is unclear whether the ethical violation depends on the duration or knowledge of continued use rather than the mere fact of outdated information.

Given that Engineer A was still employed and had said nothing to Engineer B about his plans, the board concluded that soliciting B's clients at that time breached the faithful-agent duty owed under the Code, regardless of Engineer A's future competitive intentions.

Because Engineer B cured the potential misrepresentation by disclosing Engineer A's impending departure during negotiations, the board found continued use of the pre-existing brochure acceptable during the notice period.

Once Engineer A's termination became fact, continuing to represent him as a key employee without correction made the brochure a misrepresentation, leading the board to find this later distribution unethical.

Because the notice period still constituted active employment, the board reasoned that Engineer A's faithful-agent duties could not be diminished merely by the existence of a termination notice, making employment status rather than notice status the operative trigger.

Because Engineer A acted covertly rather than giving Engineer B the chance to address the emerging conflict of interest, the board found that the secretive manner of solicitation compounded the underlying breach of the faithful-agent duty.

Given that the brochure was accurate at the time of printing and only became outdated (not false) during the notice period, the Board allowed continued use conditioned on disclosure, but once termination became final and no disclosure could cure the now-false statement, the Board found continued distribution unethical.

Given that Engineer A remained salaried and actively representing Engineer B's interests throughout the notice period, the Board concluded that faithful-agent duties persisted in full, making the solicitation during this period a violation rather than a permissible early transition.

Given that Engineer A solicited clients without informing Engineer B, the Board concluded that direct disclosure to the employer would have been the more ethical path, since it would have preserved trust and allowed Engineer B to respond appropriately.

Given that the notice period preserved Engineer A's employment status in fact, the Board concluded that Engineer B's brochure obligation was satisfied by disclosure alone, with a stricter cessation duty arising only once termination was finalized.

Given that the Board could clearly separate the notice period from the post-termination period and apply differentiated but ordinary standards to each, it concluded that the multi-month gap did not create genuine ethical ambiguity, only a shift in the specific content of existing duties.

Given that Engineer A contacted clients while still formally employed and bound by fiduciary duty, the board concluded under deontological reasoning that the act was wrong in itself, independent of whether any client was actually diverted or harm resulted.

Because Engineer B kept distributing the outdated brochure after Engineer A's termination without correction, the board found the resulting client deception outweighed any convenience gained by not updating the materials.

Given that Engineer B disclosed Engineer A's pending termination to prospective clients even while the brochure remained outdated, the board found professional integrity preserved because the substance of accurate disclosure was met despite the stale printed materials.

Because Engineer A's solicitation of clients while employed was already established as a violation, the board reasoned that his months of subsequent faithful service could not retroactively restore integrity, since the breach was fixed at the moment it occurred.

In assessing the counterfactual where Engineer A waited until actual termination to contact clients, the board reasoned that because the underlying client relationships were developed during employment, some ethical concern would likely persist, though less severe than in the actual case where solicitation occurred during active employment.

Because Engineer B disclosed the pending termination while the brochure was distributed during the notice period, the board found no violation, but it signals that without such disclosure the same conduct would collapse into the misrepresentation finding reserved for post-termination brochure use.

Because the brochure kept listing Engineer A well after his actual departure rather than being updated at that moment, the board located the violation in the delay itself, implying that prompt cessation at termination would have avoided any ethical breach.

Given that Engineer A solicited clients while still on Engineer B's payroll, even though his termination date was already set, the board treated ongoing formal employment as the decisive fact that kept the faithful-agent duty fully in force and rendered the solicitation improper.

Because the brochure's content was true when printed and Engineer B kept clients informed of the pending change during the notice period, the board concluded that disclosure, not withdrawal, was the operative mechanism preserving client rights and honesty simultaneously.

Once the employment relationship truly ended, the board found that the earlier disclosure-based justification no longer applied, so the continued, unrevised use of the brochure crossed into misrepresentation and triggered an affirmative duty to cease its distribution.

Should Engineer A disclose his plan to start a competing firm and solicit Engineer B's clients to Engineer B before contacting them, or proceed to contact clients without informing Engineer B?

If Engineer A sought work involving particular and specialized knowledge gained while employed by Engineer B, should he make full disclosure to Engineer B before pursuing that work, or proceed without disclosure?

During the notice period before Engineer A's actual termination, should Engineer B continue distributing the brochure listing Engineer A while disclosing his pending termination to prospective clients, or withdraw the brochure immediately upon giving notice?

After Engineer A's actual termination, should Engineer B immediately cease distributing the brochure listing him as a key employee, or continue using existing brochure stock until it is naturally replaced?

Should Engineer A treat his employment as fully binding on his loyalty until actual termination, or treat the termination notice itself as sufficient to relax his obligations and permit earlier client solicitation?