Regarding Engineer A's obligation to inform Attorney X about State M licensing requirements (Q101), Engineer A bore a significant ethical duty to disclose this limitation before accepting the engagement. While Attorney X specifically sought 'non-engineering expert services,' Engineer A's possession of engineering credentials and forensic engineering certification created a potential for jurisdictional confusion. The principle of full disclosure requires that experts clarify the boundaries of their authorized practice, particularly when licensing statutes create specific requirements for engineering testimony. Engineer A's failure to address this upfront represents a missed opportunity for transparent professional practice.

Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's self-presentation without PE identification was ethical when qualified as a non-engineering expert, this case establishes a critical distinction between credential omission and credential misrepresentation. The Board's analysis implicitly recognizes that engineers possess a dual professional identity - they may legitimately operate in non-engineering capacities while maintaining engineering credentials. However, the ethical boundary is crossed not merely by using engineering-related titles, but specifically by using titles that create false impressions of authorization or certification that the engineer does not actually possess in the relevant jurisdiction.

Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A's self-presentation without PE identification was ethical when qualified as a non-engineering expert, this case establishes a critical distinction between credential omission and credential misrepresentation. The Board's analysis implicitly recognizes that engineers possess a dual professional identity - they may legitimately operate in non-engineering capacities while maintaining engineering credentials. However, the ethical boundary is crossed not merely by using engineering-related titles, but specifically by using titles that create false impressions of authorization or certification that the engineer does not actually possess in the relevant jurisdiction.

The Board's determination that the Forensic Engineering Diplomate title was unethical reveals a sophisticated understanding of how professional titles function as implicit warranties of competence and authorization. The title 'Forensic Engineering' inherently suggests engineering practice in a legal context, which directly conflicts with the State M licensing requirement and Engineer A's explicit engagement for 'non-engineering expert services'. This creates what could be termed 'credential contradiction' - where the professional title contradicts the stated scope of services, potentially misleading courts about the nature and legal standing of the expertise being offered.

The tension between JurisdictionalCompliance_CurrentCase and Competence_EngineerA_Qualifications (Q201) reveals a fundamental hierarchy in engineering ethics: regulatory compliance takes precedence over credential display, but competence can be demonstrated through alternative means. The Board's resolution suggests that engineers must navigate jurisdictional boundaries by adapting their professional presentation rather than avoiding practice altogether. This case establishes that competent engineers can ethically provide services across jurisdictions by clearly delineating the scope and legal framework of their practice, but they cannot use credential presentation to circumvent or obscure jurisdictional limitations.

The interaction between Transparency_Case04-11_Situation1 and IndependentJudgment_Case19-3 (Q203) demonstrates that transparency enhances rather than undermines independent professional judgment. The Board's analysis implicitly rejects the notion that credential ambiguity preserves expert credibility. Instead, clear disclosure of jurisdictional limitations and service scope actually strengthens the expert's position by establishing honest boundaries of competence. This case teaches that professional integrity is built through transparent limitation acknowledgment, not through credential maximization or ambiguous presentation.

From a virtue ethics perspective (Q303), Engineer A's credential presentation reveals a failure to demonstrate the cardinal professional virtues of honesty and integrity. While Engineer A may have possessed genuine expertise, the use of 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' without clarifying jurisdictional limitations or the non-engineering nature of the services represents a form of professional vanity that prioritizes credential display over transparent communication. A virtuous engineer would have chosen a title that accurately reflected both their qualifications and the specific scope of services being provided, such as 'Consultant A, Non-Engineering Expert' or 'Consultant A, Technical Expert (not practicing engineering in State M)'.