Case Repository

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about increased risk?
2. Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified...

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Was Engineer A’s use of AI to create the report text ethical, given that Engineer A thoroughly checked the report?
2. Was Engineer A’s use of AI-assisted drafting tools to create the engineering design documents ethical, given that Engineer A reviewed the design...
3. If the use of AI was acceptable, did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to disclose the use of AI in any form to the Client?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A?
2. Were Engineer A’s actions in investigating City D’s contracting practices ethical?
3. Because City D’s Engineer refuses to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, what steps must Engineer A take?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Should Engineer M challenge the validity of Firm DBA’s report?
2. Should Engineer M raise any concerns with the City, as the client, and, if so, how?
3. Are Firm DBA’s actions ethical? Even though Firm DBA is not providing engineering services, are they required to abide by NSPE’s Code of Ethics?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach is better. Should Engineer K have only presented information about the Sustainable Approach?
2. Does Engineer K have any ethical obligations after the City approves the Traditional Approach?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

Was it ethical for Engineer B to accept the rural roadway design contract under these circumstances?

Conclusions:

It was unethical for Engineer B to accept the rural roadway design contract under these circumstances.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for City Engineer J to review and approve plans prepared by Firm BWJ, given that City Engineer J formerly worked for Firm BWJ?
2. What are Principal Engineer R's ethical responsibilities under the facts?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Is it ethical for Engineer D to accept employment with AE&R?
2. Is it ethical for Engineer D to be immediately, directly involved with AE&R's projects with the City?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude an error had not been made in design?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error during the deposition?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Cutting Edge Engineering and Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer Intern Wasser to refuse to perform the task of design development for the proposed irrigation system?
3. If the traditional lawn irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work, what can Engineer Jaylani’s firm do to complete the...

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Is it ethical for Engineer D to provide access to as-builts after projects were awarded?
2. Is it ethical for Engineer D to share as-builts with sprinkler contractors who ask for information during the bidding phase?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

Is Engineer C’s answering of the City Administrator’s questions and his criticism of Engineer B ethical?

Conclusions:

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

Questions:

1. Are the proposal techniques of Engineer B ethical with respect to the NSPE Code of Ethics?
2. Does Engineer A have an obligation to report a violation to the Engineering Licensing Board in State Q? In State Z?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Engineer B ethically obligated to take further action to protect public health, safety and welfare?
2. If Engineer B wishes to take further action to continue to correspond with the MWC or the regulatory agency regarding the public health and safety...

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?
2. Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?
3. After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities? Note that in the public record, H is...
4. ... and 1 more

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B?
2. Were Engineer B’s actions ethical?
3. Were Engineer Intern C’s actions ethical?
4. ... and 2 more

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Is Engineer B ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review?
2. Is Engineer A ethically required to cooperate with the peer review of Engineer B?

Conclusions:

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.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide a recommendation on project delivery methods that only included two of the possible methods, without...
2. Was it ethical for Engineer A to recommend the method for which they could provide services?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer A to include project summaries and references to encourage selection of their firm for the recommended method for...

Conclusions:

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.