Step 4: Review

Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.

Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.

Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.

The Board cited this case to explain the purpose of Section III.8.a. requiring notice to an engineer whose work is being reviewed, and applied its reasoning to conclude that Engineer B acted unethically in disclosing his relationship with the client against the client's instructions.

Engineer B's act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser was not consistent with the Code.

The Board was split on the second question and could not reach agreement.

The Board's finding that the eventual notification was inconsistent with the Code does not fully resolve whether the underlying act of complying with the franchiser's nondisclosure directive during the review itself was already a separate and independent violation. Even setting aside the timing of the disclosure, Engineer B's acceptance of a covert review assignment -- one in which he agreed, in advance, to withhold from a fellow engineer the fact that his work was being reviewed -- arguably breached the spirit of peer notification norms the moment he began the review, regardless of what he later disclosed. The Board's conclusion focuses on the adequacy of the notification that did occur, but leaves unaddressed whether the one-week period of active concealment during the review was itself a discrete ethical lapse.

The Board's reasoning could be extended by recognizing that Engineer B had an affirmative opportunity, prior to accepting the engagement, to seek clarification of why the franchiser wanted the relationship concealed from Engineer A. Because Engineer B instead accepted the assignment first and only resolved the tension between client loyalty and peer notification after the fact, the ethical failure identified by the Board may be traceable not merely to the timing of disclosure but to a threshold failure of due diligence at the acceptance stage. Had Engineer B pressed the franchiser for its rationale before agreeing to the nondisclosure condition, he might have either negotiated permission to notify Engineer A immediately or declined the engagement altogether, avoiding the conflict the Board later found problematic.

The Board's inability to reach agreement on whether it was ethical for Engineer B to proceed with the review at that time may be partly attributable to an unresolved factual ambiguity: whether the franchiser's nondisclosure directive was motivated by legitimate business continuity concerns or by a desire to secure competitive advantage for Engineer B over Engineer A. The subsequent retention of Engineer B as the franchiser's permanent design engineer, occurring shortly after Engineer A's contract expired, suggests that the review may have functioned as a de facto tryout, which the Board's conclusions do not directly examine. Absent an explicit finding on this motive, the split among Board members may reflect differing assumptions about whether Engineer B was an unwitting participant in a competitive maneuver or a professional performing a legitimate, if awkwardly timed, review.

Regarding Q101, Engineer B's temporary compliance with the franchiser's nondisclosure directive during the actual week of review likely constitutes an independent, and arguably more serious, Code concern than the timing of the eventual notification. By conducting the Design Review Performance while under the Franchiser Nondisclosure Directive, Engineer B allowed Engineer A to remain unaware that his own work was being scrutinized by a successor candidate, which is the precise harm that peer notification norms (as reflected in BER Case 79-7) are meant to prevent. The fact that Engineer B later disclosed does not retroactively cure the ethical defect of having performed a covert review in the first instance.

Regarding Q102 and Q303, Engineer B arguably had an affirmative duty to clarify the franchiser's motive for demanding nondisclosure before accepting the Covert Review Engagement. Because the franchiser was simultaneously the party terminating Engineer A and the party retaining Engineer B, an unexplained instruction to conceal Engineer B's identity from Engineer A should have prompted scrutiny, since such secrecy could plausibly serve to gain competitive advantage in the succession process rather than to protect legitimate business affairs under III.4. Accepting the assignment without probing this motive reflects a lapse in professional diligence even if it does not rise to the level of a Code violation on its own.

Regarding Q104, the fact that Engineer B was subsequently retained as the franchiser's permanent design engineer, though the Board found no explicit evidence of a personal advantage motive (Absent Personal Advantage Motive Finding), nonetheless raises a reasonable inference that the nondisclosure directive served the franchiser's interest in evaluating a successor without alerting the incumbent. This retrospective pattern strengthens the case that Engineer B should have treated the nondisclosure request with heightened suspicion at the outset, rather than only disclosing after the review was complete.

Regarding Q201 and Q203, the tension between Client Loyalty in Nondisclosure Instruction and Peer Notification in Design Review should be resolved in favor of peer notification, because the faithful agent/trustee duty under II.4 does not extend to concealment that undermines another engineer's professional standing or ability to respond to adverse findings. A client's instruction to withhold information from a fellow professional is not the kind of 'confidential business affair' contemplated by III.4, and thus does not override the peer notification norm even where the client is also the engineer's current employer.

Regarding Q301, from a deontological standpoint Engineer B could not simultaneously and fully satisfy both the faithful agent duty to the franchiser and the peer notification duty to Engineer A while the Franchiser Relationship Nondisclosure Directive remained in effect. The two duties were structurally incompatible for the duration of the covert review, meaning Engineer B necessarily subordinated one duty to the other; his later disclosure shows he ultimately prioritized peer notification, but only after having already breached it during the review period itself.

Regarding Q302, the favorable outcome for Engineer B -- successful disclosure followed by permanent retention -- does not ethically justify his initial compliance with the nondisclosure directive. Consequentialist vindication by a good outcome cannot substitute for adherence to the Code's procedural protections for Engineer A, since the harm of covert review (denial of the opportunity to respond contemporaneously) had already occurred by the time disclosure was made, regardless of how matters later resolved for Engineer B professionally.

Regarding Q401, even absent an explicit franchiser instruction to withhold disclosure, the Board would likely still have found Engineer B's after-the-fact notification inconsistent with the Code, since the core defect lies in the sequencing of disclosure relative to the review itself, not merely in the existence of an external directive compelling secrecy. The Franchiser Nondisclosure Directive aggravates the violation but is not its sole cause; a voluntary delay in notification would raise the same peer-notice concerns.

Regarding Q402, had Engineer B notified Engineer A before conducting the design review, the Board's conclusion would likely have been reversed, since prior notification would have preserved Engineer A's opportunity to participate in or respond to the review process, aligning with the peer notification principle recognized in BER Case 79-7. The critical fact driving the Board's negative assessment is not that notification occurred, but that it occurred only after the review was already complete.

Regarding Q403, if Engineer B had been retained as permanent design engineer before Engineer A's contract expired, the Board would likely still have split on Q2, but the disagreement would probably have shifted toward a stronger minority view that proceeding with the review was unethical, since earlier permanent retention would more clearly evidence that the review was conducted while Engineer B held a competing interest adverse to Engineer A's continued relationship with the franchiser.

The Board's conclusion that Engineer B's notification was inconsistent with the Code implies that Peer Notification in Design Review functions as a threshold obligation that must be satisfied before or during the review, not merely at its conclusion. This suggests the Board did not treat Client Loyalty in Nondisclosure Instruction and Peer Notification in Design Review as equally weighted principles requiring balance; rather, once Engineer B undertook a review of a fellow engineer's work, the peer notification duty attached immediately and could not be lawfully deferred to satisfy the franchiser's competing instruction. The franchiser's directive was thus treated as subordinate to a standing Code duty owed to Engineer A, not as a legitimate constraint that Engineer B was free to honor even temporarily.

Loyalty as Faithful Agent and Trustee (II.4) does not appear to have been interpreted by the Board as extending to concealment of the reviewer's identity or relationship from the engineer whose work is under review. This indicates a limiting principle within the case: fidelity to a client's business interests is bounded by Code provisions protecting peer relationships, meaning a client's confidentiality request cannot override an engineer's independent duty to a fellow professional under Peer Review Notice in Succession Review. The unresolved split on whether proceeding with the review itself was ethical shows that while the Board was confident the nondisclosure instruction could not be followed as directed, it could not agree on whether the underlying act of reviewing a predecessor's work while bound by that instruction was itself impermissible -- revealing that the priority of peer notification over client loyalty was clearer to the Board than the priority of peer notification over the client's right to retain a reviewer of its choosing.

The case demonstrates that principle conflicts involving confidentiality and peer notification are resolved not by weighing the two obligations against each other in the abstract, but by asking whether the client's instruction itself falls within the scope of legitimate client loyalty. Because Client Loyalty in Nondisclosure Instruction concerned withholding the mere fact of a professional relationship rather than genuinely confidential business information, it did not qualify as a protected interest under provisions like III.4 or II.1.c, and therefore could not legitimately compete with Peer Notification in Design Review. This suggests a hierarchy in which peer-protection duties take precedence whenever the client's confidentiality claim is not substantively tied to protected business or technical information.

Was Engineer B's act of notifying Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser consistent with the Code?

Was it ethical for Engineer B to proceed with the review at that time?

Did Engineer B's compliance with the franchiser's nondisclosure directive during the week of review, even temporarily, already constitute a Code violation independent of the later notification?

Should Engineer B have sought clarification of the franchiser's motive for requesting nondisclosure before accepting the review engagement, rather than accepting the assignment and only later deciding to disclose?

Does the timing of Engineer B's notification -- after completing the review rather than before or during it -- affect whether Engineer A's professional interests were adequately protected?

Does Engineer B's subsequent retention as the franchiser's permanent design engineer suggest that the franchiser's nondisclosure instruction was intended to secure competitive advantage, and if so, should this have influenced Engineer B's willingness to accept the covert assignment?

How should Engineer B balance Client Loyalty in Nondisclosure Instruction, which obligates confidentiality toward the franchiser, against Peer Notification in Design Review, which obligates informing a fellow engineer that his work is under review?

Does Loyalty as Faithful Agent and Trustee toward the franchiser conflict with Peer Review Notice in Succession Review, given that notifying the predecessor engineer could be seen as adverse to the client's stated wishes?

When Client Loyalty in Nondisclosure Instruction and Peer Notification in Design Review point in opposite directions, which principle should take precedence, and does the answer change once the reviewing engineer has already been retained as the client's ongoing design engineer?

From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill his duty as a faithful agent to the franchiser while simultaneously satisfying his peer notification duty to Engineer A, given that these two obligations pulled in opposite directions?

Did the ultimate outcome -- Engineer B's success in disclosing his relationship and later being retained as the permanent design engineer -- justify his initial compliance with the franchiser's nondisclosure directive during the review?

Did Engineer B act with professional integrity when he accepted the review engagement without seeking clarification of the franchiser's motive for the nondisclosure instruction?

If the franchiser had not specifically instructed Engineer B to withhold disclosure of his relationship from Engineer A, would the Board still have concluded that Engineer B's eventual notification (made only after completing the review) was not consistent with the Code?

If Engineer B had notified Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser before conducting the design review rather than after completing it, would the Board's conclusion that the notification was inconsistent with the Code still hold?

If the franchiser had retained Engineer B as its permanent design engineer before Engineer A's contract expired, rather than only afterward, would the Board still have been unable to reach agreement on whether Engineer B's review at that time was ethical?

The Franchiser's decision not to renew the contract sets in motion both the retention of a reviewing engineer and the eventual expiration of the original agreement, making it the pivotal upstream act that structures all subsequent normative choices even though no obligation attaches to it directly.

Retaining the reviewing engineer, prompted by both the non-renewal notice and emerging design concerns, is the causal hinge that leads the Franchiser to issue the non-disclosure instruction and leads Engineer B to actually perform the design review, so its normative weight lies in enabling a review process whose integrity later depends on how disclosure is handled.

The Franchiser's instruction to withhold information directly causes Engineer B to accept the engagement without seeking clarification, meaning this instruction is the proximate source of the ethical defect even though it carries no formal violation label itself, since it structurally induces the downstream lapse.

Retaining the design engineer only becomes possible once the contract has expired, so this action is normatively significant mainly as a consequence that closes the causal loop begun by the non-renewal notice, without itself bearing direct obligations.

By accepting the engagement without clarifying why disclosure was being withheld, Engineer B violates the obligation to clarify the client's rationale and fails the Faithful Agent and Trustee standard that should have guided the decision, a failure made consequential because it was this very engagement that led to the design review and the belated disclosure to the reviewed engineer.

Because Design Review Performance arises directly from Engineer B's retention by the franchiser and leads onward to the disclosure decision, performing the review faithfully and competently as a trustee for the client matters since any deficiency or bias here would taint the entire downstream judgment about Engineer A's work.

Disclosure to Reviewed Engineer directly violates both the general duty of faithful agency to the client and the specific instruction not to notify Engineer A, so even though it is guided by a professional norm favoring notice to the reviewed engineer, this action represents Engineer B prioritizing a competing obligation over the client's explicit non-disclosure directive that had causally set the terms of the engagement.

The question arises because Engineer B eventually notified Engineer A one week after starting the review, creating ambiguity over whether this timing and the underlying instruction to withhold the relationship satisfied or violated the Code's competing demands for peer courtesy and client fidelity.

The question emerges because Engineer B faced a direct conflict between the client's explicit confidentiality directive and the professional norm of notifying a peer whose work is being reviewed, with no clear resolution mechanism at the time the review began.

The question arises because the eventual notification to Engineer A does not retroactively settle whether the earlier period of silence, taken alone, already breached the Code, forcing the Board to weigh competing warrants that were both active during the One Week Notification Delay.

The question arises because Engineer B proceeded from data (an unexplained secrecy demand tied to reviewing a peer's work) straight to accepting the engagement, leaving open whether professional diligence required investigating the client's motive first rather than resolving disclosure concerns only after the fact.

The question arises because the One Week Notification Delay and Post-Expiration Engagement End sit between two plausible norms, prompt peer notice versus client-directed confidentiality, and the record leaves the client's motive for secrecy unclarified, so it is unclear which obligation should have governed the timing.

The question arises because the temporal sequence, nondisclosure then retention, invites an inference of intent that was not verifiable when Engineer B accepted the assignment, creating tension between deferential and inquiring interpretations of the faithful agent duty.

The question emerged because Engineer B was retained to review a predecessor's work under an explicit confidentiality directive, creating a direct clash between the obligation of client loyalty and the professional norm of notifying a peer whose work is under scrutiny.

The question emerged because Engineer B accepted a design review role under a client directive to conceal the review from the original engineer, creating a direct clash between contractual loyalty to the franchiser and the professional norm of notifying a peer under review.

The question arises because the same facts, a covert review followed by a change in Engineer B's role from outside reviewer to retained successor, activate two established but conflicting duties, and the shift in role reopens whether the original justification for silence still holds.

The question arises because Engineer B occupies two roles simultaneously, agent to the franchiser and peer to Engineer A, and the client's explicit instruction to stay silent directly conflicts with the profession's peer notification norm, forcing a deontological weighing of which duty takes precedence.

The question arises because Engineer B's later transparency and professional success create a retrospective justification narrative that conflicts with the standing obligation to notify a peer during review, forcing the Board to weigh outcome against process.

The question arose because Engineer B accepted an unusual nondisclosure instruction from a client without probing its rationale, creating tension between client loyalty and independent professional judgment about a peer engineer's interests.

The question arises because the Board's condemnation of the delayed notification is entangled with the franchiser's nondisclosure directive, leaving ambiguous whether Engineer B's conduct would still be judged unethical if he had acted on his own initiative rather than under client instruction.

The question emerged because the Board's ruling addressed a specific delayed disclosure, prompting speculation about whether an earlier disclosure would change the outcome or whether the structural conflict between client-directed nondisclosure and peer notification duties would persist regardless of timing.

The question emerged because the Board's split decision rested on ambiguous timing between contract expiration and review commencement, prompting speculation whether reordering these events would resolve or merely relocate the same warrant conflict between client loyalty and peer notification.

Given that Engineer B withheld notice throughout the entire review period and only informed Engineer A afterward, the Board concluded this timing failed to protect Engineer A's professional interests and so was inconsistent with the Code, even though some disclosure eventually occurred.

Because the case record did not clarify the franchiser's motive or settle how broadly 'faithful agent' duties extend, the Board could not agree on whether accepting the covert review was itself ethical, leaving Question 2 unresolved.

Because the Board's language focused on the adequacy of notification rather than on the week of active concealment that preceded it, this analysis concludes that a separate potential violation during the review itself was left unaddressed by the original conclusion.

Because Engineer B accepted the covert assignment without first asking why concealment was required, this analysis concludes the ethical failure identified by the Board may be traceable to a threshold due diligence lapse at acceptance rather than only to the timing of eventual disclosure.

Because Engineer B's permanent retention followed closely on Engineer A's contract expiration without the Board explicitly examining the franchiser's motive, this analysis concludes the unresolved split in Conclusion 2 may reflect differing member assumptions about whether the review was a legitimate assignment or a competitive maneuver.

Given that Engineer B carried out the Design Review Performance while bound by the Franchiser Nondisclosure Directive and Engineer A remained unaware his work was being scrutinized, the board concluded the covert conduct during the review week was itself a Code concern, independent of and arguably worse than the later delay in notifying him.

Because the franchiser's request for secrecy arose in a context where it was both ending Engineer A's engagement and hiring Engineer B, the board reasoned that Engineer B should have questioned the motive before accepting, even though the omission falls short of an outright Code violation.

Although the board found no explicit Absent Personal Advantage Motive Finding, the fact that Engineer B ended up as the franchiser's permanent design engineer led the board to infer that the nondisclosure instruction plausibly served an evaluative, competitive purpose, reinforcing that Engineer B should have treated the request with more suspicion from the outset.

Because the nondisclosure instruction served to hide the review from Engineer A rather than to protect any genuine confidential business affair, the board concluded that peer notification duties should prevail over client loyalty, even where the client was also Engineer B's employer.

Given that the Franchiser Nondisclosure Directive was in force for the entire review period, the board reasoned that Engineer B could not have honored both the faithful agent duty and the peer notification duty at once, and that his later disclosure only confirmed the breach had already occurred during the covert phase.

Given that Engineer B's covert review had already deprived Engineer A of a contemporaneous opportunity to respond, the board concluded that Engineer B's eventual success and retention could not retroactively cure that procedural harm, since the violation was complete before the good outcome materialized.

Because the core problem was the timing of disclosure relative to the review rather than the mere existence of the franchiser's directive, the board reasoned that even a voluntary delay absent any instruction would have raised the same peer notice concerns.

Since Engineer A was never given a chance to respond before the review concluded, the board found the notification inconsistent with the Code, but reasoned that had notice preceded the review, the peer notification principle recognized in BER Case 79-7 would have been satisfied instead.

Because Engineer B's permanent retention followed rather than preceded Engineer A's contract expiration, the board split without a strong minority condemning the review, but reasoned that earlier retention would have made the conflict of interest more evident and shifted opinion toward finding the review unethical.

Given that Engineer B undertook a review of Engineer A's work while under a franchiser nondisclosure directive, the board concluded that the peer notification duty attached at the outset and could not be deferred, treating the franchiser's instruction as subordinate to this standing Code obligation rather than as an equally weighted competing claim.

Given that the franchiser's instruction sought only to hide Engineer B's identity rather than protect real confidential information, the Board concluded that Loyalty as Faithful Agent and Trustee could not override the duty to notify Engineer A, though it remained divided on whether beginning the review under such an instruction was itself consistent with the Code.

Because the franchiser's request concealed only the fact of Engineer B's relationship rather than any protected business information, the Board concluded that Client Loyalty in Nondisclosure Instruction never rose to a level that could compete with Peer Notification in Design Review, so the latter prevailed as a matter of scope rather than balancing.

Should Engineer B seek clarification from the franchiser about why it wants the relationship concealed before accepting the review engagement, or accept the assignment as instructed without probing the motive?

Should Engineer B accept the review engagement under the franchiser's nondisclosure condition, decline until the condition is lifted, or accept while immediately notifying Engineer A despite the instruction?

Should Engineer B comply with the franchiser's nondisclosure directive for the full week of the review, or disclose his relationship to Engineer A as soon as the review begins?

Should Engineer B notify Engineer A of the relationship with the franchiser before starting the review, or only after completing it as actually occurred?

Should Engineer B conduct the review as a fully independent evaluation insulated from the prospect of permanent retention, or allow that prospect to shape his compliance with the franchiser's nondisclosure terms?