This is the October 2020 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials and members of the public.

Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.

Your opinion has been registered for the October 2020 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?

Your vote is recorded as:

It is ethical
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on October 27.

Your opinion has been registered for the October 2020 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?

Your vote is recorded as:

It is not ethical
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on October 27.

A Review of the Facts

Engineer Patrick, employed by Superior Engineering, leaves Superior and goes to work for competitor Maverick Engineering. A project which Patrick was responsible for was virtually completed, but Patrick did not sign or seal the construction documents before leaving Superior’s employment. Engineer Roland, a principal in Superior, requests Patrick to sign and seal the drawings. Patrick refuses to sign or seal the construction documents unless Superior pays Patrick an additional fee.

Was it ethical for Patrick to refuse to sign or seal the plans unless Superior pays Patrick an additional fee?

Here is the result of our survey of your peers:

51% Ethical; 49% Not Ethical

Applicable NSPE Code References:
Code I.4: Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Code III.4: 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.
Code III.4: 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.
Code III.8: Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected.

Discussion

The engineer’s obligation to take responsibility for professional services is a basic ethical principle contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics. As a general principle, engineers have the obligation to assume responsibility for professional services performed by them, or by those directly under their personal supervision. Depending on the nature of the work, this may include services performed for the benefit of a client, design work, reports, plans, and specifications and work prepared by the engineer, which will be submitted to a public authority for approval.

Engineers who work for one firm and then move on to another firm are not released from this professional responsibility. The work that they performed for their previous employer is no less their work because they no longer have a direct relationship with that firm. Once a professional renders professional services on behalf of a client, the professional is duty bound to make certain that the work is done in a responsible and professional manner and that the client’s interests are protected and preserved.

This circumstance can become particularly sensitive when an engineer leaves a firm to go to work with a competing firm. Nevertheless, the fact that the two firms are in direct competition should have no bearing on the responsibility of the engineer to assume responsibility for the work and take appropriate steps for the benefit of the client. It would seem not only the ethical course of action, but also an action which comports with the interests of all parties, including the interests of the new firm at which the engineer is now employed.

The full extent of Patrick’s involvement with the project is not evident from the facts presented. However, it can be assumed by the use of the term “virtually completed” that the work had been completed in almost all respects, and only minor ministerial detail remained to be performed. Thus, it can be surmised that Patrick would not be asked to perform an exhaustive or detailed review of the work, since it can be assumed that Patrick was already intimately familiar with the work on the project for which he had been and continues to be responsible. In addition, because Patrick is not employed by the original firm at the time he is being asked to sign and seal the drawings, it does not appear that he would be violating any ethical proscription contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics (see NSPE Code III.4).

We are concerned by Patrick’s professional attitude concerning the firm’s request that he sign and seal drawings. While we believe Patrick may have legitimately been entitled to a small fee for performing additional professional services performed for his former employer, and as part of his accountability to his new firm, we are struck by Patrick’s refusal to sign and seal the drawings unless paid additional compensation. As we have discussed earlier, since Patrick was primarily responsible for the work and had direct control and personal supervision over the work, Patrick has a professional obligation to sign the work regardless of the how the compensation matter is resolved. It is unclear whether competitive pressures between the firms may have been a factor in Patrick’s position, but such factors should not come into play in a matter of the signing and sealing of drawings.

The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion

It is not ethical

It was unethical for Patrick to refuse to sign or seal the construction documents unless Superior pays Patrick an additional fee.

BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
James G. Fuller, P.E., William W. Middleton, P.E., Robert L. Nichols, P.E., William E. Norris, P.E., Paul E. Pritzker, P.E., Jimmy H. Smith, P.E., C. Allen Wortley, P.E. (Observer), Donald L. Hiatte, P.E., Chairman

Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.