This is the January 2022 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 January 2022 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on January 25.
Your opinion has been registered for the January 2022 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on January 25.
A Review of the Facts
Engineer Sam is a professional engineer who occasionally provides forensic engineering services as part of the litigation process. As part of a written submission during a legal proceeding, Sam indicates that he possesses a degree in electrical engineering and a doctoral degree in electrical engineering. In fact, Sam’s baccalaureate degree was in engineering technology and his doctoral degree was an honorary degree bestowed upon him by an engineering school. Engineer Sally who knows Sam learns of these misrepresentations in discussions with her colleague, Engineer Mike, who is serving as an expert witness for the side opposing Sam’s client. Mike is unaware of the misrepresentation. Sally does not tell the authorities about Sam’s misrepresentations.
Was Sally unethical in not informing the authorities what she knows about Sam?
Here is the result of our survey of your peers:
Applicable NSPE Code References:
Code II.1.f
Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
Code II.5.a
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.
Code III.7
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.
Discussion
The Board has had occasion to consider the issue of falsification or misrepresentation of academic or professional qualifications on a number of occasions. The issue of falsification or misrepresentation of academic or professional qualifications is a core ethical issue because it goes to the heart of engineering ethics-the protection of the public health and safety through the establishment of rules of conduct that help to assure that the public receives the highest quality engineering services possible. As a preliminary observation, we would first note that Sam’s conduct was clearly improper under the Code of Ethics.
BER Case 79-5 is instructive on this important issue. There, an engineer received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1940 from a recognized engineering curriculum and subsequently was registered as a professional engineer in two states. Later, he was awarded an earned “Professional Degree” from the same institution. In 1960 he received a Ph.D. degree from an organization that awards degrees on the basis of correspondence without requiring any form of personal attendance or study at the institution and is regarded by state authorities as a “diploma mill.” The engineer listed his Ph.D. degree among his academic qualifications in brochures, correspondence, and otherwise without indicating its nature. In finding that it was unethical for the engineer to cite his Ph.D. as an academic qualification under these circumstances, the Board noted that the engineer was charged with knowledge of the accepted standards of the profession. By stating that he had a Ph.D. degree, he should have been aware that those who receive his communications would be deceived. While the Board noted that there might be some flexibility allowed for state registration boards to decide which educational attainments meet the standards for registration purposes, and there is some flexibility allowed to members of the profession in listing academic degrees from institutions or curricula not recognized by the state boards, the bounds of such flexibility are exceeded when the basis for the claimed educational achievement is a mail-order procedure.
More recently, in BER Case 86-6, an engineer seeking employment with Y had been employed earlier by X as a staff engineer, along with five other staff engineers of equal rank. The team of six was responsible for the design of certain products. While working for X, the engineer, along with the five other engineers in his team, participated in and was credited with the design of a series of products. The engineer’s resume implied that he personally was responsible for the design of products that were actually designed through the joint effort of the members of the team. In ruling it was unethical for the engineer to imply responsibility in the manner indicated, the Board noted that while the engineer did not state that he was personally responsible for the work in question, the Board interpreted the word “misrepresentation” in Code II.5.a. to include implications which are intended to obscure the truth to a client, members of the public, or prospective employers for that matter.
These two cases, as well as other cases considered by previous Boards, clearly illustrate their strong disfavor toward circumstances where an individual expressly or impliedly falsifies or misrepresents academic or professional qualifications to employers, clients, or to members of the public. There can be no doubt concerning their view on this important issue. However, the question faced by us relates to the ethical obligation of an engineer who learns of another engineer’s improper conduct. Does that engineer have an obligation to confront the misrepresenting engineer? Does the Code of Ethics require the engineer to take further action by reporting the misrepresentation to the appropriate authorities? Are both actions required?
Code II.1.f. and Code III.7 make it clear that an engineer who learns of a misrepresentation of this nature committed by another engineer cannot stand silent and do nothing. We are persuaded that an engineer who learns of such misrepresentation has an obligation to notify and cooperate with proper authorities concerning the misrepresentation.
We also note that some state engineering registration laws may impose an affirmative obligation on the registrant to immediately report instances such as those described under the facts as a matter of law.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
Sally was unethical in not informing the appropriate authorities regarding what she knew about Sam. In some circumstances, as a matter of courtesy, it may be appropriate for Sally to advise Sam that his misrepresentation is unethical, but such actions are not required by the Code of Ethics.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
John F. X. Browne, P.E. William A. Cox, Jr., P.E. Herbert G. Koogle, P.E.-L.S. William W. Middleton, P.E. William F. Rauch, Jr., P.E. Otto A. Tennant, P.E. Robert L. Nichols, 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.
1431 Graham Drive, Suite 265
support@noonpi.com
Where does Adam come into this picture? I think there is some leftover stuff (third and second to last paragraphs).
And who is Adam? The Civil Engineer/ City enginer?
Insufficient information is given. What authorities? This is litigation. Sam is serving as a forensic expert, not the designer or engineer or record. It is appropriate here to advise the attorney of Sam’s credentials and let the attorney disqualify him at trial. There are no authorities to notify.
Since Sally knows Sam, she should advise Sam that she intends to report him to the board, for an ethics violation. Since this information could potentially destroy Sam’s career, that is another form of ethics that would be violated if she just informed the board without telling Sam.
Sam would likely take himself off the case, and (hopefully) use this as a learning tool, to not misrepresent himself again in the future. Who knows if Sam intentionally misrepresented himself? Perhaps his attorney convinced Sam it was OK, and he reluctantly went along with it?
However, If Sally is afraid of Sam, she should go ahead and report the violation.
So, it was written disclosure for the case…Mike being on the opposing side of Sam, knew of the contents of the document.) How does Sally learn of the contents of the document unless Mike talks about the case (unethical?) So Sam’s mis representing himself to the courts, Mike is talking, and Sally should be losing sleep knowing both her friends are not fully truthful and honoring their professional ethics . I agree with David above…she should talk to Sam, and also to Mike. The attorney that has hired Mike will ask on the stand all the normal questions about Sam’s credentials…it will come out…or be perjury. One last conflict in this story, Engineer Sally….since it starts a sentence is she a PE or just an engineer? While we all hope to have professional Ethics, PE’s are held to the code daily.
This was my take as well. If Sam is presenting himself as a PE, then it could be reported to the engineering licensure board (which may have little or no effect depending on the laws of the state) but that is not the case here. To what authority is Sally obligated to report exactly here? If the opposing counsel (and Mike) are willing to accept Sam’s expert qualifications at face value, then it is on them. Whose responsibility is it to vet the qualifications of an expert witness and which rules have actually been broken? To place an ethical burden on Sally to reach out to the courts seems to be an over-reach. Also unless she sees the CV, Sally is just receiving hearsay about the misrepresentation. If Sally is truly concerned then she could tell Mike that his attorneys might want to do a check and let them take it from there.
“learns of these misrepresentations in discussions with her colleague, Engineer Mike” So the engineer involved in the case that was involved in the conversation that Sally learns of the misrepresentation doesn’t know? I wouldn’t say Sally needs to tell the authorities, just point out the obvious to ignorant Engineer Mike. The misrepresentation will be exposed in court and Sam will be disqualified from the proceedings. The “authorities” (whoever that means) will know after that. In reality, the vetting of the “expert” should be done in the court case anyway and Sam would be exposed then.
I agree that this is lawyer to lawyer situation. Expert witness is totally different job than a professional engineer. There is no professional engineering ethics question in this case at all.
The answer may vary by state. In some states the “Practice of Engineering” is relatively narrowly defined, and specifically excludes offering opinion testimony as an expert witness..
Sam is a licensed professional engineer. It is abundantly clear that he is in violation of Code II.5.a. That warrants a call to whatever governing body oversees engineers in his state.
Written responses, as in a deposition, are usually given under oath. False swearing is a criminal matter, not “lawyer to lawyer”. Since the misrepresentation materially affects the weight the court may give his testimony, Sally also needs to contact the authorities, per Code II.1.f.
However, there is an additional consideration. Sam’s misrepresentations don’t affect just him, they could reflect badly on his employer when, not if, they come to light as they certainly will during voir dire. Sam may consider his statements to be innocent CV “padding”, and we are not given any additional information as to his state of mind when he made his responses. In order to avoid a Code III.7 violation, Sally should make Sam aware of her intent to make a complaint and notify his company management of the issue. Sam could then “amend” his responses to the interrogatories, or withdraw as a witness entirely.