This is the April 2025 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 April 2025 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 April 29.
Your opinion has been registered for the April 2025 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 April 29.
A Review of the Facts
Engineer Bruce serves as a peer reviewer in an organized peer review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice. When originally selected as a peer reviewer, Bruce is asked to sign a “confidentiality agreement,” whereby Bruce agrees not to disclose confidential information involving peer-reviewed firms.
As part of a peer review visit, Bruce visits Engineer Rick’s firm. Following a review of the technical documentation in connection with a series of recent design projects involving Rick’s firm, Bruce discovers that Rick’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare. Bruce immediately discusses these issues with Rick in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution. Bruce and Rick are unable to resolve the issue, and Bruce subsequently informs the appropriate authorities about Rick’s potential violation of the safety code.
Was it ethical for Bruce to inform the authorities about Rick’s potential violation of the safety code?
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 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.
Discussion
Through the years, various professions, including groups within the engineering profession, have successfully developed peer review programs. These voluntary programs have been immensely successful in creating a mechanism whereby professionals in a collegial atmosphere can work with one another in an effort to understand and improve professional practice. This can be accomplished by analyzing and evaluating the actions, decisions, and techniques of the professional and offering constructive and, at times, critical feedback. Peer review enhances professional practice.
One of the hallmarks of engineering peer review programs has been the fact that such programs are built on a foundation of confidentiality, whereby an individual agreeing to serve as a peer reviewer must sign a “confidentiality agreement” in which the peer reviewer agrees not to disclose information that is revealed to the peer reviewer about the firm being reviewed during the course of the peer-review process.
There are sound reasons for such an approach. Firms being peer-reviewed should be encouraged to provide as much pertinent detailed information to the peer reviewer to allow the peer reviewer the opportunity to perform a thorough evaluation of the firm, and confidentiality helps to assure that the maximum amount of disclosure will occur. In addition, confidentiality helps build trust between the parties involved in the peer-review process and promotes an atmosphere that will improve the likelihood that the peer review process will be mutually productive and ultimately successful.
While the merits of confidentiality are clear, the Board of Ethical Review is faced with a situation in the present case where Bruce, the engineer performing the peer review, discovers that the work of the engineer being peer-reviewed, Rick, may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health and welfare. This ethical dilemma appears to involve two separate provisions of the NSPE Code of Ethics – Code III.4 and Code II.1.e.
The BER has considered at least one case involving an engineer gaining knowledge of information damaging to a client’s interest, which involved the public health and safety (see BER Case 76-4). On the one hand, the engineer has an obligation not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client without their consent. On the other hand, Bruce, having knowledge of any alleged violation of the Code of Ethics, has an obligation to cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
Weighing the competing considerations in this case, the Board of Ethical Review is of the opinion that Bruce will have to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion concerning this matter depending upon all of the facts and circumstances. If Bruce determines that there is an imminent risk of harm to the public health and safety such as loss of life, serious risk of injury to persons or property, Bruce must immediately take appropriate steps by notifying Rick. In the event that Rick fails to take appropriate corrective actions, Bruce may cooperate with proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required. While confidentiality is an important ethical value, as a licensed professional engineer, Bruce’s paramount responsibility is to protect the public health and safety.
Assuming from the facts that Bruce determines that Rick’s work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health and welfare, a more appropriate action would be for Bruce to expeditiously discuss these issues with Rick in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue. If Bruce and Rick are unable to resolve the issue, Bruce must inform Rick that as a professional engineer, his only alternative is to cooperate with the proper authorities as indicated above.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
It was ethical for Bruce to inform the authorities about Rick’s potential violation of the safety code.
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.
1431 Graham Drive, Suite 265
support@noonpi.com
This is a difficult situation. The terms of Engineer Bruce’s Peer Review assignment include a Confidentiality Agreement that can be thought of as similar to a “Work Product” privilege in the legal field. The intent here is to keep confidential the intellectual process that leads to the final design, which may have included errors, omissions, faulty assumptions and/or unique engineering work that the designer would like to keep as their private intellectual property. In the event that litigation arises as a result of Engineer Rick’s work, the confidential information could play a significant role in the outcome of the case. The Confidentiality Agreement on its face would preclude Engineer Bruce from disclosing the potential Code violations in Engineer Rick’s work. We are told, however, that the potential Code violations could endanger public health, safety, and welfare. With that information, the Code of Ethics would indicate that Engineer Bruce now has a higher duty to protect the public. Since Engineer Bruce has not been able to reach an agreement with Engineer Rick to address the potential Code violation problems, Bruce’s duty to protect the public means that he has to inform the appropriate authorities of the issues. The best outcome would be that all parties get together to resolve the potential Code violations in a manner that protects the public. Engineer Bruce was Ethical. Unfortunately, Engineer Bruce may face legal action for violation of the terms of the Confidential Agreement.
Re April 2025 Dilemma: Not presented as an alternative, but my thought would be for Bruce, after an unproductive meeting with Rick, to next approach Rick’s firm’s management with his concerns in writing to discuss the quality of Rick’s work, which is really two issues: one is the particular project that was reviewed, and the other would be concern for an engineer with a bad attitude towards responsible work to the standard of care. If Rick’s manager(s) do not confirm they understand and will deal with both issues appropriately, then I would go to the next level.
If Bruce had informed Rick that he was going to report Rick’s actions to the authorities, then I think his action would have been ethical. The facts did not state that Rick was informed that Bruce was going to report to the authorities.