Ethics, Professionalism and Engineering

Notes:
The lecture on ethics has three parts: the Powerpoint presentation, a copy of the NSPE Code of Ethics
and the information in this package.
The Powerpoint discusses the ideas of professionalism and its relation to the public good. The
introduction to ethics presents the basic ideas of what ethics are and how they are defined by the public.
These can be read pretty quickly.
When the slides start talking about the NSPE Code of Ethics, pass out copies of the Code so they can see
it and see the parts of the code. The code is located at:
http://www.nspe.org/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
in Postscript form and at:
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
in html.
The Rules of Professional Conduct from the NCEES Model Law is also provided if you want to hand it
out.
The last part of the class is reviewing some ethical cases. Pass out the Case Study sheets.
I believe the most efficient way to cover this material is to divide the class into four groups. Have them
read all four cases and then assign a case to each group. They are to:
1) Determine the Canon which corresponds most closely to the case.
2) Read the Rule of Practice which corresponds to that Canon. Agree on the Articles which are
most important and develop a finding or answer to the question.
3) After some period of time during which they can read the case and code, depending on how
much time you have (5-10 minutes is probably enough), each group can briefly describe the case,
give their conclusion based on their answer.
There may not be enough time to discuss all four cases. The value of the assignment is learning that
there is a Code of Ethics which they will work under, reading the types of problems they can run into,
and going through the more formal process of making a decision using a Code.

Case Study #1
FACTS:
B. Wright, a principal in ABC Engineering, an environmental engineering firm, submits qualifications
and a proposal to a local municipality to be considered as the consultant for the research and analysis of
a former dump site which is being considered for reclamation as a wetland. The dump has been closed
for many years after being used for several decades for commercial waste disposal, possibly without any
regulation or control. In a meeting with B. Wright, the municipality indicates the possibility that there
could be hazardous and toxic wastes encountered in the dump. Upon being awarded the contract, B.
Wright is informed by the city that, as part of the contract, a confidentiality clause must be signed which
precludes B. Wright from disclosing any results or information concerning the project without the citys
written permission. He signs the contract and the clause.
Preliminary research by B. Wright confirms that the dump site is not closed according to the hazardous
and solid waste regulations of the state. Tests of the surface soils on the site are inconclusive but reveal
a possibility that very high contaminant levels of hazardous and toxic waste could, over time, become
exposed at the surface, due to erosion of the cover, and even washed into a river that flows immediately
adjacent to the site. The city is considering plans to build a childrens park, recreation and picnic area,
bike/jogging trail, and parkway near the reclaimed areas, and the river is used for drinking water intake
for cities on the other side of
the river and downstream. Upon receiving the initial data, the city terminates the contract, saying that
the development will be moved to another site, citing the political ramifications of revealing the findings
and the economics of having to clean up the property as its reasons for not continuing. B. Wright
responds that the city has a responsibility to the public to proceed to remediation, even if the
development is moved elsewhere, but the city refuses and reminds B. Wright of its confidentiality clause
and the legal consequences of going public with the confidential information.
QUESTIONS:
Question 1: Is B. Wright bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics to inform the appropriate regulatory
agencies of his findings and the potential dangers to the public health and the environment?
Question 2: Did B. Wright behave ethically in signing the confidentiality clause restricting him from
revealing information concerning dangers to the public health and the environment, after being informed
by the city that there was a possibility that the site could contain hazardous and toxic wastes?
REFERENCES:
I.1. - Code of Ethics: Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
II.1. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
II.1.a. - Code of Ethics: If engineers judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or
property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
II.1.b. - Code of Ethics: Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents which are in
conformity with applicable standards.

II.1.c. - Code of Ethics: 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.
III.4. - Code of Ethics: 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:
The responsibility of engineers for the protection of the public health and safety is generally considered
the most fundamental ethical principal related to the practice of engineering. The entire rationale and
justification for engineering licensure stems from the notion that engineers are involved in a technical
and specialized activity having a serious impact on the well-being of all members of the public, and
therefore there is a need to have this activity regulated under the laws of each state. Increasingly,
engineers are involved in new and complex activities requiring highly specialized knowledge and skill
which often only engineers possess. To say the practice of engineering is a based upon a public trust is
certainly no exaggeration of the role of engineers in our society.
However, the view that the engineers highest ethical obligation is to protect the public health and safety
is not universally shared within and outside of the engineering profession. Among the reasons cited by
dissenters is the fact that engineers are generally employees or are retained by clients and that their most
basic ethical obligation is to their employer or their client and not to the public.
Under the facts, there is ample reason for B. Wright to conclude that a serious public health danger could
occur if the project is permitted to proceed as scheduled without a remediation of the hazardous material
on the site. Having already notified the client and been told that his services are no longer necessary,
and that political considerations are deemed most paramount, B. Wright cannot remain a party to a
conspiracy of silence against the public health and safety, but instead must identify the appropriate
regulatory officials and come forth to explain his professional findings and recommendations.
With regard to B. Wrights actions in signing a confidentiality agreement, while such agreements are
relatively common and are usually consistent with NSPE Code Section III.4., the Board is deeply
troubled with the fact that he agreed to sign the agreement knowing that there was a possibility that his
professional services would encounter hazardous and toxic material. While the Board does not believe
that a confidentiality agreement per se is inappropriate, a confidentiality agreement that ties the hands
of an engineer to report dangers to the public health and safety is a clear violation of the NSPE Code of
Ethics. This principle is the very basis of the NSPE Code of Ethics and should not be treated lightly. It
provides engineers with the ability to exercise their judgment and discretion to disclose actions that
endanger the public health and welfare. We believe B. Wright did not carefully think through his
signing of the agreement and its possible implications and conclude, as a general matter, that the signing
of such an agreement under these circumstances should be deemed a violation of the NSPE Code of
Ethics.

CONCLUSIONS:
Question 1: B. Wright is bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics to inform the appropriate regulatory
agencies of the engineers findings and the potential dangers to the public health and the environment.
Question 2: B. Wright was not ethical in signing the confidentiality clause, restricting him from
revealing information concerning dangers to the public health and the environment, after being informed
by the city that there was a possibility that the site could contain hazardous and toxic wastes.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
James G. Fuller, P.E.
William E. Norris, P.E.
Paul E. Pritzker, P.E.
Richard Simberg, P.E.
Jimmy H. Smith, P.E., Ph.D.
C. Allen Wortley, P.E.
Donald L. Hiatte, P.E., Chairman
This Opinion is for educational purposes only. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided
that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and that appropriate attribution is
provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers Board of Ethical Review.

Case Study #2

Facts:
Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building
and Grounds Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation. An Army official requests that Engineer A
certify that certain arms storage rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in
accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and
explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army regulations. Engineer A has no
significant training or knowledge in these areas. There are comprehensive training programs available
for this type of work, but training funds are not available.
Question:
Would it be appropriate for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and
arms storage racks as requested by the Army official?

References:
Section II.1.

Code of Ethics:

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.

Section II.2.a.

Code of Ethics:

Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in

the specific technical fields involved.

Section II.2.b.

Code of Ethics:

Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject
matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under
their direction and control.

Discussion:
This case appears to raise at least two important ethical issues for professional engineers -- (a) the
obligation of the engineer to practice solely within the engineers area of professional competency (See
Code Section II.2.a.) and (b) the certification of certain facts by an engineer, which has been the subject
of state engineering board regulation in recent years. (See Code Section II.2.b.).

The Board of Ethical Review has had the opportunity to review the question of the ethical obligation of
licensed engineers to practice solely within their area of competency on numerous occasions. In BER
Case 94-8, Engineer A, a professional engineer, was working with a construction contractor on a
design/build project for the construction of an industrial facility. During the construction of the project, the
construction contractor separately retained the services of Engineer B, a professional engineer, to design
structural footings as part of the facility. Engineer B's degree and background were in chemical
engineering. Engineer A had been unable to establish that Engineer B had any apparent subsequent training
in foundation design and Engineer A had reservations concerning the competence of Engineer B to design
the structural footings and reports his concerns to the contractor. The Board determined that it would be
unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility and also that
Engineer A had an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the
contractor. This position was based upon a variety of considerations. The Board noted that there was at
least a reasonable basis for Engineer A to conclude that Engineer B did not possess the competence to
perform the required task. While it may be possible for Engineer B as a consultant to the contractor to
retain the services of a competent structural engineer to design the structural footings for the facility, the
Board did not think it would be feasible under the facts. It appeared that under the facts, Engineer B was
retained specifically for the sole and exclusive purpose of designing the structural footings in question. If
Engineer B were to seek a separate firm to perform that task, the Board would have to seriously wonder
what it was Engineer B was actually hired to perform and for what Engineer B was being paid.
Importantly, in BER Case 94-8, the Board also noted that Engineer A has an objective basis to determine
whether Engineer B has sufficient education, experience, and training to perform the required structural
design services. If Engineer A determined that Engineer B did not possess the required education, training,
and experience to perform the services, the Board was of the view that Engineer A had an ethical obligation
to confront Engineer B to make his concerns known to Engineer B, recommending that Engineer B
withdraw from the project. If Engineer B refused to acquiesce to Engineer A's recommendation, Engineer
A had an obligation under the Code to bring the matter to the attention of his client and to the authorities as
appropriate, and if necessary, withdraw from the project if his concerns were not met.
In another case, BER Case 85-3, a local county ordinance required that the position of county surveyor be
filled by a P.E. The first appointee to the position was not a P.E. and was therefore deemed unqualified to
continue in the position. The county commissioners met and decided to appoint an engineer, a P.E. with
experience and educational background solely in the field of chemical engineering. The engineer accepted
the position. The duties and responsibilities of the position of county surveyor included oversight of
surveying reports and highway improvement projects but did not include actual preparation of engineering
or surveying documents. After considering the two earlier cases, the Board decided it was unethical for
Engineer A to accept the position as county surveyor.
As the Board noted in BER Case 85-3, obviously, there are important distinctions in applying the Code
language to a consulting practice and applying the language in the context of an employment relationship.
In the former situation, the firm has a good deal more discretion and flexibility and may be able to structure
its work force to fit the needs and requirements of a particular job for which the firm is being retained. For
example, if an engineering firm is retained to perform engineering and land surveying services and the firm
does not have expertise in the area of land surveying, under the provisions of the Code, the firm should
retain individuals with that expertise.

Because of the relatively dynamic nature of private consulting practice, engineering firms frequently
establish joint ventures and subcontracts, hire additional qualified personnel, or make other arrangements in
order to serve the needs of a client more effectively and efficiently. However, the Board noted that from a
practical standpoint, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible in the usual employment context, for
a county surveyor with no background or expertise in surveying to perform effective oversight of surveying
reports and highway improvement projects for the county. The Board could not see any way in which the
engineer could be acting in accordance with Section II.2.b. under these facts, because whatever course of
action he took would result in unethical conduct and compromise his role as county surveyor.
Although, the cases cited are not precisely the same as the facts in the present case, the Board believes these
cases illustrate the important fundamental point that licensed engineers must make all efforts to perform
professional services solely within their area of competence and not be unduly influenced either by
employer or by client pressures that could cause grave danger to the public health and safety.
In the present case, the competency issues at stake pose a clear and present danger to the public health and
safety. Making certain that a military hardware storage facility is designed and built safely involves keen
awareness of many complex and detailed procedures, rules, and regulations that are unique to this field of
endeavor. While Engineer A may be a very competent engineer, Engineer A is clearly not knowledgeable in
this very technical and complicated area. While there may be comprehensive training programs available,
the facts reveal that insufficient funds exist for Engineer A to participate in such programs.
Finally, the Board should also note that even if Engineer A had the ethical competency to perform the
services required, it would not have been ethically proper for Engineer A to certify compliance with the
military regulations as requested. A party that provides a certification of certain statements is generally
providing a guarantee that the statements are correct. By certifying that certain arms storage rooms and
arms storage racks on the installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed Army
physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations that are cross-referenced with other
Army regulations, Engineer A is guaranteeing that this statement is correct. Because it is clear that such
information is clearly beyond the scope of knowledge of Engineer A (since it would be impossible for
Engineer A to perform the detailed and exhaustive inspection of the facility that would be required),
such a statement, if made by Engineer A would be misleading, deceptive and, on that basis, not ethical.
State engineering licensure boards are beginning to make such certifications violations of state board
rules of professional conduct; and the BER encourages these rule modifications.
Conclusion:
It would not be ethical for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms
storage racks as requested by the Army official.

Case Study #3

Facts:
I. M. Goode, a renowned structural engineer, is hired for a nominal sum by a large city newspaper to
visit the site of a state bridge construction project, which has had a troubled history of construction
delays, cost increases, and litigation primarily as a result of several well-publicized, on-site accidents.
Recently the state highway department has announced the date for the opening of the bridge. State
engineers have been proceeding with repairs based upon a specific schedule. I. M. Goode visits the
bridge and performs a one-day visual observation. Her report identifies, in very general terms, potential
problems and proposes additional testing and other possible engineering solutions.
Thereafter, in a series of feature articles based upon information gleaned from I. M. Goode 's report, the
newspaper alleges that the bridge has major safety problems that jeopardize its successful completion
date. Allegations of misconduct and incompetence are made against the project engineers and the
contractors as well as the state highway department. During an investigation by the state, I. M. Goode
states that her report was intended merely to identify what she viewed were potential problems with the
safety of the bridge and was not intended to be conclusive as to the safety of the bridge.
Question:
Was it ethical for I. M. Goode to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the manner
stated?
References:
Code of Ethics Section II.3.a. "Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports,
statements or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports,
statements or testimony."
Section II.3.b. "Engineers may express publicly a professional opinion on technical subjects only when
that opinion is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter."
Section II.3.c. "Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms or arguments on technical matters which
are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly
identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of
any interest the engineers may have in the matters."
Section III.2.a. "Engineers shall seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work
for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their community."
Section III.3.a. "Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of
fact or omitting a material fact necessary to keep statements from being misleading or intended or likely
to create an unjustified expectation; statements containing
prediction of future success; statements containing an opinion as to the quality of the Engineers'
services; or statements intended or likely to attract client by the use of showmanship, puffery, or selflaudation, including the use of slogans, jingles, or sensational language or format."
Discussion:

The technical expertise that engineers can offer in the discussion of public issues is vital to the interests
of the public. We have long encouraged engineers to become active and involved in matters concerning
the well-being of the public. Moreover, the NSPE Code of Ethics makes clear that engineers should
"seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the
safety, health and well-being of their community." (Section III.2.a.) Obviously, this important
involvement must be appropriate to the circumstance of the situation. In situations where an engineer is
being asked to provide technical expertise to the public discussion, the engineer should offer objective,
truthful, and dispassionate professional advice that is pertinent and relevant to the points at issue. The
engineer should only render a professional opinion publicly, when that opinion is (l) based upon
adequate knowledge of the facts and circumstance involved, and (2) the engineer clearly possesses the
expertise to render such an opinion. The Board has earlier visited situations in which engineers have
publicly rendered professional opinions.
It is clear, based upon the Code of Ethics and several interpretations of the Code by this Board that the
engineer may and, indeed in some cases, must ethically provide technical judgment on a matter of public
importance with the aforementioned considerations concerning expertise, adequacy of knowledge, and
the avoidance of personality conflicts in mind. However, we must note that under the facts of this case,
we are not merely dealing with a disinterested engineer who on her own has decided to come forward
and offer her professional views. Rather, we are dealing with an engineer who was retained by a
newspaper to provide her professional opinion with the understanding that the opinion could serve as the
basis for news articles concerning the safety of the bridge. This fact gives an added ethical dimension to
the case and requires our additional analysis. In this regard, it is our view that as a condition of her
retention by the newspaper involved, I. M. Goode has an ethical obligation to require that the newspaper
clearly state in the articles that I. M. Goode had been retained for a fee by the newspaper in question to
perform the one day observation of the bridge site.
We should also add that in circumstances such as here where an engineer is being retained by a
newspaper to offer a professional opinion concerning a matter of public concern, the engineer must act
with particular care, should exercise the utmost integrity and dignity, and should take whatever
reasonable steps are necessary to enhance the probability that the engineer's professional opinions are
reported completely, accurately, and not out of context. While we recognize that there are limits to what
an engineer can do in these areas, we believe that the engineer has an obligation to the public as well as
to the profession to protect the integrity of her professional opinions and the manner in which those
opinions are disseminated to the public.
Conclusion:
It was not unethical for Engineer A to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the
manner stated but Engineer A has an obligation to require the newspaper to state in the article that
Engineer A had been retained for a fee by the newspaper to provide her professional opinion concerning
the safety of the bridge.
Note: 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.

Board of Ethical Review:

Eugene N. Bechamps, P.E.
Robert J. Haefeli, P.E.
Robert W. Jarvis, P.E.
Lindley Manning, P.E.
Paul E. Pritzker, P.E.
Harrison Streeter, P.E.
Herbert G. Koogle, P.E., L.S., chairman.

Case Study #4
Facts
Bill LeVard, P.E., performs a traffic study for HighYield Enterprises as part of the client's permit application for traffic flow
for the development of a store. LeVard invoices HighYield for a complete traffic study.
Later, HighYield learns that LeVard created part of the traffic study earlier for a developer, ProfitTech Industries. High Yield
also learns that LeVard invoiced ProfitTech for the complete traffic study. The second study on a new project for HighYield
used some of the same raw data that was in the report prepared for ProfitTech. The final conclusion of the engineering study
was essentially the same in both studies.
Question:
Was it ethical for LeVard to charge HighYield for the complete traffic study?
What the Board Said
This case relates to the direct obligations of truth and honesty that all engineers owe to their clients in the performance of
their services. Under the facts presented in the case, LeVard was performing the same basic service for two separate clients
and billing HighYield for data that LeVard had already developed and billed ProfitTech. In this connection, the Board
believes that at some point, HighYield, ProfitTech, or the local code officials would become aware of LeVard's action, which
could ultimately reflect upon LeVard and potentially the engineering profession in general.
However, the Board does not believe that an ethical violation exists under the facts. The Board believes that it would have
been appropriate for LeVard to inform HighYield that a similar study had been done for another client, and that LeVard
would contract to review the study to determine whether any modifications, updates, or other changes would be necessary.
LeVard would then say that HighYield would be charged for full value of the report. LeVard's intellectual property, expertise,
knowledge, and professional judgment are contained in the report, and LeVard had the ethical right to be fully compensated
for such services. Such an approach would be in accord with the language and intent of the NSPE Code and demonstrate
good will on the part of LeVard.
It was ethical for LeVard to charge HighYield for a complete traffic study. It was unethical for LeVard not to disclose the use
of propriety data developed for another client.

Engineering Ethics
ES1000
Case Study #1
Facts:
B. Wright, a principal in ABC Engineering, an environmental engineering firm, submits qualifications and a proposal to
a local municipality to be considered as the consultant for the research and analysis of a former dump site which is
being considered for reclamation as a wetland. The dump has been closed for many years after being used for several
decades for commercial waste disposal, possibly without any regulation or control. In a meeting with B. Wright, the
municipality indicates the possibility that there could be hazardous and toxic wastes encountered in the dump. Upon
being awarded the contract, B. Wright is informed by the city that, as part of the contract, a confidentiality clause must
be signed which precludes B. Wright from disclosing any results or information concerning the project without the
citys written permission. He signs the contract and the clause.
Preliminary research by B. Wright confirms that the dump site is not closed according to the hazardous and solid waste
regulations of the state. Tests of the surface soils on the site are inconclusive but reveal a possibility that very high
contaminant levels of hazardous and toxic waste could, over time, become exposed at the surface, due to erosion of the
cover, and even washed into a river that flows immediately adjacent to the site. The city is considering plans to build a
childrens park, recreation and picnic area, bike/jogging trail, and parkway near the reclaimed areas, and the river is
used for drinking water intake for cities on the other side of
the river and downstream. Upon receiving the initial data, the city terminates the contract, saying that the development
will be moved to another site, citing the political ramifications of revealing the findings and the economics of having to
clean up the property as its reasons for not continuing. B. Wright responds that the city has a responsibility to the
public to proceed to remediation, even if the development is moved elsewhere, but the city refuses and reminds B.
Wright of its confidentiality clause and the legal consequences of going public with the confidential information.
Questions:
Question 1: Is B. Wright bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics to inform the appropriate regulatory agencies of his
findings and the potential dangers to the public health and the environment?
Question 2: Did B. Wright behave ethically in signing the confidentiality clause restricting him from revealing
information concerning dangers to the public health and the environment, after being informed by the city that there
was a possibility that the site could contain hazardous and toxic wastes?

Case Study #2
Facts:
Engineer A, a professional engineer with expertise in civil engineering, served as a Civilian Building and Grounds
Division Chief at a U.S. Army installation. An Army official requests that Engineer A certify that certain arms storage
rooms and arms storage racks on the military installation are in accordance with certain specific, lengthy, and detailed
Army physical security, arms, ammunition, and explosive regulations, which are cross-referenced with other Army
regulations. Engineer A has no significant training or knowledge in these areas. There are comprehensive training
programs available for this type of work, but training funds are not available.
Question:
Would it be appropriate for Engineer A to certify as a qualified engineer the arms storage rooms and arms storage racks
as requested by the Army official?

Case Study #3
Facts:
I. M. Goode, a renowned structural engineer, is hired for a nominal sum by a large city newspaper to visit the site of a
state bridge construction project, which has had a troubled history of construction delays, cost increases, and litigation
primarily as a result of several well-publicized, on-site accidents. Recently the state highway department has
announced the date for the opening of the bridge. State engineers have been proceeding with repairs based upon a
specific schedule. I. M. Goode visits the bridge and performs a one-day visual observation. Her report identifies, in
very general terms, potential problems and proposes additional testing and other possible engineering solutions.
Thereafter, in a series of feature articles based upon information gleaned from I. M. Goode 's report, the newspaper
alleges that the bridge has major safety problems that jeopardize its successful completion date. Allegations of
misconduct and incompetence are made against the project engineers and the contractors as well as the state highway
department. During an investigation by the state, I. M. Goode states that her report was intended merely to identify
what she viewed were potential problems with the safety of the bridge and was not intended to be conclusive as to the
safety of the bridge.
Question:
Was it ethical for I. M. Goode to agree to perform an investigation for the newspaper in the manner stated?

Case Study #4
Facts:
Bill LeVard, P.E., performs a traffic study for HighYield Enterprises as part of the client's permit application for traffic
flow for the development of a store. LeVard invoices HighYield for a complete traffic study.
Later, HighYield learns that LeVard created part of the traffic study earlier for a developer, ProfitTech Industries. High
Yield also learns that LeVard invoiced ProfitTech for the complete traffic study. The second study on a new project for
HighYield used some of the same raw data that was in the report prepared for ProfitTech. The final conclusion of the
engineering study was essentially the same in both studies.
Question:
Was it ethical for LeVard to charge HighYield for the complete traffic study?

The case studies are from NSPE. They should be reviewed with the NSPE Code of Ethics. There is an ethical case
study published every month in NSPEs magazine Engineering Times.