Tags: NSPE ethics, engineering employment ethics, noncompete agreement, competing employer, web portal engineering advice, Case 17-2, Case 12-7, ENGR 216, professional engineering ethics, code of ethics, employer transition, online engineering services
These two NSPE Board of Ethical Review cases deal with how engineers navigate employment transitions and new business models. Case 17-2 examines whether an engineer may leave for a direct competitor without violating the NSPE Code. Case 12-7 asks whether a structural engineer may ethically provide advice through an anonymous web portal service.
NSPE Code of Ethics
The ethical framework published by the National Society of Professional Engineers. It governs professional conduct, obligations to the public, employers, clients, and other engineers.
Noncompete agreement (non-compete clause)
A contractual provision that restricts an employee from working for a competing firm for a defined period after leaving. Relevant here because Engineer A in Case 17-2 never signed one.
Residual duty of loyalty
The continuing obligation an engineer has to a former employer even after departure, including not using proprietary information or actively soliciting the former employer's clients.
Faithful agent / trustee obligation
The NSPE principle (Section II.4) requiring engineers to act as faithful agents or trustees for their employers and clients, avoiding conflicts of interest.
Solicitation of clients
The act of actively pursuing or marketing to clients of a former employer. Distinct from a client independently choosing to follow an engineer to a new firm.
Informed consent (client relationship)
The principle that a client should understand who is providing engineering services, the qualifications of that person, and the nature of the professional relationship.
Web portal service model
A business arrangement where a marketing intermediary connects customers with professionals (engineers, lawyers, physicians) through an online platform, with the customer setting the fee.
The setup
Engineer A is a licensed PE in State X, employed by ABC Engineering.
Primary role: managing three clients and their projects.
One major client generates over $500,000 annually for ABC Engineering. Engineer A has managed this client for 15+ years.
Engineer A is considering leaving to join XYZ Engineering, a direct competitor of ABC.
Key factual details that shape the ethical analysis
At XYZ, Engineer A will not perform the same services as at ABC.
XYZ already performs other services for the same major client.
Engineer A never signed a noncompete agreement with ABC.
Engineer A is not an officer of ABC and will not be an officer of XYZ.
Engineer A is unaware of whether XYZ plans to expand its marketing to the major client.
Engineer A intends to give two weeks' notice (plus additional transition time if requested).
Engineer A wishes to leave on good terms.
The ethical question
Are Engineer A's proposed actions consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics?
Relevant NSPE Code provisions
Section II.4: Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Section II.4.a: Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest to employers or clients.
Section III.4: Engineers shall not disclose confidential information without consent.
Section III.4.a: Engineers shall not use confidential information to the detriment of former clients or employers.
Core reasoning points for exam discussion
The absence of a noncompete agreement is significant. Without one, an engineer's freedom to move between employers is preserved, provided they honour other ethical obligations.
The duty of loyalty does not mean permanent captivity. Engineers may change employers, even to competitors, so long as they do not misuse proprietary information or actively solicit clients.
Engineer A's plan to provide extended notice and a transition period demonstrates good-faith effort to act as a faithful agent during the departure.
The risk area: if XYZ later expands marketing to the major client using knowledge that Engineer A brings from ABC, this could create a retrospective ethical problem. Engineer A's current unawareness of XYZ's plans provides some protection, but the ethical obligation to avoid misuse of confidential information survives the transition.
Engineer A should be transparent with ABC about the move, avoid taking proprietary data, and refrain from soliciting ABC's clients.
The setup
A marketing company operates a web portal where customers submit questions on professional topics (law, medicine, accounting, engineering).
Customers receive fairly detailed responses, then pay what they believe the advice is worth, plus an access fee.
The marketing company passes the customer's payment to the service provider.
Engineer A, a structural engineer, wants to know whether participation is ethical.
The ethical question
Would it be ethical for Engineer A to participate in this type of business?
Relevant NSPE Code provisions
Section II.3: Engineers may issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Section II.4: Faithful agent/trustee obligations to clients.
Section II.5: Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
Section III.3.a: Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony.
Section III.8: Engineers shall accept professional commissions only when qualified by education or experience.
Core reasoning points for exam discussion
The anonymous, intermediated nature of the portal is the central concern. The customer may not know who is providing the advice, what their qualifications are, or whether they hold a valid PE licence for the relevant jurisdiction.
Engineering advice depends heavily on context. A structural question about a building in State X may require knowledge of local building codes, soil conditions, and jurisdictional requirements. A web portal strips that context away.
The "pay what you think it's worth" model raises questions about whether this diminishes the perceived professionalism and seriousness of engineering services.
There is a public safety dimension. If a customer relies on generic web-portal advice for a structural matter and something goes wrong, the absence of a proper engineer-client relationship means no one may be clearly accountable.
The engineer's obligation to be qualified (III.8) is difficult to satisfy when the customer's question could come from any jurisdiction or involve conditions the engineer cannot inspect.
The marketing company is acting as an intermediary in a way that may obscure the professional relationship, which raises concerns about deceptive acts (II.5) and faithful agency (II.4).
⚠️ Case 17-2 is a classic exam scenario: "Can an engineer leave for a competitor?" The answer is nuanced. Yes, but with conditions, particularly around confidential information, client solicitation, and good-faith transition.
⚠️ The noncompete detail in Case 17-2 is a deliberate signal. Expect exam questions that flip this variable: "What if Engineer A had signed a noncompete?"
⚠️ Case 12-7 tests whether you can identify the ethical problems in a business model that sounds convenient and modern but erodes fundamental principles of the engineer-client relationship.
⚠️ Both cases hinge on the faithful agent/trustee obligation (NSPE II.4). This is one of the most frequently tested provisions.
⚠️ A common mistake is treating "no noncompete" as blanket permission. The NSPE Code imposes ethical duties that go beyond what a contract requires.
Q: In Case 17-2, what is the ethical significance of the fact that Engineer A never signed a noncompete agreement?
A: It means Engineer A is not contractually barred from joining a competitor. However, ethical obligations under the NSPE Code (particularly regarding confidential information and faithful agency) still apply regardless of whether a noncompete exists. The absence of a noncompete expands freedom of movement but does not eliminate the duty to protect the former employer's interests.
Q: If Engineer A joins XYZ Engineering and the major client independently decides to shift more work to XYZ, has Engineer A violated the NSPE Code?
A: Likely not, provided Engineer A did not actively solicit the client or share confidential information from ABC. The distinction between a client choosing to follow an engineer and the engineer soliciting the client is critical. The engineer must remain passive regarding former clients unless released to act otherwise.
Q: What is the primary ethical concern with the web portal model in Case 12-7?
A: The intermediated, anonymous nature of the service undermines the direct engineer-client relationship. The customer may not know the engineer's qualifications, licensure status, or jurisdictional competence. This creates risks to public safety and violates principles around informed professional relationships, objective representation, and accountability.
Q: Could the web portal model be made ethical with modifications? What would need to change?
A: Potentially, if the engineer's identity, qualifications, and licensure were disclosed to the client; if the engineer could assess whether they are competent to advise on the specific question (including jurisdictional requirements); and if a proper professional relationship were established before advice was given. The core issue is not the technology but the erosion of transparency and accountability.
NSPE Code of Ethics, engineering ethics case study, noncompete clause PE, employer transition engineering, faithful agent trustee, client solicitation ethics, web portal professional services, anonymous engineering advice, engineer-client relationship, NSPE Section II.4, NSPE Section III.4, ENGR 216 ethics cases, professional engineering obligations, confidential information duty, Texas A&M ENGR 216