F-19: Public Letter of Criticism

 Statement of the Case: A small town hired Engineer A, a consulting mechanical engineer, to

design a water system that would replace their small public-utility system, fed from several wells

with water of doubtful quality. Engineer A proposed to pump water from a nearby river that had an adequate flow all year, but was subject to intermittent ice jams that, on the average, stopped

the flow for about 6 to 12 hours, once each winter. She proposed to overcome this stoppage by

constructing a small reservoir, which pumps would keep filled.

This reservoir had a volume equal to 48 hours’ consumption. The electric power lines serving the area were subject to icing and power failures, which occurred, on the average, for about 12 hours, once per year. Engineer A proposed to maintain power by installing a standby diesel generator in the pump-house so that when line power was lost, the generator would power the pumps. She presented the concept to the municipal Council, and the daily newspaper reported the story.

On reading the newspaper story, Engineer B, a chemical engineer with no water supply

experience, concluded that Engineer A was putting the taxpayers (including him) to unnecessary

expense by installing the standby pumps. Engineer B reasoned that the 48 hours’ supply in the

reservoir would be more than adequate to take care of both the ice-dams in the river and the

power supply failure, even if both occurred simultaneously.

Without getting in contact with Engineer A, he immediately wrote a stinging letter to the municipal Council, with a copy to the newspaper, identifying himself as a Professional Engineer and criticizing what he called “unnecessary and expensive duplication.” The letter closed with a flippant comment questioning either Engineer A’s honesty or competence. The municipal Council discussed the letter and, since a qualified engineer wrote it, the Council concluded that it would be politically unwise to

ignore it. The Council voted to ask Engineer A to respond in writing to Engineer B’s allegations.

Engineer A was surprised at this request from the Council, but felt obliged to honour it. She

dropped all other tasks and summarized her calculations in a report, which she had printed and

bound. She then returned to the municipal Council the following week and explained her

reliability calculations, which confirmed the configuration that she was recommending.

She explained that, while the newspaper story quoted average values, her calculations required

“worst-case” probabilities. Moreover, the local hospital depended on the water supply and

required higher reliability. In addition, it was indeed statistically probable that the ice-jams and

power failures would occur simultaneously. Other pumping or piping components might also fail

and prolong a water shortage, or the ice cover on the reservoir might limit the flow available.

Moreover, the proposal included a contingency for town expansion during the next 40 years. It

soon became clear that Engineer A’s proposal was a very reasonable solution to the problem.

Engineer A calculated her additional time and report preparation costs at about $5,000. While

she expected her design to undergo public scrutiny, she did not expect an uninformed attack from

a fellow engineer. She knew that the Code of Ethics required public opinions to be founded upon

“adequate knowledge and honest conviction,” so she called the provincial Association to ask

whether such thoughtless public criticism from Engineer B was unprofessional conduct.

Question: Was the opinion in Engineer B’s letter founded upon “adequate knowledge and

honest conviction,” as required by almost every Code of Ethics? Is Engineer B guilty of

unprofessional conduct?

Outcome: Engineer A decided that she had not suffered any loss of reputation, that she was too

busy to make a formal complaint, and declined to pursue the matter further. The Association

closed the file.

Authors’ Comments: Any citizen has the right to question public expenditures, including the

water proposal put forward by Engineer A. However, Engineer B was not merely a citizen asking

for more information. By identifying himself in his letter as a Professional Engineer, Engineer B

implied that he was competent in the area of expertise, aware of the details, and condemning

Engineer A’s design for engineering reasons. Engineer B was, therefore, expressing a public

opinion in an area outside his expertise, and he clearly violated the Code of Ethics.

More important, Engineer B’s implication of dishonesty or incompetence displayed a lack of courtesy

and good faith to a colleague, bordering on slander. This is also contrary to the Code of Ethics,

which requires us to treat colleagues with honesty and good faith. Engineer B’s actions were

therefore unprofessional. If Engineer A had pursued her complaint, Engineer B would likely

have received a reprimand. Although we must guard against wasteful public expenditures,

professional criticism must follow the Code of Ethics.

[NOTE: This case study is similar to Case Study F-25: Meddling or Extending Public

Knowledge? but the professional’s actions are significantly different, resulting in a different

outcome.]

F-20: Inconsiderate Engineer

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a consultant in a specialty of process control. He had a
small consulting firm, employing one computer technician and a shared secretary. The specialty was well paid, and Engineer A had no local competitors. A large utility company hired Engineer A to design a key part of a major gas distribution facility. Engineer B, an employee of the gas utility, was resident engineer for the project, responsible for the site installation. The project involved several specialties, but since the system was complex, changes frequently affected everyone, so close communication and co-operation were essential.

During the project, the utility company decided to revise the specifications, and many field

changes had to be made to Engineer A’s design in order to accommodate the changes. Engineer A’s time was paid as an “extra.” Nevertheless, Engineer B could rarely communicate with  Engineer A, and it was almost impossible to get a quick response. Although Engineer B was skilled in process control, Engineer B could not, of course, change Engineer A’s design without contacting him and receiving approval. Eventually, Engineer B prepared a communications log of key calls and meetings with Engineer A, which read as follows:

(1) The first time B needed to contact A, he was unsuccessful. Engineer A was absent on

vacation, but had not left his staff with a phone number.

 (2) The next contact was successful, and A replied with a fax containing details of the needed

change. However, the change later proved to be in error. Engineer A sent a second fax with

correct data, the following day.

 (3) The next contact was successful.

 (4) & (5) The next contact required an early afternoon meeting at A’s office. Engineer A

arrived 45 minutes late, provided no explanation, but clearly had consumed alcohol. Engineer

B made an appointment for the next day and this meeting took place in a satisfactory manner.

 (6) & (7) The next two contacts were successful.

 (8) & (9) The next contact, by telephone, was satisfactory, and Engineer A promised to fax a drawing to B that day. The fax had not arrived by 4 pm, so B phoned A, but was told by the

secretary that A had already left, and neither the secretary nor the technician were aware of

the promised drawing. Engineer B phoned A the next day and A apologized profusely, saying

the drawing was ready, but he had simply forgotten to fax it. Engineer A sent the drawing by

fax, several hours later.

When the facility was completed, a dedication ceremony was held, attended by workers,

politicians, and local residents. Engineer B invited A to attend, to sit on the platform and to be

introduced to the audience, but he was not required to speak. Engineer A agreed to be there, but did not show up. When contacted later, A said he had an urgent meeting with another client and forgot to phone to explain the change of plan.

Shortly after the completion of the project, Engineer A bid on a similar design contract, but did not receive it. When he contacted Engineer B to discuss the loss of the contract, he was informed that his lack of attention to the previous contract swayed the decision against him.

Question: Was Engineer A negligent in his communication with Engineer B? Was it appropriate for Engineer B to consider the poor communication as a factor in awarding the subsequent contract?

Authors’ Comments: Although Engineer A’s actions show a pattern of discourtesy, they would

not qualify as negligence under the definition of the Act. Some of these communication

problems might be excusable lapses of behaviour, even though, taken together, they indicate a

discourteous attitude toward a client and colleague, contrary to the Code of Ethics. Although

such conduct may not justify a complaint to the Association, the discourtesy is a reasonable basis for awarding future contracts to a more communicative and co-operative colleague.

F-21: Contingency Fees

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A, a civil engineer specializing in road design, was hired by
Lawyer B to assist as an expert witness in a lawsuit. Lawyer B’s client was suing the
municipality for an automobile accident which resulted in injuries. The injured client claimed
that the intersection where the accident occurred was unsafe because of the municipality’s
negligent design. Engineer A examined the intersection and told Lawyer B that he thought the
design might indeed be a contributing cause in the accident. Lawyer B then explained that the
client had no money, that Lawyer B was representing the client on a contingency basis, and
asked Engineer A to prepare a report and appear in court on a contingency basis. Engineer A
estimated that his fee should be $10,000, but because of the risk involved, he would want
$12,000 if the client won the case. (Of course, he would get nothing if the client lost.) Lawyer B
and the client agreed with this arrangement, and engaged Engineer A on the $12,000 contingency basis.

Question: Is it ethically appropriate for Engineer A to appear as an expert witness on a
contingency basis?

Outcome: When the case went to court, the lawyer for the municipality asked if Engineer A was employed on a contingency basis. The judge allowed this question, since it was relevant to

Engineer A’s credibility. When Engineer A admitted that he was indeed being paid on a

contingency basis, the municipality’s lawyer stated that this arrangement created a conflict of

interest and asked that Engineer A be disqualified as an impartial expert witness. The judge

permitted Engineer A to testify, but agreed with the municipality’s lawyer that the credibility of the testimony was tainted. In the end, the judge’s decision was in favour of the municipality and against Lawyer B. Accordingly, Engineer A received no fee for the time spent on the analysis of the site, the report, or the court appearance.

Authors’ Comments: A lawyer may accept a contingency fee for representing a client because

in court, the lawyer is the advocate for the client. If the lawyer has a strong belief in the validity of the client’s case (as we would hope is true), then it is permissible to base the fee on the outcome. However, an engineer or geoscientist appearing in court as an expert witness is

required to be impartial and must not be an advocate for either side. Although either side may

hire and pay an expert witness, an expert witness is responsible to the court, not to the client.

Therefore, an engineer or geoscientist must not accept an assignment on a contingency basis

when acting as an expert witness, or in any position that requires impartiality. These cases occur frequently; other examples are preparing an engineering evaluation for a permit application, for selling a business, or for obtaining a contract. In these cases, the expert must be impartial; any interest in the outcome might tend to influence recommendations or suppress unfavourable facts.

Even if the expert could make impartial decisions, others would still perceive a conflict of

interest.

In summary, Engineer A acted unethically in accepting this assignment on a contingency basis. Engineer A should have insisted on the smaller $10,000 fee, regardless of the outcome of the case.

F-22: Busy Engineer

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a competent consulting engineer, specializing in
manufacturing plant layout, but she was always very busy. A client asked Engineer A to review a
proposed plant layout and prepare an evaluation report. Engineer A reluctantly agreed. Because
of the pressure of other work, Engineer A assigned the task to an employee, Technologist B, who
was experienced in construction, but had little background in plant layout.

Technologist B did his best to evaluate the layout, but several key points were beyond his
knowledge. Although he tried to get advice from Engineer A, he was unable to do so, because
Engineer A was always too busy with her other projects. Technologist B finally prepared a draft
report for Engineer A to correct and complete. Technologist B sent the report to Engineer A with
a note saying that the report was an incomplete draft and that A should “give it detailed study.”
By this time, Engineer A was even busier than before, and she had to complete several major
tasks before going overseas for a month’s vacation. Engineer A simply had her secretary reformat
the draft report and print it on high-quality paper. Engineer A signed, sealed, and mailed
the report, without even reading it.

Questions: What clauses of the Code of Ethics have been violated by Engineer A’s actions?

What disciplinary actions could she expect?

Outcome: When the client received and read the report, he phoned Engineer A and said he was disgusted with the poor report and would not pay for it. Although Engineer A apologized

profusely, the client insisted on sending the report to the Association and making a formal

complaint. Engineer A admitted her negligence and received a reprimand from the Discipline

Committee.

Authors’ Comments: Engineer A is extremely lucky that the outcome of this negligent episode

is merely a reprimand. Fortunately, it appears that the client suffered no damage because of

Engineer A’s negligence.

This example illustrates how the simple principles in the Code of Ethics help engineers and

geoscientists to avoid much more serious professional problems. Engineer A had an obligation to deal with the client in good faith. She should have declined a task that she could not complete.

The client’s welfare was jeopardized by Engineer A’s busyness, presumably caused by her duties to other clients. Engineer A should have informed the client of this time conflict; the client could then assess the situation and decide whether to extend the deadlines or to engage another consultant. However, by making a commitment, but then passing off sub-standard work, Engineer A was negligent—a basis for discipline under every provincial Act.

Moreover, when Engineer A signed and sealed the report without even reading it, she committed a second unprofessional act. 

Engineers and geoscientists must not sign or seal engineering documents that have not been prepared by them, thoroughly checked, or prepared under their direct supervision. Since Engineer A evidently had not read the report (or even the note accompanying the report), she could hardly claim that she had prepared, checked, or supervised it. This is grounds for discipline under every provincial Act. Everyone is busy today; however, engineers and geoscientists have an obligation to act in good faith with clients by declining assignments that they cannot carry out properly, whether the reason is inadequate time, knowledge, or experience.

F-23: Storm Sewer Under-Design

 Statement of the Case: A long-established town was rapidly expanding in size because of the
recent development of a pulp-mill and a mine, both near the town. The downtown was changing
rapidly. New four-storey buildings were replacing the old single-storey false-front buildings. The
main street, originally a two-lane blacktop with rudimentary drainage ditches and short sections
of asphalt sidewalk, was being widened and improved. The town Council envisioned a four-lane
asphalt road with concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and storm sewers with a long outfall.
The town would receive 25 percent of the capital cost of the project as a grant from the province,
but the town’s finances were low, and funding for the balance was unavailable. However, the
town would be able to raise the remaining 75 percent of the cost when the mill and mine were in
production and tax revenues increased. The town therefore decided to proceed on a staged basis over four years, starting with the storm sewer construction in the first year. The town engaged

Engineer A to provide the design and the field services.

Engineer A was aware that cost was an issue, and using an accepted statistical approach, he

proceeded to design the storm sewer based on a 20-year storm, which he believed was the

minimum capacity that was reasonable under the circumstances. However, his preliminary cost

estimate was much higher than the town Council expected. After a brief discussion, the clerk of

Council met with Engineer A, asked if costs could be further reduced, and told him how much

money the Council believed that it could afford. Engineer A accepted this cost limitation without

comment. He calculated that the limit could be met only if the criteria were reduced to that for a

2-year storm, then he redesigned the storm sewer to this lower capacity. The Council approved

the re-designed project, issued contracts for construction, and built the storm sewer.

Question: Is it ethical for Engineer A to accept a cost limitation even when he knows that it will

reduce the design below accepted standards? What should Engineer A have done in this case?

Outcome: The next year, a rainstorm overwhelmed the storm sewer and flooded the downtown

basements, causing extensive property damage, especially to retail merchandise. The residents

sued the town Council for damages, but the cases were later settled out of court. The Council, in

turn, sued Engineer A. In addition, the Council made a formal complaint to the provincial

Association concerning Engineer A. The complaint was stayed (suspended), pending the

outcome of the civil case.

Authors’ Comments: When the town Council asked Engineer A to reduce the design capacity,

he had a duty to inform them of the accepted standards in this type of design and to warn the

town of the consequences—a far more serious risk of flooding—if his judgment were over-ruled.

Most provincial and territorial Codes of Ethics state this duty clearly.

For example, Engineer A should have explained that designers now use storm periods in the 10-

to 30-year range and the old 2-year period has been superseded. Although the 2-year design was

affordable to the town, it carried a much greater risk of damage settlements or lawsuits. If the

Council had still insisted on the 2-year design, Engineer A would have discharged his duty to

advise his client. The town Council would have had the full information, and the decision (and

the risk) would have been theirs. Whenever the judgment of the engineer or geoscientist is overruled,

the professional must caution the client (preferably in writing) of the likely consequences

and make note of the client’s reply.

F-24: Assisting a Non-engineer to Practise Engineering

 Statement of the Case: The owner of a manufacturing firm hired Engineer A, a consultant in

process control, to assist in developing a new production line for hydrocarbon distillation,

involving high temperatures and toxic chemicals. The owner welcomed her to the company and

introduced her to “Engineer B.” Although “Engineer B” presented a business card stating that he

was a Professional Engineer and the sign on his office door said “Chief Engineer,” he was not

actually licensed. The project required Engineer A to design the new production line in conjunction with “Engineer B,” who would then supervise the construction and commissioning of the new line.

Engineer A worked with “Engineer B” for several months, designing the new production line,

but gradually became aware that “Engineer B” lacked engineering knowledge in several basic

areas. When she mentioned this to the owner privately, the owner admitted that “Engineer B”

was not a licensed engineer, but he had “many years” of experience, was very good at producing

and selling the company’s product, and the “Chief Engineer” designation gave him credibility

with customers.

The owner was aware that the new line involved some dangerous components, and that was why Engineer A was hired. Her job was to design the dangerous parts of the line and to sign any documents that required a Professional Engineer’s qualifications. When Engineer A suggested that this was a rather unprofessional arrangement, the owner pointed out that since she was designing the equipment, no harm would result. Moreover, if “Engineer B” were a Professional Engineer, then her services probably would not be required. Although Engineer A continued to believe that this arrangement was unprofessional, she took no action to report B to the provincial Association. 

Question: Should Engineer A have reported the illegal actions of “Chief Engineer” B?

Outcome: Several months later, a serious injury occurred while the new production line was

under test. Occupational health and safety personnel investigated the accident and concluded that

the accident was caused, in part, by a modification that “Engineer B” had made to drawings

prepared by Engineer A. Pipes carrying high-pressure saturated steam had been re-routed

through an area of heavy traffic. A forklift truck had accidentally hit the piping, causing it to

rupture and scald the driver severely. 

Both the plant owner and Engineer A were charged, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, with failure to safeguard the health of the worker. During the hearing that followed, Engineer A was asked why she would trust the construction of the system, which she had designed, to someone without professional qualifications, who was using the Professional Engineer designation in flagrant contravention of the provincial Act.

Engineer A had no answer; she was found guilty and fined. She was also disciplined under the

provincial professional engineering Act, and her licence was suspended, pending the rewriting of

the Professional Practice Exam.

Authors’ Comments: To safeguard the public (in accordance with the Code of Ethics), Engineer

A should have either declined this job or else insisted that the owner engage a Professional

Engineer to supervise the installation and commissioning of the new line. 

Moreover, she had a duty to report “Chief Engineer” B to the provincial Association for the obvious infraction of the provincial Act. 

Personal relationships may become awkward in such situations, so it is important to make it clear at the outset that you are a professional person, and professionals cannot condone such flagrant illegality. The issue is not simply the misuse of the title: it is the lack of responsibility and competence that the misuse represents.