| Fact | Time Qualifier |
|---|---|
| 1. Adams <is a registered engineer.> | Pre-existing fact |
| 2. Edwards <is not a registered engineer.> | Pre-existing fact |
| 3. Barton <is a registered engineer.> | Pre-existing fact |
| 4. Preliminary Design & Working Drawing <are work segments of the engineering project> ABC Project. | Pre-existing fact |
| 5. The ABC Company <hires the services of> Adams <for> Preliminary Design. | After the start of 1 |
| 6. Adams <is responsible for> Preliminary Design. | Occurs during 5 |
| 7. Edwards <is employed by> Adams. | Pre-existing fact |
| 8. Edwards <designs> {substantially} Preliminary Design. | Occurs during 5, 7 |
| 9. Edwards <resigns employment with> Adams. | Ends 7 |
| 10. Edwards <is employed by> Barton. [Questioned Fact 1] | Immediately after the conclusion of 9 |
| 11. The ABC Company <terminates the services of> Adams. | Ends 5 |
| 12. The ABC Company <pays> Adams <for> Preliminary Design. | Occurs concurrently with 11 |
| 13. The ABC Company <hires the services of> Barton <for> Working Drawing. [Questioned Fact 2] | Several days after the conclusion of 11 |
| 14. Barton <is responsible for> Working Drawing. | Occurs concurrently with 13 |
| 15. The ABC Company, Barton, & Edwards <do not inform> Adams <that> (Edwards <is employed by> Barton) & (The ABC Company <hires the services of> Barton) & (Barton <is responsible for> Working Drawing). | After the start of 14 |
| 16. Adams <withholds recommendation of> Edwards. [Questioned Fact 3] | After the start of 15 |
| 17. Adams <criticizes> Edwards <to> State Registration Board. [Questioned Fact 3] | After the start of 16 |
| Questioned Fact(s) 1: | Fact 10 |
| Questioned Actor or Actors: | Edwards |
| The Board's Conclusion: | Unethical |
| Code | Code Status | How Cited | Grouped With | Over rides | Why Relevant? | Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11. | Violated | Explicitly Discussed | 11(a). | None | ^ Engineer competes with another engineer or engineers for
employment, advancement, or professional engagement [5, 9, 10, 13]
Engineer has an employer [7] ^ |
^ Engineer competes unfairly by taking advantage of his salaried position [Hypo: "Assuming, as we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton ... we believe that both are in violation of the mandate of Section 11 and Section 11(a) in that such action was an attempt to advance their respective interests by taking advantage of a salaried position (as to Edwards)"] ^ |
| 7(a). | Violated | Explicitly Discussed | None | None | ^ Engineer has an employer [7] ^ | ^ Engineer engages in promotional efforts, negotiations,
or arrangements for other employment in connection with a specific project
for which the engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge
[Hypo: "Assuming, as we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton by utilizing Edwards' intimate knowledge ... Edwards was ... by this arrangement with Barton, in violation of Section 7(a)."] Engineer does not have consent from all interested parties [7, 8, 9, 10, Inference based on facts] ^ |
| 8. | Violated | Explicitly Discussed | None | None | ^ Engineer has an employer [7] ^ | ^ Engineer is confronted with an unavoidable conflict of
interest [7, 9, 10]
Engineer does not fully disclose the conflict of interest circumstances to his employer [7, 9, 10, Inference based on facts] ^ |
| Case | Citation Type | How Cited | Grouped with | Q # | Why Relevant? | Why Distinguished or Analogous? |
| 64-9 | Analogous Precedent | Explicitly Discussed | None | 1 | ^ %Engineer obtains business from a new client% [13]
%The new client has, in the past, been the client of another engineer% [5] % The other engineer does not have exclusive right to the client and the client has a right to change engineers % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
^ % Engineer knew of prior arrangements with client, he was in fact intimately involved with such arrangements, but still proceeded to supplant % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
| Case | Citation Type | How Cited | Grouped with | Q # | Why Relevant? | Why Distinguished or Analogous? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62-10 | Distinguishing Precedent | Explicitly Discussed | 62-18 | 1 | ^ %Engineer obtains business from a new client% [13]
%The new client has, in the past, been the client of another engineer% [5] % The other engineer does not have exclusive right to the client and the client has a right to change engineers % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
^ % Engineer conspired to have work transferred from the
other engineer by using intimate, inside knowledge% [Hypo: "Assuming, as
we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired
to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton by utilizing Edwards'
intimate knowledge... both are in violation of the mandate of Code 11 and
Code 11(a)."] ^
|
| 62-18 | Distinguishing Precedent | Explicitly Discussed | 62-10 | 1 | ^ %Engineer obtains business from a new client% [13]
%The new client has, in the past, been the client of another engineer% [5] % The other engineer does not have exclusive right to the client and the client has a right to change engineers % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
^ % Engineer conspired to have work transferred from the
other engineer by using intimate, inside knowledge% [Hypo: "Assuming, as
we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired
to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton by utilizing Edwards'
intimate knowledge... both are in violation of the mandate of Code 11 and
Code 11(a)."] ^
|
| Questioned Fact(s) 2: | Fact 13 |
| Questioned Actor or Actors: | Barton |
| The Board's Conclusion: | Unethical |
| Code | Code Status | How Cited | Grouped With | Over rides | Why Relevant? | Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11(a). | Violated | Explicitly Discussed | 11. | Engineer attempts to obtain particular employment [13] | ^ Engineer's employment would supplant another engineer [5, 11] ^ | ^ Engineer is aware that definite steps have been taken to employ the other engineer [Hypo: "Assuming, as we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton ... we believe that both are in violation of the mandate of Section 11 and Section 11(a) in that such action was an attempt to advance their respective interests ... by supplanting Adams for the balance of the project (as to Barton)."] ^ |
| Case | Citation Type | How Cited | Grouped with | Q # | Why Relevant? | Why Distinguished or Analogous? |
| 64-9 | Analogous Precedent | Explicitly Discussed | None | 1 | ^ %Engineer obtains business from a new client% [13]
%The new client has, in the past, been the client of another engineer% [5] % The other engineer does not have exclusive right to the client and the client has a right to change engineers % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
^ % Engineer knew of prior arrangements with client, he was in fact intimately involved with such arrangements, but still proceeded to supplant % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
| Case | Citation Type | How Cited | Grouped with | Q # | Why Relevant? | Why Distinguished or Analogous? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62-10 | Distinguishing Precedent | Explicitly Discussed | 62-18 | 1 | ^ %Engineer obtains business from a new client% [13]
%The new client has, in the past, been the client of another engineer% [5] % The other engineer does not have exclusive right to the client and the client has a right to change engineers % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
^ % Engineer conspired to have work transferred from the
other engineer by using intimate, inside knowledge% [Hypo: "Assuming, as
we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired
to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton by utilizing Edwards'
intimate knowledge... both are in violation of the mandate of Code 11 and
Code 11(a)."] ^
|
| 62-18 | Distinguishing Precedent | Explicitly Discussed | 62-10 | 1 | ^ %Engineer obtains business from a new client% [13]
%The new client has, in the past, been the client of another engineer% [5] % The other engineer does not have exclusive right to the client and the client has a right to change engineers % [5, 13, Inference based on facts] ^ |
^ % Engineer conspired to have work transferred from the
other engineer by using intimate, inside knowledge% [Hypo: "Assuming, as
we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired
to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton by utilizing Edwards'
intimate knowledge... both are in violation of the mandate of Code 11 and
Code 11(a)."] ^
|
| Questioned Fact(s) 3: | Facts 16, 17 |
| Questioned Actor or Actors: | Adams |
| The Board's Conclusion: | Ethical |
| Code | Code Status | How Cited | Grouped With | Over rides | Why Relevant? | Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12. | Not Violated | Explicitly Discussed | None | None | ^ Engineer believes another engineer is guilty of unethical or illegal practice [Hypo: "Assuming, as we do for the purpose of this case, that Barton and Edwards had conspired to have the work transferred from Adams to Barton ..."] ^ | ^ Engineer tells the proper authority about the suspected unethical or illegal practice [16, 17] ^ |