![]() Later, Engineer A was retained by the contractor on this project, who had filed a claim against the US government for additional compensation. In that case, Engineer A was retained by the US government to study the causes of a dam failure. 82-6-a case involving a clear-cut set of facts where the ethical issues were relatively simple and straightforward. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review’s first review of this issue was in BER Case No. Many of the more difficult issues involve fact situations that raise difficult problems. ![]() As with other board issues, while sometimes these issues are easily resolved, in other cases the issues involve more complex questions and are not so easily determined. While this case is certainly not one of first impression, the facts involved illuminate some very important ethical issues for professional engineers. The question of the role of a professional engineer serving as an engineering expert has been examined by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review on several occasions. Attorney A threatens to seek to disqualify Engineer Q from working with Attorney B in the matter. After Engineer Q explains that he has already been retained by Attorney B, Attorney A angrily states that he had already engaged Engineer Q’s services because Attorney A had contacted Engineer Q before Attorney B. ![]() Following acceptance of the engagement with Attorney B, Attorney A contacts Engineer Q stating that he was ready to proceed with the matter and engage Engineer Q in the litigation. Since the matter with Attorney A was never opened, Engineer Q agrees to accept the engagement with Attorney B. Subsequent to that time, no signed fee schedule was received nor was any engagement retainer received. Engineer Q sends his fee schedule to Attorney A, which required that the fee schedule be signed and that an engagement retainer be paid to Engineer Q before any work could proceed.Ī year and two months subsequent to the telephone call from Attorney A, Attorney B, representing another party in the same matter, calls Engineer Q. No liability theory was discussed at the time of the telephone call. During the call with Attorney A, Engineer Q takes minimal handwritten notes concerning the incident circumstances of the litigation matter. Attorney A representing Client B called via telephone Engineer Q to explore if he could assist him with a matter that was in litigation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |