NSPE Board of Ethical Review
2/10/11 – APPROVED
Case No. 10-9
Pg. 1
Copyright © 2010 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) www.nspe.org. All rights reserved.
To request permission to reproduce this NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case, please contact the NSPE Legal Department ([email protected]).
Advertising—Internet-Based Marketing Service
Case No. 10-9
Facts:
Engineer A pays a fee to be included in a Web site listing of engineers who offer
services in an area of expertise in a specific geographic location. The service essentially
works as a "matchmaking" process. Potential clients initiate contact by visiting the Web
site and by voluntarily providing the requested information about their project
requirements. The Web site does not contain language endorsing any engineer but
instead includes disclaimers to the contrary.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to participate in the Internet–based service under these
circumstances?
References:
Section II.5.a. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit
misrepresentation of their or their associates’ qualifications. They
shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the
subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other
presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not
misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
Section II.5.b. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or
indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by
public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the
public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a
contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable
consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a
commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work,
except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established
commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
Section III.1. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest
standards of honesty and integrity.
Discussion:
With the growth of electronic communications and the internet, there has been a
proliferation of the types and methods employed by engineers and engineering
companies in selling and marketing their services. Many of these methods mirror
traditional sales and marketing techniques used in the past while other methods are
new and different and require careful review and consideration.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
2/10/11 – APPROVED
Case No. 10-9
Pg. 2
Over the years, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered a variety of sales
and marketing techniques employed by engineers and engineering companies in
different settings. Promotional customs, practices, and standards have evolved
considerably over the past half-century. During an earlier time period, advertising by
engineers (or any profession for that matter) was thought to be undignified,
inappropriate, even offensive to some, on the grounds that advertising was
“commercial” in nature while professional practice was a “calling” by which individuals
should be selected by clients solely based upon their professional qualifications,
reputation, and other meritorious criteria.
However, as the professions evolved, during the 1960s, a series of rulings by the U.S.
Supreme Court held that professional society code of ethics provisions prohibiting
advertising violated commercial free speech as well as federal antitrust laws. Following
those decisions, professional society code of ethics provisions in advertising were
eliminated or modified to reflect a new reality—that advertising professional services
was a fact of life and that for the most part, only misleading or deceptive practices could
and should be restricted.
Recently in BER Case No. 04-4, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a
professional engineer licensed in four states, who established a Web site,
www.engineerseals.com, that indicated that Engineer A’s company would seal
professional engineering drawings for a standard prescribed fee per page. The
information on the Web site stated the following:
“Get your project approved! Engineerseals.com provides a convenient, cost
effective way for you to obtain sealed documents from a registered engineer to
meet your local or state requirements. The online questionnaires and
confirmation processes help us determine the specific services you need. We will
provide direct engineering supervision, and depending on your project, we will
• Review and modify your plans, shop drawings, specifications, and
calculations;
• Generate the necessary drawings, plans, specifications, and reports;
• Perform engineering investigation, evaluation, and consultation; or
• Perform site visits.
Upon receipt of your information, we will contact you directly. Your responses
help us to simplify the review process and ultimately help us customize the
services to meet your needs. The next time you need plans reviewed for building
construction codes and permit approvals, visit engineerseals.com. We'll help you
get your remodeling, renovation, and new building projects from draft to
development efficiently and professionally. The process is easy.”
The Board decided that Engineer A’s actions were unethical because the actions were in
violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics provisions requiring engineers to adhere to
Copyright © 2010 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) www.nspe.org. All rights reserved.
To request permission to reproduce this NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case, please contact the NSPE Legal Department ([email protected]).
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
2/10/11 – APPROVED
Case No. 10-9
Pg. 3
applicable “responsible charge” requirements as well as applicable state licensure laws
and Board rules of professional conduct. At the same time, the Board made it clear that it
was not per se unethical for Engineer A to develop a Web site to advertise Engineer A’s
engineering services. The Board noted that as currently (and as presumably in the future)
configured, the Internet is accessible virtually everywhere. The Board cautioned that it was
essential for an engineer to be familiar with and adhere to applicable state licensure laws
in the practice of engineering regarding electronic media and concluded by noting that
nothing in its opinion was intended to limit new and innovative practice techniques,
including the use of the Internet, Web sites, or electronic practice.
Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board is of the view that the method being
utilized by Engineer A falls within the acceptable limits of the NSPE Code provisions which
permits the use of a bona fide, established commercial or marketing agency retained by
them. The Web site does not appear to include misleading or deceptive information or
suggest Engineer A would be engaging in the unlawful practice of engineering in violation
of state laws and regulations. The site appears to link potential clients to Engineer A on a
strictly voluntary basis and contains appropriate disclaimers so that there is no misleading
implications regarding endorsements or the quality of the services provided.
Conclusion:
It was ethical for Engineer A to participate in the Internet-based marketing service under
these circumstances.
Board of Ethical Review:
Mark H. Dubbin, P.E., NSPE
Robert C. Gibson, P.E., F.NSPE
Monte L. Phillips, Ph.D., P.E., F.NSPE
Michael L. Shirley, P.E., F.NSPE
Samuel G. Sudler III, P.E., NSPE
Mumtaz A. Usmen, Ph.D., P.E., F.NSPE
Curtis A. Beck, P.E., F.NSPE, Chair
NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members,
other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code and earlier BER opinions.
The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER.
Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE
Code to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering
departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the NSPE Code. The NSPE
Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within
business structures.
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 appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Board of Ethical Review.
To obtain additional NSPE opinions, visit www.nspe.org or call 800-417-0348.
Copyright © 2010 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) www.nspe.org. All rights reserved.
To request permission to reproduce this NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case, please contact the NSPE Legal Department ([email protected]).
doc_291382895.pdf
2/10/11 – APPROVED
Case No. 10-9
Pg. 1
Copyright © 2010 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) www.nspe.org. All rights reserved.
To request permission to reproduce this NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case, please contact the NSPE Legal Department ([email protected]).
Advertising—Internet-Based Marketing Service
Case No. 10-9
Facts:
Engineer A pays a fee to be included in a Web site listing of engineers who offer
services in an area of expertise in a specific geographic location. The service essentially
works as a "matchmaking" process. Potential clients initiate contact by visiting the Web
site and by voluntarily providing the requested information about their project
requirements. The Web site does not contain language endorsing any engineer but
instead includes disclaimers to the contrary.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to participate in the Internet–based service under these
circumstances?
References:
Section II.5.a. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit
misrepresentation of their or their associates’ qualifications. They
shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the
subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other
presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not
misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
Section II.5.b. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or
indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by
public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the
public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a
contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable
consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a
commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work,
except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established
commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
Section III.1. - NSPE Code of Ethics: Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest
standards of honesty and integrity.
Discussion:
With the growth of electronic communications and the internet, there has been a
proliferation of the types and methods employed by engineers and engineering
companies in selling and marketing their services. Many of these methods mirror
traditional sales and marketing techniques used in the past while other methods are
new and different and require careful review and consideration.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
2/10/11 – APPROVED
Case No. 10-9
Pg. 2
Over the years, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered a variety of sales
and marketing techniques employed by engineers and engineering companies in
different settings. Promotional customs, practices, and standards have evolved
considerably over the past half-century. During an earlier time period, advertising by
engineers (or any profession for that matter) was thought to be undignified,
inappropriate, even offensive to some, on the grounds that advertising was
“commercial” in nature while professional practice was a “calling” by which individuals
should be selected by clients solely based upon their professional qualifications,
reputation, and other meritorious criteria.
However, as the professions evolved, during the 1960s, a series of rulings by the U.S.
Supreme Court held that professional society code of ethics provisions prohibiting
advertising violated commercial free speech as well as federal antitrust laws. Following
those decisions, professional society code of ethics provisions in advertising were
eliminated or modified to reflect a new reality—that advertising professional services
was a fact of life and that for the most part, only misleading or deceptive practices could
and should be restricted.
Recently in BER Case No. 04-4, the Board considered a case involving Engineer A, a
professional engineer licensed in four states, who established a Web site,
www.engineerseals.com, that indicated that Engineer A’s company would seal
professional engineering drawings for a standard prescribed fee per page. The
information on the Web site stated the following:
“Get your project approved! Engineerseals.com provides a convenient, cost
effective way for you to obtain sealed documents from a registered engineer to
meet your local or state requirements. The online questionnaires and
confirmation processes help us determine the specific services you need. We will
provide direct engineering supervision, and depending on your project, we will
• Review and modify your plans, shop drawings, specifications, and
calculations;
• Generate the necessary drawings, plans, specifications, and reports;
• Perform engineering investigation, evaluation, and consultation; or
• Perform site visits.
Upon receipt of your information, we will contact you directly. Your responses
help us to simplify the review process and ultimately help us customize the
services to meet your needs. The next time you need plans reviewed for building
construction codes and permit approvals, visit engineerseals.com. We'll help you
get your remodeling, renovation, and new building projects from draft to
development efficiently and professionally. The process is easy.”
The Board decided that Engineer A’s actions were unethical because the actions were in
violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics provisions requiring engineers to adhere to
Copyright © 2010 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) www.nspe.org. All rights reserved.
To request permission to reproduce this NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case, please contact the NSPE Legal Department ([email protected]).
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
2/10/11 – APPROVED
Case No. 10-9
Pg. 3
applicable “responsible charge” requirements as well as applicable state licensure laws
and Board rules of professional conduct. At the same time, the Board made it clear that it
was not per se unethical for Engineer A to develop a Web site to advertise Engineer A’s
engineering services. The Board noted that as currently (and as presumably in the future)
configured, the Internet is accessible virtually everywhere. The Board cautioned that it was
essential for an engineer to be familiar with and adhere to applicable state licensure laws
in the practice of engineering regarding electronic media and concluded by noting that
nothing in its opinion was intended to limit new and innovative practice techniques,
including the use of the Internet, Web sites, or electronic practice.
Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board is of the view that the method being
utilized by Engineer A falls within the acceptable limits of the NSPE Code provisions which
permits the use of a bona fide, established commercial or marketing agency retained by
them. The Web site does not appear to include misleading or deceptive information or
suggest Engineer A would be engaging in the unlawful practice of engineering in violation
of state laws and regulations. The site appears to link potential clients to Engineer A on a
strictly voluntary basis and contains appropriate disclaimers so that there is no misleading
implications regarding endorsements or the quality of the services provided.
Conclusion:
It was ethical for Engineer A to participate in the Internet-based marketing service under
these circumstances.
Board of Ethical Review:
Mark H. Dubbin, P.E., NSPE
Robert C. Gibson, P.E., F.NSPE
Monte L. Phillips, Ph.D., P.E., F.NSPE
Michael L. Shirley, P.E., F.NSPE
Samuel G. Sudler III, P.E., NSPE
Mumtaz A. Usmen, Ph.D., P.E., F.NSPE
Curtis A. Beck, P.E., F.NSPE, Chair
NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members,
other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code and earlier BER opinions.
The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER.
Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE
Code to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering
departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the NSPE Code. The NSPE
Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within
business structures.
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 appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Board of Ethical Review.
To obtain additional NSPE opinions, visit www.nspe.org or call 800-417-0348.
Copyright © 2010 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) www.nspe.org. All rights reserved.
To request permission to reproduce this NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case, please contact the NSPE Legal Department ([email protected]).
doc_291382895.pdf