Engineering Ethics (Case Study of Parking Structure Foundation)

/0 Comments/in , /by
Parking Structure Foundation Ethical Case
Narrative
Mary Johnson has recently passed the PE exam. She works for Spire Engineering as a structural design engineer.
For her first project as lead engineer, she designs a parking structure in an area where the soil is poor. She
requests a detailed soils report, and the geotechnical engineer recommends continuous footings. Mary designs a
reinforced concrete section according to the prevailing ACI standards. The design is reviewed by another of
Spire’s PE’s and Mary proudly stamps and signs her first set of plans.
The owner of the structure engages Spire to monitor and inspect the construction process, take concrete
samples, etc. Since Mary is the engineer of record, she visits the construction site during the site preparation
phase. Although she has heard about the way in which women are sometimes treated by construction workers,
she was unprepared for what she encountered. The whistling, taunting and general crudeness made her very
uncomfortable, but she was determined to follow through.
Mary is relatively inexperienced in dealing with contractors. Thus, in the eyes of the superintendent and
construction workers, her credibility is suspect. On the first day of pouring concrete, Mary is on site, taking
cylinder samples, inspecting the placing of reinforcement, and generally getting a feel for the construction process.
She notices a few problems and brings them to the superintendent’s attention. He accommodates some of her
concerns, but also dismisses others as unnecessary, commenting on her lack of familiarity with day-to-day
construction practices. Mary protests and makes additional suggestions. The superintendent takes advantage of
her inexperience and ignores her concerns. When she gets back to the office, she talks to some of her more
experienced colleagues and they give her some additional advice about construction and contractors.
The following day is a warm one, and after about half the concrete pour is completed, the batch plant breaks
down and the trucks stop coming. Mary knows from school and the previous evening’s discussion that if more
than an hour or two passes, the poured concrete will begin to set up and will not bond well with newly poured
concrete, forming a “cold joint.” She discusses the problem with the superintendent who assures her that the plant
will be up soon and tells her not to worry. After an hour and a half has passed, the batch plant is not yet on line.
Mary tells the superintendent that the already placed concrete will have to be removed. A protracted discussion
ensues in which the superintendent says such a drastic action is unnecessary and that if Mary knew anything
about construction, she would understand. He also makes several other derogatory comments about her level of
knowledge and competence. He says that he can simply agitate the already poured concrete and produce a
structurally sound joint. At that instant, the first concrete truck arrives, and Mary must decide right away.
Mary is not sure about the nuances of placing concrete and does not want to risk further abuse from the
superintendent and construction workers. Thus she decides to trust the experience of the superintendent and
continue the pour. The finished product looks OK, and the rest of the construction is completed without incident.
Questions about Ethics and Professionalism
1. Consider Mary’s preparation before visiting the site. Did Mary fulfill her professional obligation to her
employer? Give an argument for your answer with reference to the ASCE code of Ethics.
2. What about Mary’s actions on the site the second day? Did she behave in a professional, ethical manner? Cite
the relevant ethical references in formulating your answer. If you think her actions should have been different,
describe what you would do in similar circumstances.
3. Should Mary’s boss have let her inspect the construction job without supervision? Be sure to substantiate your
answer with reference to the ASCE Code of Ethics.
4. Suppose that Mary’s boss, after hearing of her experiences on the first day, assigns Alex, a more experienced
engineer, to accompany her to the site. Rather than simply advising and supporting her, Alex takes over the inspection process, ignoring Mary but also preventing the cold joint problem. Analyze the ethical positions of
Mary, Alex and their boss.
5. Imagine yourself as an expert witness for Spire Engineering. How would you assess the actions of Mary and
her boss with respect to the firm’s liability.
IV. Answers to Ethical Questions:
1. Consider Mary’s preparation before visiting the site. Did Mary fulfill her professional obligation to her
employer? Give an argument for your answer with reference to the ASCE code of Ethics.
There are several items noted in the ASCE code of ethics that are relevant to this case:
1. “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their
professional duties.”
2. “Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.”
3. “Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, and
welfare of the public are endangered, shall inform their clients of the possible consequences.”
4. “Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of
the provisions of Cannon 1 (to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public) shall present such
information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such
further information or assistance as may be required.”
Mary’s preparation before the visit is suspect. Mary seems to have the technical knowledge to handle this case.
However, Mary’s knowledge about practical construction techniques and ability to deal with the contractor are in
question. Mary has probably not been trained to deal with contractors. However, she was aware of the way
women were sometimes treated at construction sites. She was not prepared for the abuse she received at the
sight. Is she expected to prepare herself for this abuse? Mary should not have been subjected to the ‘whistling,
taunting, and general crudeness’. However, Mary shouldn’t allow that to affect the way that she performs her job.
Is Mary’s preparation at fault? If it is, is this a case of Mary acting outside of her expertise.
2. What about Mary’s actions on the site the second day. Did she behave in a professional , ethical manner? Cite
the relevant ethical references in formulating your answer. If you think her actions should have been different,
describe what you would do in similar circumstances.
The same codes that applied to question 1 apply to question 2. Mary’s foremost obligation is to the public. It is
questionable whether Mary was competent in this situation. She did not know the ‘nuances of placing concrete.’
One might ask if she is acting out of her area of expertise, which would be a direct violation of the ASCE codes.
Also, she allows herself to be overruled in this situation which involves the safety of the public. Is Mary only
responsible for technical expertise, suggestions, and consultation, or is Mary on sight to police the contractor and
make sure he doesn’t cut corners? Mary has voiced her concerns about the ‘cold joint’, however she is badgered
into backing down from that recommendation. In this situation Mary has some different options. She could refuse
to back down from her recommendation. Mary could notify her employer of the contractor’s actions. If it is
determined that there is a problem with the ‘cold joint’, Mary could notify the owner of the structure. If there was any criminal action by the contracting firm then the appropriate government officials could be notified.
3. Should Mary’s boss have let her inspect the construction job without supervision? Be sure to substantiate your
answer with reference to the ASCE Code of Ethics.
In hindsight, it appears that Mary was not quite ready to deal with the contractor. If Mary’s boss foresaw
problems in the relation between Mary and the contractor, he might have chosen to ease her transition by
allowing her to go with a supervisor. On the other hand, it seems that Spire Engineering had confidence in Mary’s
abilities. Perhaps they thought that Mary was qualified to go into the field, and that this would be the best way to
give her experience. If Spire sent Mary into a situation that they knew she would not be able to handle, then that
might be considered equivalent to practicing outside of your area of expertise, which the ASCE code explicitly
forbid.
4. Suppose that Mary’s boss, after hearing of her experiences on the first day, assigns Alex, a more experienced
engineer, to accompany her to the site. Rather than simply advising and supporting her, Alex takes over the
inspection process, ignoring Mary but properly handling the cold joint problem. Analyze the ethical positions of
Mary, Alex, and their boss.
The ASCE Code of Ethics also states:
“Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and shall recognize the
proprietary interests of others. Whenever possible they shall name the person or persons who may be
responsible for designs, inventions, writings or other accomplishments.”
By ignoring Mary’s recommendations on a project Mary designed, Alex might be trying to take credit for Mary’s
work. This is a violation of the ASCE code. However, Alex’s primary obligation is to the public’s safety, and he
has apparently lived up to that obligation. Mary has an obligation to herself to get credit for her work. If she feels
that she is not given credit for her work, she might voice that opinion to her employer. The boss in this situation
has an obligation to his client and to the public. By sending Alex with Mary he has prevented possible problems
resulting from Mary’s inexperience. The boss also has an obligation to maintain a good working environment for
his employees. In this situation Mary’s opinions were valuable, and she should have been able to voice them. The
boss might make the working environment more open, to allow Mary room to express her views.
5. Imagine yourself as an expert witness for Spire Engineering. How would you assess the actions of Mary and
her boss with respect to the firm’s liability.
Mary has put her company in a very precarious position. By allowing the contractors to go against her better
judgment, she may have incurred liability for the company. She was on sight to make sure that construction
would go as expected and she failed to do so. So, she has put her company in a position where they are liable.
The question is raised again: is Mary only responsible for technical expertise, suggestions, and consultation, or is
Mary on sight to police the contractor and make sure he doesn’t cut corners?

Process for Becoming a “World-Class” Engineering Student (Essay)

/0 Comments/in /by
Write an essay on your “Process for Becoming a “World-Class” Engineering Student.”
One potential definition for engineering is “the design of products or processes to meet
desired needs.” In engineering education, most of the focus is on designing products.
Through this project you will instead design a process per the title at the top of these
instructions. The text Studying Engineering will be a valuable resource in this design
project as well as past homework assignments completed during the semester.
Task:
For at least 90% of the following items, develop a response that will indicate:
a. Where a “world-class” engineering student would want to be on each item
b. Where you are currently on each item
c. What you need to do to maintain your success or move from where you are to
where you would need to be to become a “world-class” engineering student
Essentially ask these three questions (a, b, and c) for each item below.
Items:
1. Provide a response to someone who asks the question: “Exactly what does an
engineer do in their work?” Include in your response why you have set the goal of
graduating with an engineering degree and its positive outcomes.
2. Do a good job of managing various aspects of your personal/social life including
interactions with family and friends, personal finances, outside work, commuting,
health and wellness.
3. Become effective at getting what you want and need from the educational system
by utilizing campus resources (such as advising, tutoring, job placement services,
health center, etc).
4. Understand teaching styles and learning styles and how to make the
teaching/learning process work for you. Include discussion of the interaction
between yourself as a student and the professor, teaching assistants, or tutors.
5. Change your attitudes to those appropriate to success in math/science/engineering
coursework. Among those that are candidates for change are:
a. Low self-confidence or overconfidence
b. Reluctance to seek help
c. Resistance to change, grow, develop, improve
d. Tendency to procrastinate
e. Avoidance behavior (avoid difficult or unpleasant tasks)
f. Reluctance to study with other students
g. Negative view toward authority figures
6. Develop skills for career success through experiences and activities that will
appear on a resume for internship and job applications. Prepare for brief
introduction at the job fair or more formal all-day interview.
7. Understand the principles of teamwork, leadership and dynamics of
communicating and interacting with people who have different Keirsey
Temperaments or Myers-Briggs Personality Types. Develop skills to be an
effective team member or leader in extra-curricular activities; Develop a plan to
utilize your own personality type most effectively.
8. Develop a high sense of personal and professional integrity and ethical behavior.
9. Be prepared with flexible plans that have multiple avenues to successful
graduation. (i.e. How to deal with adversity when it arises?)
10.Manage your time and tasks effectively which are appropriate to success in
math/science/ engineering coursework to include at least:
a. Devoting adequate time to studying
b. Adopting the principle that you master the material presented in one class
before the next class comes
c. Make effective use of your peers through sharing information and group study;
build productive relationships for college and beyond
d. Make effective use of your professors both inside and outside of the classroom
e. Prepare for lectures by reading ahead, attempting a few problems, formulating
a few questions
f. Other behaviors identified by you
Deliverable:
Respond to the tasks in a 7-10 page report with 12 point font size, 1.5 line spacing,
and 1 inch margins. A report template with title, space for name, and section headings
is provided. Reports may contain proper bibliographic citation of brief verbatim
passages from the textbook or other external sources. Improper citation
(i.e. plagiarism) will receive zero credit.
Additionally, break up the report into organized sections appropriate for the items
listed above. Include both an Introduction for why you are composing this report
(besides “it is required”) as well as a Summary that is a closing statement of the
beneficial outcomes of the course content (not a repeat of the same statements). The
sections between Introduction and Summary (~80%) should be your own
interpretation and analysis of the items above.

Process for Becoming a “World-Class” Engineering Student (Essay)

/0 Comments/in /by
Write an essay on your “Process for Becoming a “World-Class” Engineering Student.”
One potential definition for engineering is “the design of products or processes to meet
desired needs.” In engineering education, most of the focus is on designing products.
Through this project you will instead design a process per the title at the top of these
instructions. The text Studying Engineering will be a valuable resource in this design
project as well as past homework assignments completed during the semester.
Task:
For at least 90% of the following items, develop a response that will indicate:
a. Where a “world-class” engineering student would want to be on each item
b. Where you are currently on each item
c. What you need to do to maintain your success or move from where you are to
where you would need to be to become a “world-class” engineering student
Essentially ask these three questions (a, b, and c) for each item below.
Items:
1. Provide a response to someone who asks the question: “Exactly what does an
engineer do in their work?” Include in your response why you have set the goal of
graduating with an engineering degree and its positive outcomes.
2. Do a good job of managing various aspects of your personal/social life including
interactions with family and friends, personal finances, outside work, commuting,
health and wellness.
3. Become effective at getting what you want and need from the educational system
by utilizing campus resources (such as advising, tutoring, job placement services,
health center, etc).
4. Understand teaching styles and learning styles and how to make the
teaching/learning process work for you. Include discussion of the interaction
between yourself as a student and the professor, teaching assistants, or tutors.
5. Change your attitudes to those appropriate to success in math/science/engineering
coursework. Among those that are candidates for change are:
a. Low self-confidence or overconfidence
b. Reluctance to seek help
c. Resistance to change, grow, develop, improve
d. Tendency to procrastinate
e. Avoidance behavior (avoid difficult or unpleasant tasks)
f. Reluctance to study with other students
g. Negative view toward authority figures
6. Develop skills for career success through experiences and activities that will
appear on a resume for internship and job applications. Prepare for brief
introduction at the job fair or more formal all-day interview.
7. Understand the principles of teamwork, leadership and dynamics of
communicating and interacting with people who have different Keirsey
Temperaments or Myers-Briggs Personality Types. Develop skills to be an
effective team member or leader in extra-curricular activities; Develop a plan to
utilize your own personality type most effectively.
8. Develop a high sense of personal and professional integrity and ethical behavior.
9. Be prepared with flexible plans that have multiple avenues to successful
graduation. (i.e. How to deal with adversity when it arises?)
10.Manage your time and tasks effectively which are appropriate to success in
math/science/ engineering coursework to include at least:
a. Devoting adequate time to studying
b. Adopting the principle that you master the material presented in one class
before the next class comes
c. Make effective use of your peers through sharing information and group study;
build productive relationships for college and beyond
d. Make effective use of your professors both inside and outside of the classroom
e. Prepare for lectures by reading ahead, attempting a few problems, formulating
a few questions
f. Other behaviors identified by you
Deliverable:
Respond to the tasks in a 7-10 page report with 12 point font size, 1.5 line spacing,
and 1 inch margins. A report template with title, space for name, and section headings
is provided. Reports may contain proper bibliographic citation of brief verbatim
passages from the textbook or other external sources. Improper citation
(i.e. plagiarism) will receive zero credit.
Additionally, break up the report into organized sections appropriate for the items
listed above. Include both an Introduction for why you are composing this report
(besides “it is required”) as well as a Summary that is a closing statement of the
beneficial outcomes of the course content (not a repeat of the same statements). The
sections between Introduction and Summary (~80%) should be your own
interpretation and analysis of the items above.

Engineering Ethics Case Study (Frozen Food Cabinets)

/0 Comments/in , /by
Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined in the course specification:
 review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
 evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of operations and financial control
 distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability and professional negligence
 determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
 apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.
CASE: Frozen Food Cabinets
Fred Merton is a professional engineer and is a chartered member of Engineers Australia. He is employed by CoolIT Engineering, a small consultancy firm that specialises in the areas of fault investigation and project management. CoolIT’s office is in Brisbane, Queensland. Fred is responsible to the General Manager of the company, George Greener. George is an accountant by background and has been with the company for sixteen years. Fred commenced employment with the company approximately twelve months ago.
CoolIT was engaged by the BuyCheap supermarket chain that has 95 stores throughout the country. BuyCheap was experiencing problems with their frozen food cabinets. The problem was that certain areas of the cabinets did not appear to keep the food at the required temperature with a subsequent defrosting of the food and premature perishing of goods. The cabinets, 243 in total, were all manufactured by CoolRight Refrigeration Company during the period 1996 to 2001. Unfortunately CoolRight went bankrupt in 2003 and so repair of the cabinets by the original manufacturer was not possible.
CoolIT’s investigation of the problem, under Fred’s direction, involved the services of Dr Klaus Freezer, a private consultant and expert in refrigeration mechanics, and personnel from the Faculty of Engineering at the Centenary University located in Sydney, Australia. It was resolved that the problem was due to a design fault in the refrigeration piping in certain areas of the cabinets.
BuyCheap was satisfied with CoolIT’s initial investigation and engaged the firm as the project managers to correct the problem. Fred was appointed Project Manager for the repair project. Fred prepared contract documents and called tenders for the work. The source of the problem and its method of repair varied between cabinets, as CoolRight originally used a number of different methods of installing the piping. Unfortunately all the cabinets look the same on the outside and it is only when the cabinets are dismantled that the actual method of repair can be ascertained. For this reason, the contract pricing was based upon a rate per cabinet plus a sum based on the actual type of repair for a particular cabinet.
The contract was won by FixFrig, a nationwide refrigeration repair company with repair facilities in each state of Australia.

  • FixFrig has been working on the cabinets for three months and to date 102 of the cabinets have been repaired and a further 25 are currently under repair. Fred’s dealings with FixFrig have been with the National Repair Manager, Sam Sneeze. Sam also, coincidentally, happens to be Fred’s brother-in-law. Sam’s office is also located in Brisbane. Fred has recommended payment of repairs on the 102 completed jobs and a progress payment was made by BuyCheap to FixFrig three days ago.
    Two weeks ago Fred received an anonymous letter from Western Australia from a person who claimed to be an ex-employee of FixFrig. He mentioned in the letter that he was fired from his position as refrigeration mechanic because of a difference of opinion with his supervisor. The difference of opinion resulted from the fact that he considered the method of repair being used by his firm would fix the fault in the short term but had the potential to cause serious leakage of gas into sections of the cabinet in the future, and this could lead to food poisoning of goods in the cabinet. The contamination of goods would be likely to go unnoticed by customers with the potential that they could consume the goods and become seriously ill. If children or elderly people were to consume the food it could perhaps prove fatal.
    Three days after receiving the letter, Fred took the matter up in a meeting with Sam Sneeze which was also attended by CoolIT’s general manager, George Greener. Fred outlined the general problem to Sam but did not show him the letter. Sam assured Fred that all repairs were thoroughly checked, in accordance with FixFrig’s quality control procedures. George made some comment about not being able to trust the reaction of ‘former disgruntled employees’ and the matter was not pursued further. Sam also mentioned, quite worriedly, that FixFrig was having some “temporary trading difficulties” and that it was important for the company to proceed as quickly as possible with the repairs to ensure adequate cash flow. After the discussion Sam took Fred and George Greener out to dinner at the best restaurant in Brisbane to show, as Sam put it, “how valued their friendship and business was”.
    Today, Fred has received a letter from a BuyCheap manager in Melbourne expressing his concern about what he perceived as inadequate repairs to the cabinets in his store. He also expressed concern at finding some drops of liquid mercury in the bottom of one of the cabinets after the FixFrig mechanic had finished his repair work.
    In addition, Fred heard on the midday news a report of a child in Sydney having died after eating contaminated frozen food. The news report said that the source of the food had been traced back to a BuyCheap supermarket store.
    Identify and discuss the management, contractual and ethical issues involved in this case. What are Fred’s liabilities in this case? What course of action would be appropriate for Fred to follow, both immediately and in the longer term?
    Notes:
    (i) Marks will be allocated in the following way:
    Identification and Discussion of Issues: Maximum 100 marks
    Identification of courses of action: Maximum 100 marks
    Written Communication: Maximum 100 marks
    Total Maximum 300 marks

English for Engineering (Hydrogen Energy Report)

/0 Comments/in /by
You will write a report of 1000 words. This must be in your own words, with reliable and depth of information from research. You must show evidence of critical thinking about the topic. Your work will be processed through SafeAssign.
Choose one type of alternative energy such as biomass energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, hydroelectric energy, wind energy.
To prepare for this, we are going to start doing some research about your topic.
Choose your topic ___Hydrogen Energy_________

  • What is the alternative energy source? Describe what it is. Does it have any other names? Why does it have this name?
  • How does this energy source work? Find diagrams and picturesWhat equipment is needed? Is this equipment expensive? What ingredients/ special conditions are needed for this energy source?
  • Which regions around the world use this source? How widely used is it? What are the reasons for it being used a lot or only a little?
  • Find a map which shows the use of this alternative energy globally
  • Is this energy used in the UAE? If so how and where ?
  • How much energy does this energy source produce? Use statistics/graphs
  • What are the advantages of this energy source?
  • What are the disadvantages of this energy source?
  • What is the future of this energy source? Which developments are important for the growth of this energy source?
  • Your opinion of this energy source.

Plastic Injection Molding (Descriptive Essay)

/0 Comments/in /by
This is a technical essay in which you are required to describe the process of Plastic Injection Molding from an engineering perspective (750-1,050 words)

Summary of a Profession (Electrical Engineering Career)

/0 Comments/in /by

Summarize various aspects of electrical engineering (1,500-1-600 words)

  • What electrical engineers do?
  • Where do they work?
  • How to become an electrical engineer?
  • How much do electrical engineers earn?
  • Who are some of the famous electrical engineers?
  • What are you doing to succeed as an electrical engineer in the future?
  • What are the personality traits required to be successful as an electrical engineer?
  • What are soft skills needed to succeed as an electrical engineer?

Cold Rolling and Strain Hardening

/0 Comments/in /by
From the lab experiment results, address engineering issues of Cold Rolling and Strain Hardening.

  • Thickness reduction and hardness
  • Work-hardening and structural changes
  • Strain Hardening and Power Requirements
  • Rolling, surface finish, and force
  • Conclusion

Physics Applied in Endeavour Space Shuttle

/0 Comments/in /by

Write an essay about Physics Applied in Endeavour Space Shuttle (1,200 words). Use equations where necessary.

Engineering Ethics (Expert Impartiality Case study)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Expert Impartiality: A Thing of the Past?
The mission of the National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) is to promote ethics in engineering practice and education.  One component of NIEE is the Applied Ethics in Professional Practice (AEPP) program, providing free engineering ethics cases for educational purposes.  The following case may be reprinted if it is provided free of charge to the engineer or student.  Written permission is required if the case is reprinted for resale.  For more cases and other NIEE Products & Services, contact the National Institute for Engineering Ethics, Texas Tech University, www.niee.org..  (All reprints must contain these statements)
The Case:
You have been retained as an engineering consultant by Adams, Baker and Charles, legal counsel for the insurance company which insures Wastewater Treatment Systems, Inc., the defendant in a law suit filed by Kinkora Developments.  Your responsibility is to analyze the claims made by the plaintiff, Kinkora Developments, concerning the alleged failure of the sludge treatment facility at a sewage treatment plant which was designed 12 years ago by Wastewater Treatment Systems for a very large residential community planned and constructed by Kinkora.  It is understood that in addition to providing technical consultation regarding the sludge treatment system and possible reasons for the alleged failure, you may also be requested to appear in court as an expert witness on behalf of the defendant.
 
You indicate to Fulton Adams (of Adams, Baker and Charles), the attorney assigned to the case by Wastewater Treatment’s insurance company, that you will review all of the available information, make a site visit and advise him as to whether you believe the plaintiff has a reasonable complaint, or whether there is other evidence to explain the failure of the sludge treatment process.  With his approval, and the concurrence of Wastewater Treatment, you spend a considerable amount of time reviewing the design parameters and construction of the facility, including two days of observations at the plant while you have a severe cold.
You subsequently advise Adams that you believe there is reasonable doubt that the system failure is due to the design, but rather it appears that Kinkora Developments had never had experience operating a sewage treatment plant previously, and had hired a number of inexperienced treatment plant operators who systematically neglected to maintain the equipment in accordance with the recommendations made in the O & M (Operations and Maintenance) Manual prepared for the plant by Wastewater Treatment Systems.
Despite the presentation of this evidence in depositions during the discovery process, the plaintiff, represented by Amanda Cuthbert of Xernon, Young and Zimmer, is considering taking the claim to court.  You are soon informed that Clyde Cleghorn, an engineer with one of your competitors, has been retained by Kinkora Developments as their engineering consultant and expert witness.  You have run into Cleghorn from time to time at various engineering society meetings, and understand that his experience has been primarily dealing with small, on-site sewage disposal systems for single family lots.  Other than that, you have little first-hand knowledge of his capabilities.
During his deposition (to which you are invited by Fulton Adams as an observer), Cleghorn makes a variety of statements which reveal that he has little understanding of sludge treatment systems design or operations.  During the occasional breaks in the deposition proceedings, you casually notice that Cleghorn tends to be quite solicitous of Amanda Cuthbert, more so than you would expect in a client/consultant relationship.
Reviewing the statements and analyses made by Cleghorn, you are all the more convinced that he has missed the mark completely and that shoddy maintenance was the cause of the failure.  You inform Fulton Adams of your reinforced opinion, and he in turn indicates that the insurance company for Kinkora has refused to provide any further financial support for Amanda Cuthbert.  Nonetheless, the president of Kinkora insists on pursuing the matter in court, and there is conjecture that Amanda has agreed to continue with the case on a contingency basis (that is, she and her firm will receive approximately 40% or more of the award if the court finds Wastewater Treatment Systems at fault).
Dates for the trial are arranged by the court, starting in approximately six weeks.  In the interim, you attend an engineering society conference at a resort some 400 miles from your city.  Looking through the list of attendees, you note that most of the engineers have brought their wives, and the attendance roster lists them as in the following example:
Robert and Mary Jones
Delbert and Cynthia Ryley
Further down the roster you see the following entry:
Clyde Cleghorn and Amanda Cuthbert
Checking with the front desk, you find that they are sharing a room at the conference.  Once you return to your city, you make some discreet inquiries only to find out that Clyde has been separated from his wife for several months, and that Amanda Cuthbert has been divorced for three years.  In addition, one of the engineers in his office verifies that Clyde moved in with Amanda about the time the Kinkora case started and they have been living together since then.
What, if anything, do you do?
Alternate Approaches and Survey Results for “Expert Impartiality, a Thing of the Past?” (Case 1004)

  1. This type of thing probably goes on all the time, to one extent or another. Better to leave things alone, since you will still have to live in the same engineering community as Cleghorn after the case is decided.  So what if they are working together to make as much money as possible from the contingency arrangement that they have made with the plaintiff after the plaintiff’s insurance company pulled out of the case?  More power to them for being so clever!

Percentage of votes agreeing: 2%

  1. Say nothing. Stick to doing your best job on engineering matters and don’t involve yourself in politics or other matters.  Give your expert opinion on the technical matters at hand only.

Percentage of votes agreeing: 12%

  1. Say nothing. You probably violated some right of personal privacy by inquiring at the front desk to ascertain that Cleghorn and Amanda Cuthbert were registered in the same room at the engineering convention.  Also, how do you know what one of the engineers in Cleghorn’s office told you is true?  In this day and age, such a relationship is not unusual and who are you to be so self-righteous?  Despite their personal relationship, Cleghorn could still be behaving as an unbiased professional with regard to the law suit.

Percentage of votes agreeing: 6%

  1. Say nothing. The recent emphasis in government and the press on “the appearance of fairness” and presumed lack of integrity, especially regarding professional engineers, is demeaning and denigrating to the profession.  People, especially engineers, are inherently good, and left alone, they will make moral, ethical decisions and behave accordingly.  By saying anything, you are implying that Cleghorn is not acting in an ethical manner.

Percentage of votes agreeing: 1%

  1. Although the behavior of Cleghorn and Cuthbert may be against your religious and moral principles, do not try to use it against him in this situation. Their behavior is not at issue and society, in general, has accepted this type of behavior to some degree.  Instead, the strategy would be to delve into Cleghorn’s technical background to find weaknesses that can be exploited during trial and try to discredit him as an “expert witness”.  Put aside the moral issues for the time being.

Percentage of votes agreeing: 14%
 

  1. Call Cuthbert and Cleghorn on the telephone at home and inform them of your suspicions and evidence, mentioning both the situation at the convention as well as “confidential information” given to you by unnamed, but otherwise reliable, sources in the local engineering community. Suggest the prudent thing is for Cleghorn to find a plausible excuse for excusing himself as an expert witness in the case before it gets to court.

Percentage of votes agreeing: 4%

  1. Inform the defendant’s attorney, Fulton Adams (your client) of what you have discovered, and the sources of the information. Suggest that this may well be a conflict of interest and a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers under the Rules of Practice and Professional Obligations.  If so, then Cleghorn’s credibility as an unbiased engineering expert is seriously in question.  In similar cases in the past, the testimony of the “expert” has not been allowed (admissible) in court.

Percentage of votes agreeing: 46%

  1. Inform the defendant’s attorney, Fulton Adams (your client) of what you have discovered, and the source of the information. Suggest strongly that Cleghorn’s emotional desires have caused him to overstep the bounds of ethical professionalism, and this is a wonderful opportunity to get rid of him as a witness for the plaintiff, Kinkora, thereby providing excellent leverage for the defendant, Wastewater Treatment Systems to win the case.  (You never did like Cleghorn, anyway).

Percentage of votes agreeing: 6%

  1. Compile the information you have and file a complaint against Cleghorn with the state’s Board of Registration for Professional Engineers. This type of thing is demeaning to the engineering profession and should be stopped.  Getting Cleghorn’s license suspended or revoked is the best way to do it.

Percentage of votes agreeing: 9%

Forum Comments from Respondents

  1. The first thing to be done is to contact Cleghorn directly to see if he feels the same way you do. If that doesn’t work, bring it up with the defendant’s lawyer, Fulton Adams.
  2. If Cleghorn is really as inexperienced as you believe him to be, his expert testimony will have some discrepancies. Also, he will have to state his credentials and experience at some point, which will surely throw some doubt on the value of his testimony.  Personally, I don’t care who he’s sleeping with as long as it’s not the judge.
  3. My first reaction in a case like this is to speak with the offending party directly about my concerns, especially if I knew him personally. I would convey a belief in my ethical responsibility to report the situation if he didn’t take action to correct this conflict of interest.  However, due to the impending court appearance, a private conversation that is not part of the public record may be illegal.
  4. Getting personally involved in the situation is completely unnecessary. Not only does it waste your time, it would undermine your position as an expert witness in the case.  Let lawyers stick to legal stuff.
  5. The information about Cleghorn’s relationship with Amada Cuthbert suggest that he was selected to represent Kinkora because of this relationship rather than his professional expertise. However, if Cleghorn is not qualified, he should not be allowed to testify as an expert.  The best person to handle this legal matter is Fulton Adams, the defendant’s attorney.
  6. An expert witness is not an attorney. If Cleghorn’s behavior raises a conflict of interest concern, it is the defense attorney’s job to deal with it.  After informing the defense attorney, Adams, you should drop the issue and stick with the technical stuff.
  7. You should let the defendant’s attorney handle the situation. Attorneys are not hampered by mundane details like ethics.
  8. Keep the information you have discovered about the relationship between Cleghorn and Amanda Cuthbert as an “ace in the hole” as you approach the trial date. Discreetly let Cuthbert and Cleghorn know that you are aware of their relationship (they are obviously not trying to hide it) and the potential conflict it represents.  Advise them that this will be fair game in court (judge permitting).  Then it’s their move…
  9. It is the defense attorney’s job to investigate and determine the legalities of such items as the relationship between Cleghorn and Cuthbert, the bearing it has on the case and any course of action to take. If after all the matters of the case are settled and you still feel that Cleghorn violated his professional code of conduct, you should recommend to your client that a complaint be filed with the State Board of Registration.  If the case is litigated Cleghorn’s credibility would likely receive quite a bit of scrutiny.
  10. My view is that there will always be professionals on the project end of things who will under-bid, under-investigate and under-build in order to get and keep as much work as possible in-house. These professionals contribute to the proliferation of “hired guns” who commonly are highly talented, but highly jaded professionals forced out of their practices because they found they could not compete with those willing to offer a lower level of service.  While I have no problem with these hired guns, advocates, on the other hand, are as reprehensible.  That is why it is so important for the honest professional expert to do his work well so that the advocate is discredited on the basis of lack of technical merit.  The job of the professional expert is to weave a defensible, internally consistent, technical study and present it in a clear, understandable manner.  This is the ethical approach to the destruction of the advocate, regardless of the advocate’s motive.
  11. The facts suggest that Clyde Cleghorn has several potential ethical problems with his client, Amanda Cuthbert. First, it does not appear that Cleghorn is being trustworthy in his deeds and is not acting for his client diligently, faithfully, and with principles.  Secondly, Cleghorn does not appear to be providing complete, clear, accurate, objective, and truthful opinions between himself and his client regarding the services sought and rendered.  There is further confusion because it appears that Amanda is not necessarily seeking the truth, rather she would like a “hired gun” for an expert witness.  As a result, Amanda’s client (Kinkora) may not be getting an objective analysis of the case.  Because of my involvement in the case as a technical expert, I would ask another reputable engineer that I respect and trust to examine the facts and provide an unbiased opinion on Cleghorn’s conduct.  Based on that opinion, I would pursue further action on what was defined as ethical violations.

Epilogue

Fulton Adams was informed of what had been learned and the sources of the information.  When the case came to court, Adams petitioned the presiding judge to disallow testimony from Clyde Cleghorn due to his lack of impartiality and obvious conflict of interest.  The judge refused to disqualify Cleghorn, and instructed the parties to proceed with litigating the case.  There was some conjecture by the defendant’s attorneys that the judge’s liberal empathy for Amanda Cuthbert influenced his decision, even in face of the evidence.