Disclaimer Any opinions offered are my own and not those of my - PDF document

8/7/2013 Kodi Jean Church, PE, F.NSPE Attorney Briggs and Morgan, PA NSPE Annual Meeting July 18, 2013 Disclaimer Any opinions offered are my own and not those of my employer. No information contained in this presentation is to be construed as legal advice. This presentation is provided for advice This presentation is provided for informational and educational purposes. If presented with a claim or other legal action related to your licensure, consult with an attorney. Presentation Overview  Model Rules  Nat’l Society of Professional Engineers  Nat’l Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”) y g ( )  Administrative Enforcement  Court Enforcement 1

8/7/2013 NSPE Code of Ethics  http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index. html  Three parts  Fundamental Canons  Fundamental Canons  Rules of Practice  Professional Obligations NSPE Fundamental Canons  Six Cannons  Safety, health, and welfare of the public  Area(s) of competence  Public statements in objective and truthful manner ub c s a e e s objec e a d u u a e  Faithful agents or trustees of employer/client  Avoid deceptive acts  Honorable, responsible, ethical, and lawful conduct NCEES Rules of Professional Conduct  http://www.ncees.org  Rules used to test ethics on FE exam  Three obligations:  To Society To Societ  To Employer and Clients  To Other Licensees 2

8/7/2013 Disciplinary Actions  Differ by state  Some examples:  Suspend or revoke a license  Civil penalties  Civil penalties ○ Ex: “up to $10,000 per violation”  Fees for costs of proceedings  Community Service  Education Complaints  May have “duty” to report  Requirements to report differ by state  Compile supporting materials  May be required to provide follow up M b i d t id f ll information or testify before Board 3

8/7/2013 Administrative Actions  Minnesota  New York  Florida  Texas T  California  Louisiana Minnesota  2011-0065 (AELSLAGID)  Six month lapse in license  Self-reported  Reprimand/$3,000 fine Reprimand/$3,000 fine  2012-0046  Delinquent state taxes  Revocation New York  25622 (NYS Office of the Professions)  Applicable Rules:  Board of Regents, Section 29.1(b)(3)  Board of Regents Section 29 3(a)(4)  Board of Regents, Section 29.3(a)(4)  Education Law, Article 145, Section 7206 4

8/7/2013 New York  Fees from third party  Maintaining records  Lapse in registration  1-year suspension 1 ear s spension  2-year probation  100 hours public service  $20,000 fine Florida  2007050379 & 2007068938 (FEMC)  Rule 61G15-23.002: “sign, seal and date” final engineering documents  Failed to date  Failed to date  Board found plans materially deficient  Structures also found structures over- stressed at design load Florida  2007050379 & 2007068938 (FEMC)  Action:  Costs of nearly $12,000  2-year probation y  NCEES Structural Exam  Appear before Board  Approved Engineering Professionalism and Ethics Course  Submit list of all completed projects after reinstatement  Project Review at 6 and 18 months  Complete Board study guide 5

8/7/2013 Texas  Case No. D33735 (TxBPE)  Employment contract dispute  Brought by former engineering firm employer  “Conflict of Interest” conditions to be avoided:  Engage in activity compromising professional integrity of firm  Receive gifts from present or potential interested parties  Ownership of firms that could benefit from company projects  COI violation “is ground for termination” Texas  Employment Timeline  June 8 – officially resigned from KOI  June 5 – Received proposal for geotechnical investigation from HTS g  June 26 – Email to HTS “This puts me in a very uncomfortable position.”  July 1 – Updated record to AES  Board found engineer initiated engineering proposal as AES while employed by KOI Texas  Board found:  Engineer failed to honor employment contract  Engaged in “simultaneous business activity” g g y  Engineer responded to Board:  Never signed employment agreement  Claimed resignation on May 29, not June 8  1-year suspension, $2,000 fine, and Level I engineering ethics course 6

8/7/2013 California  Case No. 883-A (CaPELSG)  Contract/Cost Dispute  August 13, 2004 – Contract for tract map  August 13, 2004 – Developer paid $10,000 retainer: retainer: ○ “as credit toward [engineer’s] future monthly billings for services.” (emphasis added)  May 26, 2005 – County processed tract map  September 7, 2005 – Engineer’s involvement ended  October 21, 2005 – Developer received “first, only, and last billing of $16,012.50”  December 5, 2004 – Complaint filed with Board California  Findings – Engineer failed to:  Research latest design standards  Include preliminary grading, sewer, etc on Tract Map  Meet site plan approval time limits  Prepare preliminary drainage study  Verify accuracy of engineering work  Maintain project communications  Include time completion milestones in contract  Determine development standards that applied to the project  Engineer “ falsely claimed to the Board that his [tract map] included all ” County requirements. California  Contract for services insufficient under the Business and Professions code because it failed to:  Provide accurate description of services  Include license number  Provisions for additional services  Provisions for additional services  Stipulated agreement:  Stayed license revocation  4-year probation  Submit reports  $5,000 fine  Take and pass Board Rules Exam  Notify all prospective customers of the violation  College level course or 30 hours of CLE credit related to land planning 7

8/7/2013 Louisiana  Case No. 2010-118 (LaPELS)  Licensee convicted of felony  LA Revised Statute 37:698(A)(3)  “The board shall have the power to take disciplinary action against any licensee . . . di i li ti i t li Found by the board to be guilty of . . . (3) Conviction of a felony or of any crime of moral turpitude or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony charge or to a crime of moral turpitude under the laws of the United States or any state, territory, or district of the United States Louisiana  Enforcement:  Suspension for a year  Administrative costs of $2,024.85  Complete the Board’s online Louisiana Laws and Rules Quiz  Complete the Board’s Louisiana Professionalism and  Complete the Board s Louisiana Professionalism and Ethics Quiz  Submit updated violence risk assessments performed by a Medical Psychologist at the 5 and 10-month intervals during suspension  An additional year of suspension, and $2,000 fine, for each failed violence risk assessment  Revocation of license for failure of any violence risk assessment performed during any additional suspension period;  Publishing of this matter on the Board’s official journal. 8

8/7/2013 Clarke v. Morsilli , 714 A.2d 597 (1998)  Parties:  Clarke – Engineer/RI Board of Registration  Anthony – Engineer  Facts:  Clarke participated in Anthony’s disciplinary Cl k ti i t d i A th ’ di i li proceedings (1-year suspension for firm)  Clarke’s firm took Anthony’s firm’s construction project  Anthony filed complaint  Disposition:  Code of Ethics violation  Reversed fine In re Robbins , 737 A.2d 370 (1999)  Parties:  Robbins – Engineer for Dept. of Env. Consv.  Labor Relations Board – Denied Robbins’ grievance  Facts:  Robbins was employed by DEC  Responsible for disposal permits  Refused to approve an application  Filed a grievance that he was forced to approve application  Disposition:  The DEC did not interfere with ethical cannons  Although Robbins was a PE, his responsibilities did not require a PE License Moransais v. Heathman , 744 So.2d 973 (1999)  Parties:  Moransais – Home Buyer  Heathman – Home Seller  Bromwell & Carrier – Inspector (PEs) Bromwell & Carrier Inspector (PEs)  Facts  Moransais hired Bromwell for inspection  No defects in report  Moransais uncovered defects after purchase  PE inspectors were not parties to contract 9