A Case Study:
Responsibility for Public Safety and the Obligation of Client Confidentiality
Description:
Tenants in an apartment building sue the owners of the building in order to force them to repair a number of annoying, but not dangerous, problems. The owners' attorney hires Duchane, a structural engineer, to inspect the building and testify on behalf of the owner.
In the course of his inspection, Duchane discovers serious structural problems in the building, which are an immediate threat to the tenants' safety. These problems, however, are not mentioned in the tenants' suit.
What should Duchane do? Should Duchane report the information to the attorney? To the owner? To the tenants?
Suppose Duchane reports this information to the attorney, who tells Duchane to keep this information confidential because it could affect the lawsuit.
What should Duchane do now?
Is there a way to resolve the problem without compromising either Duchane's professional responsibility for the public safety or his obligation to preserve client confidentiality?
How do an engineer's professional obligations to preserve client confidentiality differ from those of a lawyer?
Tenants in an apartment building sue the owners of the building in order to force them to repair a number of annoying, but not dangerous, problems. The owners' attorney hires Duchane, a structural engineer, to inspect the building and testify on behalf of the owner.
In the course of his inspection, Duchane discovers serious structural problems in the building, which are an immediate threat to the tenants' safety. These problems, however, are not mentioned in the tenants' suit.
What should Duchane do? Should Duchane report the information to the attorney? To the owner? To the tenants?
Suppose Duchane reports this information to the attorney, who tells Duchane to keep this information confidential because it could affect the lawsuit.
What should Duchane do now?
Is there a way to resolve the problem without compromising either Duchane's professional responsibility for the public safety or his obligation to preserve client confidentiality?
How do an engineer's professional obligations to preserve client confidentiality differ from those of a lawyer?
Standards:
- Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. This standard describes an engineer's most important duty, which is to provide safety and awareness to the public while offering them with his or her skills.
- Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Engineers must always be truthful to the people with public statements. Otherwise, they would not be completely fulfilling their duty to serve the public for their safety and health.
- Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Engineers must fully commit to their specific clients and act as faithful workers who can be trusted upon.
- Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts. This standard goes hand-in-hand with the previous standard. Engineers should never act deceptively as it is an act of unfaithfulness to their employers.
- Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve. As faithful agents or trustees, engineers have the responsibility to avoid disclosing confidential information to the public without the company's consent. This rule may clash with the previous standard since avoiding the disclosure of important information (such as possible danger to the clientele) may be considered deceptive acts toward the public.
Steps:
- Moral Clarity- identify the relevant moral values. First and most importantly, the moral principles of this situation needs to be valued. The Code of Ethics and the Board of Ethical Review clearly acknowledges that the engineers' paramount responsibility is to assure the safety, health and welfare of the public--the importance of serving the public for their best is a significant moral value to consider in this case. As faithful agents or trustees, engineers should never lie to their employers about crucial matters or act unfaithfully against them. Whether or not Duchane should report the actual inspection results to the attorney is an act that must be based on the morality of the situation--since the last standard creates conflict and confusion about the right solution to this problem.
- Conceptual clarity- clarify key concepts. The main reason for this indecision is that Duchane's possible act of reporting the truth behind the inspection to the attorney will cause greater problems to his employer--ultimately affecting the lawsuit. If Duchane tells the attorney about the findings of serious structural issues in the building to the attorney, Duchane is strictly disclosing confidential information that concerns the business affairs of his present client--without consent (last standard). However, if Duchane fails to tell the truth, he is using deception and failing to protect the public from their safety and welfare.
- Just the facts- obtain all relevant information. Tenants from the building sue the owners of the building in order to force them to repair a number of annoying, but not dangerous--at least for the tenants--problems. After the owner's attorney hires Duchane for a truthful inspection of the building, Duchane finds serious problems that are immediate threats to the public's safety.
- Informed about options- Consider all genuine options and alternative solutions. If Duchane decides to keep the truth and not tell the attorney, he is breaking almost all--expect the last standard mentioned--standards. If Duchane decides to tell the attorney, he will be creating greater problems to the owner of the building.
- Well-reasoned- Make a reasonable decision. It seems to be that the best solution to Duchane's dilemma is to tell the hidden truth to the attorney. As an engineer, Duchane must always work for the best of the public and always ensure their safety. In addition, engineers shall always be faithful trustees to their employers--by telling the attorney, he is being faithful to their employers by telling the truth, despite the serious consequences.