FE Civil Ethics & Prof. Practice practice problems

Rule A.1 makes public safety paramount, and a fire-access road that ladder trucks cannot navigate is a direct life-safety problem. Past approvals and political convenience do not override a current code violation. Approving the plan to avoid conflict lets precedent and pressure trump safety, which is exactly what A.1 forbids. Approving with a memo of personal disagreement is a half-measure: the plan still endangers the public even with a memo attached. Resigning from the review abandons the public the engineer is sworn to protect, leaving the unsafe plan to be approved by someone else. The correct action is to withhold approval, require the fix, and document the deficiency.

1. Identify the conflict: the access road violates the fire code, but the developer and city manager are pressuring for approval.
2. Apply Rule A.1: the engineer's first and foremost responsibility is to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare. Emergency-vehicle access is a life-safety issue.
3. Prior approvals do not legalize a current code violation, and political convenience is not a basis to waive safety requirements.
4. The engineer must withhold approval, require the design be corrected to meet code, and document the deficiency in the official record.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 4, Model Rules §240.15 A.1

Two rules apply at once. Rule A.5 requires public statements to be objective, truthful, and founded on adequate knowledge; the engineer cannot claim "no significant impact" when the analysis shows moderate, only-partly-mitigable wetland impacts. Rule A.6 requires disclosing any interested party on whose behalf a public statement is made, including who is paying. Presenting the project as having no significant impact misstates the engineer's own findings, violating A.5. Accepting the fee privately and keeping the presentation general hides the truth by omission and conceals the payment. Declining to disclose because appearance fees are customary wrongly assumes custom removes the duty to disclose; the rule requires revealing the paid relationship regardless of custom. The engineer must both disclose the payment and present the impacts honestly.

1. Identify the two issues: a request to misstate environmental findings, and an undisclosed payment for the public appearance.
2. Apply Rule A.5: public statements must be objective, truthful, and founded on adequate knowledge. Claiming "no significant impact" contradicts the engineer's own analysis.
3. Apply Rule A.6: when issuing public statements, the licensee must disclose the identity of any party on whose behalf the statement is made, including a paying interest.
4. The engineer may speak only after disclosing the paid interest and presenting the wetland impacts and mitigation limits truthfully.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 5, Model Rules §240.15 A.5, A.6

Rule B.7 prohibits soliciting or accepting valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside parties in connection with work for which the engineer is responsible. A 10,000 dollar gift card from a supplier whose product the engineer just specified is exactly that. Accepting the gift because the decision was already made is wrong because the timing and source create a conflict regardless of how the decision was made. Accepting but disclosing to the supplier's sales manager discloses to the wrong party, the supplier, not the client or employer, and still keeps the gift. Accepting and donating to charity still involves accepting consideration tied to the work; redirecting it to charity does not cure the violation. The clean answer is to decline.

1. Identify the issue: a supplier offers a large gift to the engineer who just specified that supplier's product.
2. Apply Rule B.7: licensees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any valuable consideration from outside parties in connection with work for which they are responsible.
3. The gift is valuable consideration tied directly to the engineer's specification decision, so it is prohibited.
4. The engineer must decline the gift; donating it or disclosing only to the supplier does not remove the conflict.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 5, Model Rules §240.15 B.7

Engineers owe a duty to their employer and to the public to address errors that affect safety, and the Model Rules call for treating colleagues with professionalism while not ignoring deficient work. An underestimated retaining-wall reinforcement is a real safety issue, but the drawings are not yet issued, so the internal channel is the right first step. Saying nothing defers to seniority and ignores a safety-relevant error. Quietly correcting the calculation makes a unilateral, undocumented change to another engineer's work, which is improper and could introduce new errors. Reporting the colleague to the licensing board leaps over a correctable internal mistake before any internal attempt to resolve it. The right move is to raise it constructively, then escalate to the supervisor if unresolved.

1. Identify the issue: a safety-relevant calculation error exists, but the drawings have not yet been issued for construction.
2. Apply the duty to the employer and public: errors affecting safety must be addressed, and colleagues should be treated professionally.
3. Because the error is correctable and not yet released, the first step is to raise the concern directly and constructively with the colleague.
4. If the colleague does not resolve it before the drawings are issued, escalate to the supervisor. Going straight to the board or silently editing the work is premature and improper.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 5, Model Rules §240.15 B.3

Performing structural and seismic load calculations is squarely the practice of engineering under §110.20 A.3, because it requires engineering education and affects public safety. The Model Law does include an industrial exemption that can allow employees of certain manufacturers to perform engineering for their employer's products without individual licensure, but it applies only when the statutory conditions are satisfied; it is not automatic. The "always exempt manufactured product" choice treats "manufactured product" as a blanket exemption, which is wrong. The "sold in more than one state" choice invents a multistate rule that does not exist. The "any salaried-employee work" choice wrongly claims all salaried-employee work is exempt. The accurate answer recognizes the work as engineering and conditions any exemption on meeting the statute.

1. Apply §110.20 A.3: structural and seismic load design requires engineering education and training and affects public safety, so it is the practice of engineering.
2. Recognize the industrial/manufacturing exemption: the Model Law may exempt employees performing engineering on their employer's products, but only when specific statutory conditions are met.
3. The exemption is conditional, not a blanket pass for any manufactured product, and it is unrelated to how many states the product is sold in.
4. If the exemption conditions are not met, the structural design must be performed by or under the responsible charge of a licensed PE.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 6, Model Law §110.20 A.3

Only a licensed PE may sign and seal engineering documents, and under Rule B.2 a PE may seal only work prepared under that PE's responsible charge. Here the supervising PE exercised responsible charge by directing the work throughout, so the PE signs and seals; the EI, who is not yet licensed, cannot seal. The option letting the EI sign and seal is wrong because preparing the work does not authorize an unlicensed EI to seal. The joint-sealing option invents a requirement that the Model Law does not have. The no-seal option is wrong because a small commercial building is not exempt from sealing. The supervising PE applies the seal.

1. Identify the roles: an unlicensed EI prepared the work; a licensed PE supervised and exercised responsible charge.
2. Apply the licensure requirement: only a licensed PE may sign and seal engineering documents.
3. Apply Rule B.2: a PE may seal documents only when the work was prepared under that PE's responsible charge, which is satisfied here.
4. The supervising PE signs and seals the documents. The EI cannot seal, and no joint seal is required.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 5, Model Rules §240.15 B.2

A master's degree sets the qualifying-experience requirement at three years. The one year the engineer worked before earning the master's does not count toward that three-year post-degree requirement, so the full three years still must be completed after the master's. The 2 years option uses the doctorate reduction by mistake. The 1 year option wrongly credits the pre-master's year against the requirement. The 4 years option uses the bachelor's requirement and ignores the master's reduction entirely. The answer is three years.

1. The highest qualifying degree is the master's, which sets the experience requirement at three years.
   $T_{req} = 3\ \text{years (master's)}$
2. The one year worked before the master's does not count toward the post-degree requirement, so it contributes zero.
   $T_{credit,\,pre} = 0$
3. The remaining required experience equals the full three-year post-master's requirement.
   $T_{remaining} = 3 - 0 = 3\ \text{years}$

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 8-9, Model Law §130.10 B.2.a

Comity (also called reciprocity) lets a board issue a license to an engineer already licensed elsewhere when the original requirements were substantially equivalent to the new state's, but it is still an application the board reviews and may add state-specific requirements, such as a state ethics or laws exam. The "automatic grant with no review" option is wrong because comity is never automatic; it requires application and board review. The "practice nationwide on the original license" option is wrong because a single license does not authorize nationwide practice; licensure is jurisdiction-specific. The "retake both the FE and PE" option is wrong because comity's whole purpose is to avoid re-examination when requirements are equivalent. The accurate description is board review for substantial equivalence.

1. Define comity: a board may license an engineer already licensed in another jurisdiction without full re-examination.
2. Apply the substantial-equivalence standard: the original licensure requirements must be substantially equivalent to the new state's requirements.
3. Recognize it is still an application subject to board review and possible state-specific requirements (for example, a state laws or ethics exam).
4. Licensure remains jurisdiction-specific, so the engineer must obtain the new state's license and is not authorized to practice nationwide on one license.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 8-9, Model Law §130.10

A utility patent term runs 20 years from the filing date, not the grant date. Filing was 2020, so the term expires in 2040 (2020 + 20). Because the patent was not granted until 2023, the firm can only enforce exclusivity from 2023 to 2040, which is about 17 years. The "Expires 2043; about 20 years" choice wrongly measures 20 years from the grant date, giving 2043. The "Expires 2040; about 20 years" choice correctly lands on 2040 but wrongly claims a full 20 years of post-grant exclusivity, double-counting the pendency. The "Expires 2038; about 15 years" choice measures the term from the grant date and miscounts. The answer is expires 2040 with about 17 years of post-grant exclusivity.

1. Compute the expiration: 20 years from the filing date of 2020.
   $2020 + 20 = 2040$
2. Compute the pendency from filing to grant.
   $2023 - 2020 = 3\ \text{years}$
3. Compute post-grant exclusivity as the remaining term after the grant date.
   $20 - 3 = 17\ \text{years}$

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 13, Intellectual Property: Patents

A patent and a trade secret are mutually exclusive for the same information. A patent requires you to publicly disclose how the invention works, which destroys any trade-secret status, and in return you get an exclusive right for a limited time, about 20 years from filing. A trade secret can last indefinitely but offers no protection against independent discovery or reverse engineering. The choice claiming patenting keeps the process secret indefinitely while also barring competitors for 20 years is wrong, because you cannot have secrecy and a patent at once. The choice saying a trade secret and patent can both fully protect the same process simultaneously contradicts the disclosure requirement. The choice claiming a patent provides no protection against reverse engineering is wrong, because a patent bars others from making or using the invention regardless of how they discovered it. The correct answer captures the disclosure-for-exclusivity trade-off.

1. Recall trade-secret protection: potentially indefinite, but no protection against independent discovery or reverse engineering, and it depends on maintaining secrecy.
2. Recall patent protection: an exclusive right to make, use, and sell for about 20 years from filing, enforceable even against independent inventors and reverse engineers.
3. Recognize the trade-off: obtaining a patent requires public disclosure of the invention, which ends trade-secret status for that process.
4. Therefore the firm exchanges indefinite secrecy for a time-limited but publicly disclosed exclusive right; it cannot hold both for the same process.

FE Reference Handbook 10.6, p. 13, Intellectual Property: Patents

A unit-price contract pays a set rate per measured unit (e.g., per cubic yard), so it handles uncertain quantities well, because the owner pays for what is actually built. A lump-sum contract requires a defined quantity up front. Design-build is a delivery method, not a pricing basis, and a GMP caps total cost rather than pricing per unit.

1. Uncertain quantities favor paying per measured unit.
2. Unit-price contracts set a rate per unit of work.
3. So a unit-price contract fits best.

In Design-Bid-Build the owner first contracts with a designer, then separately bids and contracts the construction: two separate contracts and two separate entities. A single combined entity describes Design-Build (the "single entity responsible for both design and construction" choice). The choices stating the contractor performs the design and that the engineer guarantees the construction cost misstate the roles.

1. DBB = design, then bid, then build, in sequence.
2. The owner holds separate contracts for design and construction.
3. Design and construction are therefore separate entities.

Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages. The "duty, intent, causation, damages" option swaps in intent, which belongs to intentional torts, not negligence. The "offer, acceptance, consideration, breach" option lists contract-formation elements. The "breach, malice, harm, profit" option invents elements that are not part of the test.

1. Negligence elements: duty, breach, causation, damages.
2. Intent is for intentional torts, not negligence.
3. So the correct set is duty, breach, causation, and damages.

A statute of repose sets an absolute outer deadline measured from a fixed event (here, substantial completion) regardless of when the harm is discovered. Twelve years exceeds the 10-year repose period, so the claim is barred. The "recently discovered" option describes a statute of limitations (discovery-based), which the repose period overrides. The options claiming repose doesn't apply to engineers and that there is no time limit on negligence are simply incorrect.

1. Statute of repose: absolute cutoff from substantial completion.
2. 12 years > the 10-year repose period.
3. The claim is time-barred regardless of recent discovery.