Ethics Double Check 9

[KootK]

The situation:

1) I have a contractor client that accounts for 5%-10% of my annual revenue.

2) This contractor did some work on a property and, in the course of that work, may have done some inadvertent damage to the structure. This is the property owner's claim. The contractor doesn't really agree but has done some DIY reinforcement anyhow.

3) The property owner wants a structural engineer to sign off on the damage / repairs before paying the contractor for their services.

4) The contractor has engaged me to help the property owner with this. They see this as a favor that they are trying to do for the property owner. They've not leaned on me to influence my recommendations etc. They just want to do what's right and exit the situation with their reputation in tact as much as possible.

5) The property owner has raised the question as to whether or not this is a conflict of interest for me.

Is this a conflict of interest for me? My instincts are not always great on this stuff. I just like to work and ride my bike(s).

Yes, I do have a vested interest in helping my contractor client to solve their problem. However, I consider that interest to be trumped by my ethical obligations to our profession and the public.

Frankly, I struggle to envision a real world assignment where I would not have some vested interest in helping my clients in ways that would be in opposition to my ethical obligations. It's a constant balancing act. Saving people money and making whacky architectural dreams come true is the cornerstone of my business after all.

What say you?

 

[phamENG]

Regardless of who signs the contract, a duty to the owner remains. Engineering consultants are not there solely for the benefit of their immediate client.

Yes, but that's the thing about a conflict of interest. Your personal financial interest is at conflict with your professional and ethical obligation. If you ever find yourself in a position where the possibility of losing income from a client has any influence over what you are reporting or recommending, you're in a conflict of interest.

While it's true that KootK the internet engineering guru would never find himself in such a position, [KootK's real world identity redacted] is a real person and could be. And as professionals it's important that we avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. That may be as simple as disclosing relationships.

 

[Tomfh]

Your personal financial interest is at conflict with your professional and ethical obligation.

In cases like this, the actual conflict is often less significant than it’s made out to be. It’s not as if Kootk would start approving subpar work just because the homeowner didn’t hire him directly. I frequently work in similar situations, sometimes engaged by the builder, sometimes by the homeowner. Some owners prefer direct engagement for more control, while others don’t want additional invoices and have me bill the builder instead. For these kinds of jobs, who I sign with is mostly incidental.

However, the appearance of a conflict can make things murky. Bold claims that an engineer hired by the builder has no obligation to consider the owner only add to the confusion.

 

[KootK]

For what it's worth, this is gonna happen.

KootK - still think you need to be careful with this mess. If the owner is expecting to “engage you”, then that’s potentially setting up a contract relationship with you, even if the contractor is paying you. Which could result in a heap of hassle for you, as the owner sounds like an over-controling, self-declared expert, cheapskate, and you could be caught in the middle being blamed by both sides. You should keep your relationship only with the contractor; make it clear in any discussions (verbal or email) that you are solely working for the contractor; any reports you prepare should only be delivered to the contractor, who can in turn, as appropriate, present them to the owner. And you should have the contractor with you on any site visits you make.

Thanks for that. It all sounds like good, practical advice to me. I believe that the owner is using the term "engage" simply because I've been using that term.

 

[KootK]

Verbal contracts, and, by extension, emails using contract-like language or language that could successfully be interpreted by an adverse party to create a contractual relationship, are almost always valid and enforceable and should be treated as such.

This stuff is gold. You sound like a lawyer.

I myself have a healthy interest in forensic engineering. I've been in a state of almost continual interviewing for forensic positions since about 2012. It just never feels quite "goldilocks" when the offers are on the table somehow. I think that what I really what is to be my own forensics firm. Not that easy to do when you don't come from that background though.

Is there stuff out there that one might read to become a pseudo lawyer as you seem to be? I'm pretty handy with logic and precise language.

 

[KootK]

BUT, given the circumstances, I would make it very clear that I would be scrutinizing their work (in anticipation of the owner hiring their own engineer who would be doing the same).

Yeah, that's exactly what I will do. I expect to have to force my client to remove their repairs and do it over for just this reason.

 

[KootK]

If the owner and contractor agree to undo the repair. And start over with proper engineering and inspections.

As I mentioned above, that's mostly likely how it will go.

 

[KootK]

Don't think Koot even thinks twice unless the homeowner emailed that question.

Accurate, for better or worse. I have what has euphemistically been described as an "absent minded professor" vibe. I am very good at a few things. But navigating reality isn't one of them.

 

[KootK]

I think in multiple moves ahead like chess.

You should really check out that Thinking in Bets book. You may find it revelatory.

One of the very first things they discuss in the book the is glaring flaw inherent in using chess game theory for real life. Namely:

1) In chess everybody has perfect information about the situation, all of the time. It's all right there on the board.

2) In business, and in life, one has egregiously imperfect information, all of the time. Everything is imprecise probabilities.

In this sense, games like poker are much more relevant to real world decision making.

 

[ANE91]

This stuff is gold. You sound like a lawyer.

I myself have a healthy interest in forensic engineering. I've been in a state of almost continual interviewing for forensic positions since about 2012. It just never feels quite "goldilocks" when the offers are on the table somehow. I think that what I really what is to be my own forensics firm. Not that easy to do when you don't come from that background though.

Is there stuff out there that one might read to become a pseudo lawyer as you seem to be? I'm pretty handy with logic and precise language.

I only play one on TV.

Jokes aside, we’re hiring. Logic and precision of language are absolute cornerstones of what we do. The others are a mix of bearing, flexibility, and a near worship of cold hard facts. You’d absolutely crush it at your own firm.

Great place to start is reading deposition transcripts. You’d be flabbergasted at what comes out of people’s mouths when on the hot seat, whether 5 years in or 50 years in. Court is only theater.

 

[KootK]

Bias can be implicit in that KootK may not even realize that he is playing favorites but in reality he may be.

As @JoshPlumSE said, this has been an extraordinarily interesting and valuable discussion. Much more than I'd hoped for, truly.

In honor of that, I do not want to blunt the value of the discussion by introducing any extraneous bullshit.

I agree with you that, inevitably, I will wind up playing favorites to some degree. Consider two scenarios, both of which I actually have to some extent:

1) I work for a contractor who is a big fish client and has the occasional homeowner spat OR;

2) I work for a commercial property owner who is a big fish client (100's of buildings) and has the occasional contractor spat.

Looking at the same problem from those two different perspectives, will I come up with exactly the same recommendation? I doubt it. I like to think that my recommendations would close. And that is what I would hanging my professional integrity on.

This may cross this thread over into needing to be deleted when the discussion dies down.

 

[gte447f]

Engineering consultants are not there solely for the benefit of their immediate client

I have read others' attempts to elucidate this concept before in other places, but for the most part I disagree on principle. I mean, just how many of these mythical, undefined, downstream entities get to claim rights as my client, sometimes without even my knowledge of their existence? For example, in a typical structural engineering engagement as a subconsultant to an architect who is the prime design professional for a new commercial building project, the architect is my client, and so might be the developer, and so might an owner who takes over for the developer, and so might be a tenant/operator who leases from the owner, and so might be an employee who works on premises for the tenant/operator, and so might be a customer of the tenant/operator, and on and on... and I might not even be aware that any of these entities even exist.

 

[mfgenggear]

You should really check out that Thinking in Bets book. You may find it revelatory.

One of the very first things they discuss in the book the is glaring flaw inherent in using chess game theory for real life. Namely:

1) In chess everybody has perfect information about the situation, all of the time. It's all right there on the board.

2) In business, and in life, one has egregiously imperfect information, all of the time. Everything is imprecise probabilities.

In this sense, games like poker are much more relevant to real world decision making.

Lol in the art of war , he who knows their enemies moves and motives wins the game.
So here is the deal . This is what gets people or engineers in trouble.
Being naive, can be intelegent but uninformed.
Due to lack of the correct information
Lack of experience
One been narcissistic refuses to ask question .
I disagree with your assessment.
Because I have an ability to look at a manufactured part or assembly.
Build it and visualize it in my head. Then under stand risk management of what can go wrong and prevent it.
As you said we aerospace guys are a bunch of hard assessment. And for good reason.

 

[SE2607]

I think that, if you can defend your position/solution (in court, to another engineer, to the home owner, to the AHJ, etc.), and the home owner knows you have done work with the contractor in the past, I think you should be o.k. Transparency and honesty goes a long ways.
Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney (thank God!)

 

[EZBuilding]

I myself have a healthy interest in forensic engineering. I've been in a state of almost continual interviewing for forensic positions since about 2012. It just never feels quite "goldilocks" when the offers are on the table somehow. I think that what I really what is to be my own forensics firm. Not that easy to do when you don't come from that background though.

What is interesting from this comment is that forensic engineers have a "conflict of interest" that is more significant than the one you are in right now!!!

I think all of the risk here is related to the cost of litigation, challenges associated with repairs relative to new constructions and the fact you have an end client that might be laying down the "paper-work" for litigation. Your conflict of interest is pretty low risk relative to all of those other factors.

 

[Tomfh]

What is interesting from this comment is that forensic engineers have a "conflict of interest" that is more significant than the one you are in right now!!!

Yes the conflicts of interest in forensic work is fascinating to observe—two opposing experts, both sworn to serve the court above all else, yet somehow delivering entirely different conclusions that conveniently align with the interests of those paying them.

 

[jerseyshore]

So Koot, you going to fix this guy's house or what?

Also, where's the AI guy been? Not to add to the content of the OP, but just to summarize all of these comments into a nice graph of where they fall if Koot takes the job. I'm imagining one end is Koot swimming in piles of money and the other is him in prison. I think I know where aero guy stands.

 

[gte447f]

two opposing experts, both sworn to serve the court above all else tell the truth under oath

 

[dik]

I've done a lot of reports for insurance companies. I always inform the owner that I'm working for the insurance company, but my report, if it were for the owner, would almost be identical, and he is free to obtain an engineering report on his own. 'Just the facts, mam, just the facts'.

I include in my report that I've advised the owner of this.

 

[KootK]

So Koot, you going to fix this guy's house or what?

You bet I am!

 

[Tomfh]

Gte447,

I was referring specifically to Australian practice, where an expert witness has a higher duty to the court than to their client. Or so the law says. Expert witnesses invariably tend to support the person paying for them.