Retired Engineer Being Charged for Practicing w/o a License

[Reverse Polish]

Well written analogy. I'm going to steal that for future use

Have at it! I consider that analogy to be public domain.

Given the direct assaults that professional licensure has faced in recent years (including this specific case), and that so many of us have spent months and years in agony trying to meet the recognized standard of Professional (and/or Structural) Engineering licensure, I encourage all of my peers to defend their profession--and the specialized knowledge it requires--with honor.

 

[Tiger15]

There are a handful of States have laws saying that only a PE may provide expert testimony in a court of law, at least insofar as claiming to be an engineer or engineering expert. Some liken it to "stamping". I don't know how it works in North Carolina. The NC Board must've felt secure enough in their laws and/or regs to send him a warning letter.

The fact that he claims to be doing it pro-bono is a distraction. It's a spaghetti argument that if he isn't offering services in exchange for money then he isn't practicing of engineering. But IIRC some States even have regulations about free work and undercutting services. Again not sure if that applies in NC.

Having said that, the precedent set in Järlström v. Aldridge, a.k.a. the Oregon case, means that the <airquotes> retired engineer <airquotes> will prevail in his suit.

OT: In my humble non-legal opinion Järlström was wrongly decided. Imagine if a Juris Doctor (person with a law degree) who isn't a member of the XXXX Bar then claimed to be a "lawyer" in an official government proceeding in XXXX. That will usually get the JD a nastygram from XXXX's Bar. And I can't imagine a judge condemning the Bar for doing so. But apparently if a degreed engineering lacking license, claims to be an engineer in a government proceeding and gets a nastygram then its a first amendment violation and the regs needs to be rewritten.

​

For the uninformed among us, what's Järlström v. Aldridge, a.k.a. the Oregon case?

 

[RBHeadge PE]

For the uninformed among us, what's Järlström v. Aldridge, a.k.a. the Oregon case?

ASCE has a decent neutral write up. They leave out the part where he claims to be an engineer at several town meetings.

https://www.asce.org/question-of-ethics-articles/feb-2019/

 

[Tiger15]

ASCE has a decent neutral write up. They leave out the part where he claims to be an engineer at several town meetings.

https://www.asce.org/question-of-ethics-articles/feb-2019/

Thanks for the info.

I think this part of the ruling makes the Oregon case different from this North Carolina case.

"The court states that the board's application of its practice laws in this matter is unconstitutional because the resident is "not providing a professional service," distinguishing his self-advocacy from cases in which an unlicensed individual is providing engineering analysis or advice to an employer or client."

In Oregon the engineer was advocating for himself. In this North Carolina case the engineer is providing expert witness testimony to a client.

Thoughts?

 

[bwin12]

In Oregon the engineer was advocating for himself. In this North Carolina case the engineer is providing expert witness testimony to a client.

Thoughts?

Stupid question- Is it a client if it is pro bono?

#notalawyer

 

[DoctorWho-PE]

Stupid question- Is it a client if it is pro bono?

#notalawyer

Yes. I think it still is... a client is "a person or organization using the services of a lawyer or other professional person or company" says nothing about payment.

 

[RBHeadge PE]

Thanks for the info.

I think this part of the ruling makes the Oregon case different from this North Carolina case.

"The court states that the board's application of its practice laws in this matter is unconstitutional because the resident is "not providing a professional service," distinguishing his self-advocacy from cases in which an unlicensed individual is providing engineering analysis or advice to an employer or client."

In Oregon the engineer was advocating for himself. In this North Carolina case the engineer is providing expert witness testimony to a client.

Thoughts?

You're probably right. If the ruling was that limited then maybe its not precedent for a whole class of cases moving forward. But with the recent animus towards professional licensing in general, I'm worried that it could be applied here. Even though providing analysis and testimony feels like practicing engineering that would be governed by the Board.

It's hard to find an unbiased legal interpretation of that case

 

[Reverse Polish]

Thanks for the info.

I think this part of the ruling makes the Oregon case different from this North Carolina case.

"The court states that the board's application of its practice laws in this matter is unconstitutional because the resident is "not providing a professional service," distinguishing his self-advocacy from cases in which an unlicensed individual is providing engineering analysis or advice to an employer or client."

In Oregon the engineer was advocating for himself. In this North Carolina case the engineer is providing expert witness testimony to a client.

Thoughts?

I would have to agree. I've testified in state court in North Carolina, and providing a professional engineering opinion falls under the realm of Practicing Engineering. When you testify as an expert witness in engineering, you are most certainly representing yourself to the public as an Engineer. Both in depositions and in court, one will be asked as to his/her qualifications to practice engineering (licensure), how one obtains licensure, etc. Otherwise, I'd think this witness is susceptible to a Daubert challenge, which can get his entire testimony stricken from the record.

Again, #NotAnAttorney. Just my experience.