Law & Ethics: The Engineer’s Duty to Speak Up - Safety, Misconduct, and the Law

By Veronica Bayó Clifford, Esq., GROSSMAN, FURLOW & BAYÓ, LLC IN TALLAHASSEE

When we talk about safety in engineering, the conversation often centers on new tools, stronger materials and smarter designs. But beneath all the innovations lies a truth as old as the profession itself: public safety ultimately depends on an engineer’s judgment and integrity.

Florida law makes this duty explicit. Section 471.033, Florida Statutes, authorizes discipline when a professional engineer engages in misconduct. Rule 61G15-19.001, Florida Administrative Code, spells out what that means, and several of its provisions come down to one simple expectation: an engineer must speak up when safety is at risk.

Misconduct includes signing or sealing documents outside one’s competence, failing to report violations of law or rule by another engineer, or neglecting to notify a client or employer when a project could endanger life, health or property. These obligations are not abstract ideals. They are legal duties tied directly to safety.

Every practicing engineer knows the tension between client loyalty and public duty. There is always pressure to serve the client, meet deadlines and keep projects moving. But what happens when a client insists on cutting corners that compromise safety?

Florida’s laws and rules make the answer clear: The public comes first.

The Board of Professional Engineers has repeatedly emphasized that an engineer’s duty to protect life, health and property overrides loyalty to a client or employer. The Board’s disciplinary records make this point vividly, and a recent case underscores the message.

In F.G. v. FEMC (2025), a Miami engineer signed and sealed fire protection system documents that were materially deficient, risking public safety in a commercial building. The Board imposed a fine, costs, probation, project reviews, and mandatory ethics coursework, making clear that such lapses are treated with the utmost seriousness.

Other cases offer similar lessons. In J.H. v. FEMC (2016), an engineer sealed structural and mechanical documents riddled with deficiencies, earning suspension and fines. In C.A. v. FEMC (2016), an engineer went so far as to replicate another engineer’s seal, an act that destroyed trust and led to suspension and mandatory ethics training. And in yet another example, J.B. v. FEMC (2017), an engineer falsely certified that unsafe porches and roofs met code, resulting in a two-year suspension and required ethics coursework. Though the facts differ, the theme is constant: whether through silence, acquiescence or intentional misconduct, each case created risk—and the Board responded by enforcing the principle that an engineer’s first client is the public.

The duty to speak up does not end at the job site. Engineers may encounter safety concerns during hurricane damage assessments, when reviewing traffic control plans, or while evaluating construction methods. When a condition poses imminent danger, the law expects disclosure, not quiet notation. Sometimes this means notifying a client in writing; at other times it means refusing to seal a document or even withdrawing from a project if concerns are ignored.

After a disaster, engineers play a key role in declaring structures unsafe. These calls are never easy, but they may be the only thing standing between families and tragedy.

This obligation is not merely legal; it is ethical. The National Society of Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics begins with the mandate that engineers hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. Florida’s laws echo that sentiment.

Living up to that standard often demands professional courage. Speaking up may mean resisting pressure from supervisors, clients or even government officials. It may mean risking contracts, jobs or relationships. But it also defines what it means to be a professional.

The authority to sign and seal documents exists because the public trusts engineers to exercise independent judgment, even when inconvenient or unpopular. That trust is fragile, and it depends on every licensee honoring their duty to protect safety.

Engineers advance safety through stronger standards, better designs and new technologies, but every innovation depends on professional responsibility. A resilient structure or sophisticated monitoring tool means little if warning signs are ignored. Technology may enhance safety, but ethics sustains it.

Florida’s engineers stand at the intersection of innovation, law, and ethics, and amid rapid change one responsibility remains constant: the duty to speak up when safety is at risk. It is both a legal mandate and a moral compass—and it is what ensures that Florida’s bridges, buildings, and roads are not only functional, but safe.