There is debate in the office on how to phrase professional opinions in technical reports. From a legal perspective, when a PE renders an opinion on company letterhead, is it legally the opinion of the individual or the opinion of the company? Moreover, does it matter how the conclusion is phrased within a technical report? For example, which of the following versions would be preferred? "COMPANY NAME concluded the concrete was not adequate because of...." verses "JOE SCHMO P.E. concluded the concrete was not adequate because of...."
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations JAE on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Who's Opinion Is it? 12
- Thread starter Envelope3
- Start date
If the P.E. is representing the company, then the company name. If the P.E. is representing themselves, then their name.
Naming the P.E. alone when part of a company is no shield to the company being sued. It takes two seconds to say "If the P.E. is wrong, why did the company not discover this and why did the company employ them?"
Naming the P.E. alone when part of a company is no shield to the company being sued. It takes two seconds to say "If the P.E. is wrong, why did the company not discover this and why did the company employ them?"
-
2
- #4
[blue]"The concrete was not adequate."
Signed,
Company Name
Joe Schmo, P.E. <signed seal of Joe Schmo>[/blue]
Joe Schmo is an agent of the company, providing legal (they are licensed) engineering services.
Joe is not working for the client directly.
He is only an agent providing services under the company and for the client.
The company is not a licensed engineer.
The company is only providing licensed engineer services via Joe to the client.
Signed,
Company Name
Joe Schmo, P.E. <signed seal of Joe Schmo>[/blue]
Joe Schmo is an agent of the company, providing legal (they are licensed) engineering services.
Joe is not working for the client directly.
He is only an agent providing services under the company and for the client.
The company is not a licensed engineer.
The company is only providing licensed engineer services via Joe to the client.
Use "we", not "I".
You can correct the title yourself. Just hit the 'edit' button and fix it. If that doesn't work, hit the 'report' button and ask for the title to be fixed. Your thread is about language, so give it a good start. After you do it, I will delete my threads.
You can correct the title yourself. Just hit the 'edit' button and fix it. If that doesn't work, hit the 'report' button and ask for the title to be fixed. Your thread is about language, so give it a good start. After you do it, I will delete my threads.
I've never seen this "hit the road" so....
I dislike the use of "we" however, as these comments are usually written by one person and "we" implies or leads one to believe this is a consensus opinion involving more than one person. Even if there is a peer review, "we" is inaccurate. If the report is co-written and signed by both parties, fine, use we. Otherwise it's borderline (or clearly) deceptive.
I dislike the use of "we" however, as these comments are usually written by one person and "we" implies or leads one to believe this is a consensus opinion involving more than one person. Even if there is a peer review, "we" is inaccurate. If the report is co-written and signed by both parties, fine, use we. Otherwise it's borderline (or clearly) deceptive.
Greenalleycat
Structural
The way it works here:
I have been told to be very careful with saying 'I' - it should be 'We' or 'Company name', and you sign it something like 'on behalf of'
You want to make it clear that it's the company's instruction
Supposedly there is some case law around it
Legally, as a Chartered Professional Engineer, we have a Code of Ethics that we have to follow (an Act of Parliament so it's an actual law)
We could still get wrecked if we failed this obligation, but that's at least different to liability for a mistake falling on you personally vs on a Limited Liability company
I have been told to be very careful with saying 'I' - it should be 'We' or 'Company name', and you sign it something like 'on behalf of'
You want to make it clear that it's the company's instruction
Supposedly there is some case law around it
Legally, as a Chartered Professional Engineer, we have a Code of Ethics that we have to follow (an Act of Parliament so it's an actual law)
We could still get wrecked if we failed this obligation, but that's at least different to liability for a mistake falling on you personally vs on a Limited Liability company
I agree with this. We does not seem suitable if the report is written and prepared by a single person.lexpatrie said:
I do try to avoid the use of "I". I do so by trying to stick to facts using phrase like:
"a site visit occured"
"it was observed",
"the analysis showed";
When an opinion is made I might use language like "In light of the analysis, it is the authors opinion that..."
(Though I won't claim to be an expert report writer and I've never worked in a firm with other report writing engineers.)
I question the veracity of that. Not that I'm question what you have been told, just on whether that is a correct legal interpretation. And I believe you also operate in Australia (or maybe NZ)?Greenalleycat said:
-
1
- #9
Greenalleycat
Structural
I'm in NZ. Dad told me this (engineer of 45 years) so I (we) roll with it
In practice, when I'm saying things that I feel are relatively non-contentious or factual I commonly use 'I' because they're my observations
When it comes to issuing instructions or saying anything contentious I always use 'we'
I think Dad also uses your tactic of not saying 'I' or 'we' on a lot of things - just making statements without personal touch.
RE: "'we' implies or leads one to believe this is a consensus opinion involving more than one person."
At the end of the day, I am acting on behalf of the business that employees me, which is a structural engineering business with licensed engineers as Directors
I have no particular individual authority on the job - my authority comes from the client's contract with my employer, and I am representing the company on site
If I say something wrong and fuck it up for the company, well that's just bad luck - that's the risk of any business owner
It would be more wrong for someone to turn around and blame 'I' when 'I' am just doing my job. A company can't avoid their obligations by blaming an employee who is doing what they are employed to do
In practice, when I'm saying things that I feel are relatively non-contentious or factual I commonly use 'I' because they're my observations
When it comes to issuing instructions or saying anything contentious I always use 'we'
I think Dad also uses your tactic of not saying 'I' or 'we' on a lot of things - just making statements without personal touch.
RE: "'we' implies or leads one to believe this is a consensus opinion involving more than one person."
At the end of the day, I am acting on behalf of the business that employees me, which is a structural engineering business with licensed engineers as Directors
I have no particular individual authority on the job - my authority comes from the client's contract with my employer, and I am representing the company on site
If I say something wrong and fuck it up for the company, well that's just bad luck - that's the risk of any business owner
It would be more wrong for someone to turn around and blame 'I' when 'I' am just doing my job. A company can't avoid their obligations by blaming an employee who is doing what they are employed to do
Greenalleycat
Structural
I thought this was a broader context than just Producer Statements?
I interpreted this as general communication - emails, site records, all that
A Producer Statement is not a legally-required document, the Memorandum is
The PS1 template has "on behalf of xyz company" baked into it and refers to the Engineering Design Firm
Anyway, doesn't the fact that our friendly Bad Engineering Consulting Assholes tried & failed to blame the individuals support that the company can't just get out of it?
Out of interest, I've just looked up my own IEA and this is the clause relating to liabilities
Gonna need a lawyer to tell me whether this means I'm covered for 'almost everything' or 'almost nothing'
Certainly you attract some level of personal liability by virtue of being a CPEng engineer putting your name on stuff but ultimately you act and speak on behalf of the company
Your personal liability for being CPEng is in addition to the liability attracted by the company - it doesn't subtract from it
I interpreted this as general communication - emails, site records, all that
A Producer Statement is not a legally-required document, the Memorandum is
The PS1 template has "on behalf of xyz company" baked into it and refers to the Engineering Design Firm
Anyway, doesn't the fact that our friendly Bad Engineering Consulting Assholes tried & failed to blame the individuals support that the company can't just get out of it?
Out of interest, I've just looked up my own IEA and this is the clause relating to liabilities
Gonna need a lawyer to tell me whether this means I'm covered for 'almost everything' or 'almost nothing'
Certainly you attract some level of personal liability by virtue of being a CPEng engineer putting your name on stuff but ultimately you act and speak on behalf of the company
Your personal liability for being CPEng is in addition to the liability attracted by the company - it doesn't subtract from it
- Thread starter
- #11
It appears that there is the same rainbow of opinions on eng-tips as my office, and maybe the consensus is that there is none.
I have seen in depositions where an attorney picks on the use of "we" and needs to clarify that it is actually the opinion of the engineer and not of multiple individuals. Personally, I find the use of "we" as a defensive mechanism in writing, being afraid to take a stand about a conclusion (safety in numbers type thing).
And yes, you can get sued individually as the engineer (several vs joint liability). I've seen it happen, and in all instances the corporation's counsel defends the individual engineer. I have heard that there are certain states that do not allow this corporate defense of the individual; it's just that i've personally never witnessed it in one of those states.
I have seen in depositions where an attorney picks on the use of "we" and needs to clarify that it is actually the opinion of the engineer and not of multiple individuals. Personally, I find the use of "we" as a defensive mechanism in writing, being afraid to take a stand about a conclusion (safety in numbers type thing).
And yes, you can get sued individually as the engineer (several vs joint liability). I've seen it happen, and in all instances the corporation's counsel defends the individual engineer. I have heard that there are certain states that do not allow this corporate defense of the individual; it's just that i've personally never witnessed it in one of those states.
Greenalleycat
Structural
I [we] think we [we] can all [some of us] agree that everything is fine until the lawyers get involved
Then you're screwed regardless because they will always find a way to fuck you over if they can
Then you're screwed regardless because they will always find a way to fuck you over if they can
You could very well have multiple engineers with multiple contradictory opinions working for the same company.
Assuming you don't take a poll on every question or don't have some CEO proclaiming an "official" opinion on each topic, I'd say it's the individual's opinion.
Assuming you don't take a poll on every question or don't have some CEO proclaiming an "official" opinion on each topic, I'd say it's the individual's opinion.
JStephen, that scenario is rare, at least where I have worked. This is in the civil/structural design office environment. When a report is required, it is usual for one senior engineer to be assigned the task. When a draft is complete, it is then reviewed by one or more other engineers in the office who have relevant experience. Generally the department head will issue the final report, signed by an authorized Principal or Associate who is part of the ownership group. Any opinions in the report will be 'our opinions'.
If you're authorized to sign on company letterhead then you're authorized to speak for the company, and that's what you're doing.
The company should have a clear policy defining who can sign what, for how much, etc. If no policy exists, then the lawyers might get involved after the fact if things go badly. See greenallycat's summary of what happens then.
If you wrote and signed a letter stating "We agree to add X to our scope for $Y." that's it, you've just committed the company. (Unless of course you don't have authorization to do that, then you've just embarrassed the company (and potentially enriched the lawyers).)
Why would an "opinion" be any different?
The company should have a clear policy defining who can sign what, for how much, etc. If no policy exists, then the lawyers might get involved after the fact if things go badly. See greenallycat's summary of what happens then.
If you wrote and signed a letter stating "We agree to add X to our scope for $Y." that's it, you've just committed the company. (Unless of course you don't have authorization to do that, then you've just embarrassed the company (and potentially enriched the lawyers).)
Why would an "opinion" be any different?
I too agree with MintJulep regarding authorisation to speak for the company. However there logic of the examples give don't clearly follow:
Of course it is totally common for companies to attempt to speak with one voice regarding thoughts/opinions etc.. But attempting it doesn't make it true.
In my communications I use both "we" and "I". However In a report I will generally provide opinions in terms of "I" and recommendations in terms of "we" or generally in a neutral voice for both. A company can provide recommendations, advice, services etc. A company cannot hold an opinion.
Companies are financial and legal entities that can commit to a legal contract.MintJulep said:
Companies can't hold a thought/voice/opinion. Companies are obviously not sentient and do not hold opinions.MintJulep said:
Of course it is totally common for companies to attempt to speak with one voice regarding thoughts/opinions etc.. But attempting it doesn't make it true.
In my communications I use both "we" and "I". However In a report I will generally provide opinions in terms of "I" and recommendations in terms of "we" or generally in a neutral voice for both. A company can provide recommendations, advice, services etc. A company cannot hold an opinion.
-
1
- #19
Greenalleycat
Structural
I'm not sure how this is a difficult topic to grasp
Everyone [clients, contractors, engineers with opinions, whatever] understands that people within a company may hold different opinions - that is a natural challenge of any business to manage
However, from the perspective of something leaving the business on company letterhead, that is irrelevant
The business owns the opinion because they employ the person that wrote it - the business cannot walk away from it arbitrarily
Now, sometimes mistakes or significant disagreements happen and a company (i.e. a group of senior people within the company) may try to walk back something that has been said or done
The obvious example being a senior person realising a junior fucked up on site...again, rationally, most people will understand this and try to accommodate it if they can
But if it's too late - say the project has moved on and the mistake cannot be underdone without cost, then the company foots the bill
They cannot blame their junior and say it was the junior's individual opinion...the company owns that opinion.
So, from a practical perspective, an individual's and a company's opinions are the same once transmitted via formal means
Disagreements are to be behind closed doors only
Everyone [clients, contractors, engineers with opinions, whatever] understands that people within a company may hold different opinions - that is a natural challenge of any business to manage
However, from the perspective of something leaving the business on company letterhead, that is irrelevant
The business owns the opinion because they employ the person that wrote it - the business cannot walk away from it arbitrarily
Now, sometimes mistakes or significant disagreements happen and a company (i.e. a group of senior people within the company) may try to walk back something that has been said or done
The obvious example being a senior person realising a junior fucked up on site...again, rationally, most people will understand this and try to accommodate it if they can
But if it's too late - say the project has moved on and the mistake cannot be underdone without cost, then the company foots the bill
They cannot blame their junior and say it was the junior's individual opinion...the company owns that opinion.
So, from a practical perspective, an individual's and a company's opinions are the same once transmitted via formal means
Disagreements are to be behind closed doors only
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
