Guidelines for members reviewing the work of other engineers for the purpose of litigation

Engineers are frequently asked to review the work of other engineers for the purposes of litigation in cases of suspected shortcomings in the design and construction of a geotechnical project. Clause 1 of the Code of Ethics (Ref. 1) implies that engineers should make their services available to the community to examine the work of another engineer. Hence the concept of ‘closing ranks’ to protect the interest of fellow engineers is unethical.

In cases of litigation, the Code of Ethics has been interpreted (Ref. 2) so that an engineer may give an opinion on the technical cause of the problem, and to offer a view on whether the design and/or construction were consistent with the state of the art of the profession at the time. The work of the engineer must be strictly factual. and opinions must be given in an objective manner.

The National Committee of the Australian Geomechanics Society has been made aware of instances where it may be argued that the engineer, in carrying out the role of expert witness, has not followed this interpretation of the Code of Ethics. In cases of litigation against engineers, this can only mean that the Geomechanics Profession as a whole will suffer. It can also lead to increasing litigation and result in further problems in obtaining professional indemnity cover for our activities.

As a result, at its meeting on 25th September, 1987, the National Committee of the Australian Geomechanics SOCiety has endorsed the following for its members.