Promotional Letter Emphasizing Negative Attributes of Other Firms
Vesna, an engineer, sent the following letter to various
state and local public agencies relevant to her area of
practice:
It has come to my attention that your
agency has been using the services of engineers who do not
carry professional liability (errors and omission) insurance.
Such a practice, although not necessarily a violation of
policy, is certainly not in the public interest. No one plans
on having mistakes, but if a costly error does occur, it is not
likely that you can recover losses from the personal or
corporate resources of an uninsured consultant.
There are only two reasons a consultant is
not covered by professional liability insurance: either that
consultant does not care to accept the expense of such
coverage, or the consultant in uninsurable because of previous
difficulties.
For those in the first category, the
premium amounts are three to five percent of gross income.
Either these persons are receiving excess profits, or they are
billing at lower rates than those of us who carry
insurance.
There are several qualified consulting
firms in this area who carry adequate liability insurance. My
solo practice is covered by $500,000 in general liability and
$500,000 in professional liability insurance. In over four
years of operation, I have not had a failure or a claim filed
against me -- in spite of the fact that much of my work is in
high-risk areas.
Doesn't it make sense to go with a
winner?
Is Vesna's letter self-promotion or a negative attack on
other firms? Why?
How, if at all, does the letter engage in unfair
competition? Is there any part of this letter that would be of
concern to a professional society?
--adapted from NSPE Case No. 76-7
Current NSPE Code of Ethics
An earlier version may have been used in this case.
Original Case and BER Judgement