As a professional engineer, I consider maintaining my license in good standing to be a fundamental part of my practice. It requires not just technical skill, but active compliance with the rules that govern our profession. I find reviewing the official disciplinary actions published by the West Virginia Board of Registration is one of the most effective ways to stay informed about our ethical and administrative duties.
These public orders provide clear, real-world examples of the common pitfalls that can lead to sanctions. This article examines the patterns found in recent West Virginia enforcement actions, primarily the failure to disclose out-of-state discipline, practicing without a valid firm registration, and the misuse of a professional seal, to offer practical guidance for every practicing PE.
Check out my article What are the Most Common Ethics Violations for Professional Engineers.
Understanding Your Ethical Obligations as a WV Professional Engineer
Upholding our professional engineering license requires constant vigilance. While we rightly focus on technical excellence in our day-to-day work, it is often the administrative and ethical details of the West Virginia Engineering Law that create regulatory risk. A close look at recent disciplinary actions from the West Virginia Board of Registration provides an invaluable guide to navigating these responsibilities successfully.
Why Reviewing Disciplinary Actions Matters
I make it a practice to review the Board’s public enforcement actions because they translate the abstract legal code into real-world, practical lessons. These cases demonstrate that violations are often not the result of gross negligence, but of seemingly minor administrative oversights that any busy professional could make.
For example, a significant number of recent cases revolve around a single disclosure question on the license renewal application regarding discipline in other states. Understanding how these situations are handled by the Board provides a clear and compelling reason to be meticulous in our own practice. It is, in my view, one of the most effective forms of continuing education available for protecting the license we work so hard to maintain.
The Cost of Non-Compliance: Fines, Reprimands, and Public Record
When an engineer runs afoul of the West Virginia Engineering Law, the consequences are multi-layered and should not be underestimated. The Board has the authority to impose a range of sanctions for violations of its rules and statutes. Based on recent cases, these penalties fall into three main categories:
- Financial Penalties: Fines are the most common sanction. In the cases reviewed, these civil penalties typically ranged from $250 for practicing without a firm Certificate of Authorization or an individual license to $1,000 for a combination of violations, such as unlicensed practice and misuse of a seal. Many cases involving failure to disclose out-of-state discipline resulted in a $500 penalty.
- Administrative Costs: Beyond the civil penalty, the Board has the discretion to assess the administrative costs associated with investigating and prosecuting a case. While the Board often waives these costs in consent agreements, it is not guaranteed. In one recent hearing, the respondent was ordered to pay a $500 fine plus $486 in costs for the process server and court reporter.
- Public Record and Reputational Impact: Every consent order is a public record, available to clients, employers, and the public upon request under the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, the Board reports these actions to the national NCEES Enforcement Exchange database, which can be seen by other state licensing boards. Many orders also explicitly state that if the civil penalty is not paid on time, the engineer’s license is to be ORDERED REVOKED. This permanent, public record can have a far greater professional impact than the fine itself.
The issue of firms providing engineering services without a valid Certificate of Authorization is a common violation, with several recent cases also addressed by the Ohio engineering board.
The #1 Pitfall: Failing to Disclose Out-of-State Disciplinary Actions
Of all the violations documented in recent Board actions, one stands out as the most frequent and, arguably, the most preventable. A significant number of cases stem from licensed engineers providing false information on their renewal applications by failing to disclose disciplinary actions from other states.
Failing to disclose a prior action creates a new violation in West Virginia, and in multiple recent cases, engineers faced penalties for not reporting sanctions from the Kentucky Board of Licensure on their renewal applications. In one case that went to a formal hearing, an engineer was fined and ordered to pay administrative costs for not disclosing a prior action from the Minnesota PE Board on his application.
The Board’s discovery of unreported disciplinary actions from other jurisdictions, including the Louisiana Professional Engineering and Land Surveying Board, has led to consistent penalties for providing false information.
Dissecting the PE Renewal Application Question
The West Virginia Board’s online renewal application includes a critical disclosure question that every engineer must answer. The question is:
“Since the date of your last WV PE renewal (or if this is your first WV PE renewal, since the date of your initial PE application) have you been subject to any disciplinary action or any investigation by any local, state or national regulatory board (including those in WV), or have you been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor (excluding minor traffic violations)?”
The scope of this question is intentionally broad, covering not only final disciplinary orders but “any investigation” by “any…regulatory board”. Answering “No” to this question when the factual answer is “Yes” is a violation of West Virginia Engineering Law, specifically for providing “false testimony or information to the Board”.
Case Studies: A Pattern of Misinformation and a Consistent Penalty
A review of recent consent and final orders reveals a clear and consistent pattern. In case after case, engineers with disciplinary actions in other states have answered “No” to the renewal question, triggering a board-initiated complaint in West Virginia.
The following table summarizes these recent cases, showing the original disciplinary action and the subsequent penalty in West Virginia for failing to disclose it.
| WV Case Number | State of Original Discipline | Date of Original Action | Date of WV Renewal with False Answer | WV Penalty |
| C2024-09 | Kentucky | January 28, 2022 | December 31, 2022 | $500 Fine |
| C2024-12 | Minnesota | September 8, 2022 | December 15, 2022 | $500 Fine + $486 in Costs |
| C2025-12 | Wyoming | November 1, 2023 | December 2, 2024 | $500 Fine |
| C2025-14 | North Carolina | September 14, 2023 | December 11, 2024 | $500 Fine |
| C2025-15 | North Carolina | May 15, 2024 | December 2, 2024 | $500 Fine |
| C2025-17 | Louisiana | January 23, 2023 | December 5, 2024 | $500 Fine |
| C2025-18 | Nebraska | May 12, 2023 | December 29, 2024 | $500 Fine |
| C2025-19 | Kentucky | July 19, 2024 | December 5, 2024 | $500 Fine |
In nearly all of these consent agreements, the Board dismissed the more serious allegation of “fraud and deceit” in return for the engineer’s admission of providing false information. The penalty for this violation has been remarkably consistent: a $500 civil penalty.
This disclosure requirement also extends to firms. In a related case, a sole proprietorship was separately fined $500 for failing to disclose its owner’s Wyoming discipline on its Certificate of Authorization (COA) renewal application.
The Takeaway: Honesty is the Only Policy
State engineering boards communicate and share data, often through the NCEES Enforcement Exchange database. It is not a matter of if a board will learn of out-of-state discipline, but when.
Failing to disclose a prior action creates a new, separate violation in West Virginia. Answering “Yes” and providing a truthful explanation allows the Board to review the circumstances of the original case. Answering “No” falsely is an act of providing misinformation and will almost certainly lead to a new complaint and a new penalty. The choice is clear: transparently addressing a past issue is always the correct and less costly strategy.
Practicing Without a License in West Virginia: Risks for Individuals and Firms
Beyond the critical issue of disclosure, the Board’s enforcement actions also address the foundational requirement of licensure itself. West Virginia Engineering Law is clear: it is unlawful to practice or offer to practice engineering without the proper, current credentials. These rules apply not only to individual Professional Engineers but also to the firms that provide engineering services.
The fundamental violation of practicing with a lapsed license is a common theme in recent South Carolina PE violations as well.
Individual Unlicensed Practice: When “Design” Becomes Unlawful Engineering
For individuals, practicing without a license is a fundamental violation. This can happen when someone who has never been licensed offers services that fall under the state’s legal definition of engineering. A recent case highlights how using terms like “engineering” or “design” can lead to Board action.
In Case C2024-18, the licensee, who had never held a West Virginia PE license, was investigated for submitting structural, mechanical, and plumbing drawings for two pools in the state. Documents showed that he held himself out as a person who could provide “engineering and design services”.
In a Consent Order, the accused admitted to providing engineering services for one of the projects without a PE registration. The Board ordered him to pay a $250 civil penalty and, significantly, to “delete any references on his letterhead and business cards to ‘engineering’ and/or ‘design,”’ and to refrain from using such language going forward.
Firm-Level Violations: Practicing Without a Certificate of Authorization (COA)
Even if an individual PE holds a valid West Virginia license, their firm must also be authorized to offer services. State law requires a firm to obtain a Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the Board before practicing or offering to practice engineering in the state.
In Case C2025-06, the engineering firm reported on its COA application that it had already provided engineering services for a project in Sutton, West Virginia. The firm admitted it did not possess a COA when it performed the work. For this violation, the Board ordered the firm to pay a $250 civil penalty. This penalty amount is consistent with other cases, such as the case of the licensee (C2025-05), who was separately fined $250 for practicing without a COA in addition to his other violations.
The Takeaway: Verify Licensure and Certification Before Offering Services
The lesson from these cases is direct and unambiguous. For individuals, you must hold an active PE license in West Virginia before offering or performing any work that falls within the definition of engineering. Be mindful of the language you use in proposals and marketing materials.
For firms, it is essential to obtain a Certificate of Authorization from the Board before entering into any contracts or performing any work in the state. If you are a principal or an engineer in responsible charge, it is your duty to ensure your firm is compliant. A simple check of the Board’s public records for both individual and firm status is a critical due diligence step that can prevent these fundamental and easily avoidable violations.
The Professional Seal: A Case Study in Misuse and Compounding Errors
The professional engineer’s seal is the ultimate mark of responsibility. It certifies that the work was performed by or under the direct supervision of a licensed professional who is taking personal responsibility for it. However, that responsibility is jurisdiction-specific. A recent case provides a powerful lesson in how misuse of a seal, even with good intentions, can lead to multiple, compounding violations.
In Case C2025-05, an engineer provided drawings and calculations for a pedestrian bridge project in Charleston. The investigation revealed a cascade of errors related to licensure and the use of his seal.
Violation 1: Using an Out-of-State Seal on a WV Project
The first set of engineered drawings and calculations was presented to the client under the engineer’s California PE seal. This is a fundamental error. A professional seal is only valid in the jurisdiction where the license is held. Affixing a California seal to work performed for a West Virginia project does not meet the requirements of West Virginia Engineering Law and constitutes a misuse of that seal.
Violation 2: Using a WV Seal Before It’s Officially Issued
Apparently realizing the first error, the engineer submitted a second set of documents for the same project. This time, the drawings were sealed with his West Virginia PE seal. The problem? He did this on September 6, 2024, but his West Virginia PE license was not officially issued until September 12, 2024. A seal has no authority until the license it represents is active. Using it prematurely is another clear violation.
The Takeaway: One Project, Multiple Violations, and a Higher Penalty
This single project resulted in a series of distinct violations, and the Board penalized them accordingly. The engineer admitted to:
- Practicing engineering without a WV PE license.
- Practicing engineering without a firm Certificate of Authorization (COA).
- Misusing his seal.
The Board levied separate fines for each offense: $250 for practicing without a license, $250 for practicing without a COA, and $500 for the misuse of his seal, resulting in a total civil penalty of $1,000.
How to Protect Your WV Engineering License: A Compliance Checklist
Based on the patterns observed in these enforcement actions, it’s clear that most violations are preventable. Taking a proactive and diligent approach to administrative compliance is just as important as technical competence.
Here is a practical checklist every engineer practicing in West Virginia should follow to protect their professional standing.
Managing Your Renewals and Disclosures
The single most common pitfall is failing to properly disclose out-of-state disciplinary actions. Honesty and thoroughness during the renewal process are your best defense.
- Read the Questions Carefully: The renewal application asks a very specific and broad question about prior discipline. It includes not just final orders, but “any investigation by any local, state or national regulatory board”. In one case, an engineer stated he “misread” the question, but this did not prevent a finding that he had provided inaccurate information and a subsequent penalty.
- When in Doubt, Disclose: If you have been subject to any action in another state, the correct answer is “Yes.” Providing a truthful explanation to the Board is a procedural step. Providing false information by answering “No” is a new violation of West Virginia Engineering Law, which will almost certainly result in a complaint and penalty.
- Do a Self-Audit: Before beginning your renewal, do a quick check of your license status in every state where you are registered. This simple step can prevent a costly oversight.
Verifying Firm and Individual Credentials
The Board takes a clear stance on unlicensed practice, whether by an individual or a firm. The core principle is that all credentials must be in place before any work is offered or performed.
- Verify Your Individual License: Never offer or provide engineering services in West Virginia without holding a current, active PE license. A resident who provided “structural, mechanical and plumbing drawings” for pools without a license was fined and ordered to stop using the words “engineering” or “design” on his business materials.
- Confirm Your Firm’s COA: Remember that individual licensure is not enough. Any firm offering engineering services must have a valid Certificate of Authorization (COA). In one case, a firm was fined $250 after admitting on its COA application that it had already performed engineering work in the state before being certified.
- Check Before You Start: Before signing a contract or starting any work in West Virginia, verify on the Board’s website that both your individual license and your firm’s COA are active and in good standing.
Best Practices for Proper Seal Usage
Your professional seal is a declaration of responsibility, and its use is strictly regulated. The case of an engineer who made multiple seal errors on a single project provides critical lessons.
- Use the Correct Jurisdictional Seal: Only your West Virginia PE seal is valid on projects located in West Virginia. Using another state’s seal is a misuse of your authority and a violation of the law.
- Don’t Jump the Gun: Your seal has no authority until your license is officially issued and active. In one instance, an engineer sealed drawings with his West Virginia seal just six days before his license was officially issued, which constituted a violation.
- Seal Final Documents Only: Remember that your seal and signature should only be affixed to final specifications, reports, and drawings that are being presented to a client or a public agency.
Takeaway: Upholding the Integrity of the Engineering Profession
The disciplinary actions from the West Virginia Board offer a clear lesson: our professional obligations extend beyond technical competence. The cases reviewed consistently highlight the importance of meticulous administrative diligence.
Whether it is full disclosure on renewal forms, verifying firm and individual licensure before starting work, or the proper use of a professional seal, these details are fundamental. They are the bedrock of the public’s trust in our profession, and staying vigilant in these areas is the most effective way to protect the license we’ve all worked so hard to earn.