Wisconsin PE Disciplinary Actions: Professional Engineer Discipline, Disciplinary Actions and Cases in Wisconsin
Written by: Jordan Ellis
As professional engineers, we view our P.E. license as the cornerstone of our careers.
Wisconsin professional engineers are held to high standards of ethics, competence, and accountability to protect the public and ensure trust in their profession. When these standards are not met, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) investigates complaints and enforces disciplinary actions as necessary. Understanding how disciplinary processes work, along with common violations and case outcomes, can help engineers, employers, and the public stay informed about professional responsibilities and the consequences of misconduct in Wisconsin’s engineering community.
This article reviews recent, real-world disciplinary cases from the Wisconsin Examining Board to provide cautionary lessons for all practicing engineers.
Related article: What are the Most Common Ethics Violations for Professional Engineers.
Ethics Course for Wisconsin Engineers
This 3-hour online course helps Wisconsin Professional Engineers earn guaranteed PDH credit while deepening their understanding of ethical responsibilities and state regulations. By reviewing seven real disciplinary decisions from the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services, participants will learn to recognize common violations, understand the Department’s findings, and apply practical strategies to maintain compliance and uphold professional standards. Ideal for engineers committed to ethical practice and protecting public safety in Wisconsin.
Key Highlights
- Wisconsin engineers face discipline for ethical violations, technical negligence, and lapses in licensure or professional conduct.
- The state’s examining board investigates complaints, manages disciplinary processes, and enforces public transparency for actions taken.
- Common disciplinary triggers include practicing without a current license, conflicts of interest, misrepresentation, and breaches of safety.
- Engineering firms must maintain an active firm certificate and comply with ongoing reporting, renewal, and ethical standards requirements.
- Proactive measures – like regular audits, ethics education, and documentation – help minimize disciplinary risk and foster a culture of compliance.
Understanding Professional Engineer Disciplinary Actions in Wisconsin
Professional engineering holds a key role in shaping Wisconsin’s infrastructure, safety, and innovation. But with the privilege of a license comes a high standard of responsibility and conduct. Disciplinary actions against Wisconsin engineers are crucial to upholding public trust and accountability within the profession. By examining the reasons engineers might face discipline, the scope of complaints, and how license defense often unfolds, you can better understand the importance of ethical practice. This exploration sheds light on both common pitfalls and the crucial need for diligence, offering insights that help engineers protect their reputation and career in Wisconsin.
Common Reasons for Discipline Among Wisconsin Engineers
Disciplinary issues in professional engineering can arise from a complex mix of technical, ethical, and procedural missteps. In Wisconsin, disciplinary actions most often begin with a formal complaint, either submitted by a client, employer, or sometimes by a peer, alleging that a registered engineer has failed to meet the legal or ethical standards set by the state’s Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS). When such a complaint is lodged, the board must determine if the alleged unprofessional conduct or technical failure truly warrants professional discipline. The stakes are high for Wisconsin engineers, as these cases can threaten not only a professional’s career but also their ability to practice and serve the community.
One of the most prevalent reasons for disciplinary action involves unprofessional conduct, which covers a wide range of behaviors. This can include gross negligence in engineering design, supervision failures, or submitting misleading or false engineering reports. Even a single instance of substandard practice can result in a disciplinary case if it’s determined that public safety was placed at risk. Wisconsin’s regulatory framework stresses that engineering is a privilege, and registered professionals are expected to act with unwavering integrity. Another leading cause for discipline is practicing engineering without a proper or current license, either letting a license lapse or never having properly completed the requirements for registration. Such misconduct isn’t just a technical oversight; it’s viewed as a willful disregard for professional regulation and public trust.
The process of disciplinary action is guided by both statutory requirements and ethical guidelines. Often, the initial action isn’t always punitive. Sometimes, the DSPS might initiate an investigation following complaints, aiming first for remediation, education, or agreement to follow specific standards in future practice. However, when serious violations such as falsification of qualifications, criminal conduct related to one’s engineering practice, or repeated technical errors occur, more severe consequences can follow. In these cases, formal hearings may be held, and sanctions can range from public reprimands and mandatory retraining to suspension or revocation of the professional’s engineering license.
It’s important to note that many disciplinary cases hinge on documentation and communication. Poor recordkeeping, failure to communicate clearly with clients, or a breakdown in transparency regarding engineering decisions can all lead to claims of unprofessional conduct. When defending against such a complaint, a Wisconsin attorney experienced in license defense often highlights diligent recordkeeping, adherence to DSPS directives, and prior disciplinary history (or lack thereof) as mitigating factors. The role of an attorney is not only to guide engineers through the process but also to ensure that their side is fully heard before any action is taken.
On a broader scale, recurring types of complaints arise around conflicts of interest, improper delegation of engineering work, and failing to report changes in competency or impairment that may affect practice. Wisconsin engineers are required to self-report certain criminal convictions and civil judgments, and failure to do so can lead to immediate professional discipline. With every disciplinary case, the DSPS aims to safeguard the public while also offering registered professionals a fair process, a balance that helps preserve the integrity of the profession overall.
Seeking proactive counsel, understanding the nuances of complaints, and routinely reviewing professional ethics and licensure status are some of the best ways engineers in Wisconsin can prevent disciplinary action. By learning from the experiences of others and the outcomes of prior disciplinary actions, professionals can recognize red flags before they escalate to formal cases. While every complaint is unique, and each disciplinary case depends on its facts, the overarching lesson remains: diligence, professionalism, and communication are pivotal in maintaining a clear disciplinary record, and in strengthening the field of professional engineering across Wisconsin.
Case-by-Case Review of Disciplinary Actions
To illustrate the specific circumstances that can lead to board action, the following table outlines each of the disciplinary matters reviewed for this article, summarizing the violations and the resulting consequences.
| Case Number(s) | Nature of Violation(s) | Penalty | Fine (Costs Assessed) |
| 22 ENG 019 | The firm’s Certificate of Authorization (COA) expired, but the engineers continued to practice and submit four stamped plans. The reason given was “an administrative oversight”. | Reprimand for all three engineers and the firm. | $106 each for a total of $424. |
| 22 ENG 026 | The firm’s COA expired, after which the engineer stamped and submitted plans. The reason given was a “clerical oversight”. | Reprimand for the engineer and the firm. | $249 each for a total of $498. |
| 23 ENG 003 | Practiced and held himself out as a professional engineer while his personal license was expired. Also practiced as the lead engineer for a firm that had never possessed a COA. | Reprimand. | $311. |
| 22 ENG 024 | Practiced as a Village Engineer on 96 projects for nearly two years while her license was expired. Also failed to complete the two required Professional Development Hours (PDHs) in ethics for the biennium. | Reprimand and a license limitation requiring completion of 2 ethics PDHs. | $508. |
| 18 ENG 022 | Failed to complete the two required PDHs in professional conduct and ethics during the 2015-2016 biennium. | Reprimand and a license limitation requiring completion of 2 ethics credits. The license was later fully restored upon completion. | $868. |
| 17 ENG 009 | Was four PDH hours short of the requirement and failed to maintain records. Practiced through a firm that did not have a COA. Also failed to respond to the Department within 30 days during an investigation. | Reprimand and a license limitation to make up the 4 PDH hours and apply for a firm COA. The license was later fully restored. | $2,234. |
| 21 ENG 013 | Practiced on behalf of a firm that completed 11 projects in Wisconsin without a COA. Also failed to notify the Wisconsin board within 48 hours of being disciplined in Louisiana. | Reprimand. | $1,099. |
| 19 ENG 014 | The firm provided seven engineering plans in Wisconsin before being licensed. The engineer answered “No” on the firm’s COA application regarding prior discipline, failing to report a Louisiana action. They also failed to notify the board within 48 hours of a subsequent Oklahoma disciplinary action. | Reprimand for the engineer and the firm. | $398 each for a total of $796. |
| 19 ENG 004 | Answered “No” on his Wisconsin license application regarding prior discipline, failing to disclose a 2014 Kentucky Board action. Failed to notify the Wisconsin board within 48 hours of a 2018 Missouri Board disciplinary action. Also failed to respond in a timely manner to the Department’s investigation requests. | Reprimand. | $989. |
| 19 ENG 005 | Practiced as the responsible engineer for a firm that conducted 9 projects in Wisconsin prior to the firm being issued a state Certificate of Authorization. | Reprimand. | $935. |
| 21 ENG 020 | The firm practiced without a Wisconsin COA for 18 years, completing 78 projects. The engineers aided and abetted this unlicensed practice. All parties also failed to notify the board within 48 hours of being disciplined in Louisiana. | Reprimand for the firm and for both engineers. | $194 each for a total of $582. |
| 20 ENG 001 | Failed to notify the Wisconsin board in writing within 48 hours after being disciplined by the Louisiana board. | Reprimand. | $569. |
| ORDER0007308 | The engineer was diagnosed with alcohol dependency and had a misdemeanor OWI (3rd offense) conviction. The board found this was substantially related to the practice of engineering and may adversely affect his fitness to practice. | License renewal was granted with significant limitations for a minimum of two years. His full license was later restored after compliance. | No specific fine was assessed; the engineer was made responsible for all costs associated with monitoring. |
Understanding the Consequences: A Summary of Board Actions
To provide a clearer picture of the most common issues facing Wisconsin P.E.s, the following table summarizes the types of violations found in these board orders, their frequency, and the typical range of penalties.
| Type of Violation | Number of Cases | Common Penalty | Range of Fines (Costs Assessed) |
| Practicing Without or With an Expired Firm Certificate of Authorization (COA) | 8 | Reprimand for the firm and responsible P.E.s. | $311 to $2,234 |
| Failure to Report Out-of-State Discipline (48-Hour Rule) | 5 | Reprimand. | $569 to $1,099 |
| Continuing Education (PDH) Deficiencies | 3 | Reprimand and a License Limitation requiring completion of missing hours. | $508 to $2,234 |
| Making a False Statement on an Application | 2 | Reprimand. | $796 to $989 |
| Practicing on an Expired Personal P.E. License | 2 | Reprimand. | $311 to $508 |
| Personal Conduct Affecting Fitness to Practice | 1 | License Limitation with strict monitoring requirements (e.g., employer supervision, mandatory recovery meetings). | No specific fine was assessed; the engineer was made responsible for all costs associated with monitoring. |
Common Administrative Violations for Wisconsin Engineers
Of all the issues that can bring an engineer before the state examining board, the most common are not complex technical failures but simple administrative lapses. Forgetting a renewal date or failing to secure the proper business credential can have serious consequences, regardless of intent.
Practicing on an Expired Personal P.E. License
It sounds fundamental, yet several cases show how easily licensed professionals can get tripped up by a simple renewal date. In one instance, an engineer continued to serve as a Village Engineer and worked on 96 projects while her personal P.E. license was expired for nearly two years. Her reason was that she did not receive a renewal notice in the mail and “simply forgot to renew her license”.
In another case, an engineer with an expired credential identified himself as a licensed professional engineer at a public zoning board meeting. He stated he was “unaware his credential had expired”. In both situations, the board disciplined the engineer with a public reprimand and assessed costs.
The Dangers of an Expired Firm Certificate of Authorization (COA)
Even if your personal license is current, your firm’s registration is just as critical. The board disciplined three principals of one engineering firm after it submitted four stamped plans to the DNR while the firm’s COA was expired. The principals stated the lapse was due to an “administrative oversight,” but all three engineers and the firm itself were reprimanded.
A similar case involved another engineer whose firm submitted plans with an expired COA due to a “clerical oversight”. He and his firm were also reprimanded and required to pay costs. These cases show that the board holds the responsible licensees accountable for the firm’s status.
Working for or Aiding an Unlicensed Engineering Firm
Perhaps the most serious administrative violation is practicing without the proper firm credential at all. One investigation revealed a firm had completed 78 projects in Wisconsin between 2002 and 2020 before it obtained a COA. The two responsible licensees, who were employed at the firm during that time, were reprimanded for aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of professional engineering.
Failing to secure the proper business registration can lead to significant penalties, underscoring the importance of verifying your firm’s status before offering services. The consequences for these actions are serious and a matter of public record. You can find these cases and more using the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services’ online search tool for disciplinary orders.
The Role of the Board in Overseeing Engineering Practice
The examination and regulation of professional engineering practice in Wisconsin falls primarily on a dedicated examining board, supported by the state’s department of safety and professional services. Their mandate stretches beyond licensure, extending to oversight, complaint investigation, and enforcement actions. The board establishes standards, monitors professional conduct, and is empowered to issue a disciplinary order whenever public safety or ethical standards are compromised. This oversight process ensures that each complaint and resulting action aligns with legal requirements, with the board playing a central role in maintaining the integrity and reliability of engineering throughout the state.
How Disciplinary Action Processes Are Initiated and Managed
The process for disciplining professional engineers in Wisconsin is a deliberate and multi-layered exercise in oversight, guided by the examining board and administered by the state’s department. When an allegation of unprofessional conduct, incompetence, or violation of state law arises, the board initiates its review by first receiving a formal complaint. These complaints are not limited to those from clients or employers; peers, regulatory bodies, or members of the public may also raise concerns if they believe that safety or ethical standards have been compromised.
The initial step in the process is critical, as the board must assess whether the complaint presents enough evidence to pursue further investigation. Here, transparency is essential, the board operates with clear protocols to ensure every complaint is taken seriously, and information about the process is available to both the complainant and the licensee involved.
Once a complaint is received, the board collaborates with the department to gather information relevant to the alleged conduct. This may involve requesting documentation from the licensee, interviewing witnesses, or conducting site visits to examine technical aspects of the case.
Throughout the process, the board’s primary concern is the safety of the public; it acts with diligence to ensure that no engineer’s practice places public welfare at risk. Each step is documented, as this recordkeeping forms an essential component of any disciplinary action and later informs the creation of a disciplinary order if warranted.
If the preliminary investigation reveals patterns of negligence, fraud, or other behavior that violates state engineering statutes, the board convenes a formal hearing. This hearing resembles a legal proceeding, with both the department and the accused engineer able to present evidence and arguments.
The involvement of the board ensures that decisions are not handed down arbitrarily, as every action must adhere to established legal standards as well as the values of the engineering profession. During the hearing, the board may consult with technical experts or seek additional legal counsel, always striving to achieve a fair and balanced outcome.
The culmination of this process, if the allegations are substantiated, is the issuance of a disciplinary order. This order may range from a mild reprimand to suspension, mandatory retraining, or revocation of the engineering license, depending on the seriousness of the infraction.
The board, in collaboration with the department, makes certain that every disciplinary order is precisely tailored to address both the specific conduct and the broader implications for public safety and trust.
In some cases, the board may recommend remedial measures, such as requiring the engineer to undertake further education or submit to enhanced oversight, particularly when the violation was unintentional or the result of a lapse in judgment rather than willful misconduct. An essential aspect of the board’s oversight is the dissemination of information related to disciplinary actions.
The state aims for transparency, so disciplinary orders and the key findings behind them are typically made public. This practice not only reinforces the reality that the engineering profession is held to high standards, but it also serves as an educational tool for others, highlighting the consequences of failing to comply with legal, technical, or ethical obligations.
Additionally, the public availability of such information assures clients and stakeholders that action is being taken to uphold safety and integrity within the profession. Throughout this entire process, the examining board maintains a dual commitment: to enforce the law while also safeguarding the rights of the engineer under review.
Legal counsel for both sides is encouraged, ensuring that the process remains fair and regulatory actions stand up to scrutiny. Engineers, the department, and the board are all bound by statutory requirements, and the system aims to foster improvement rather than only punish failure.
The existence of a thorough oversight and action process, therefore, is fundamental to the ongoing credibility of engineering in Wisconsin, safeguarding both the public and the integrity of the profession overall. As the next sections will explore, understanding and meeting these standards is integral for engineers who wish to maintain their licenses and practice with confidence in the state of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin’s Continuing Education (PDH) Requirements and Pitfalls
Beyond the day-to-day administrative tasks of running a business, keeping up with continuing education requirements is a critical responsibility for every P.E. State board audits are common, and failing to meet the specific Professional Development Hour (PDH) requirements can easily lead to a disciplinary action, even if the rest of your practice is flawless.
Missing the Required Ethics & Professional Conduct Hours
Several board orders highlight a very specific pitfall: failing to complete the two PDH credits required in the area of professional conduct and ethics.
In one case, an engineer was audited for the 2015-2016 biennium and, after multiple requests from the Department, could not provide evidence of having taken the required ethics hours. He was reprimanded and his license was limited until he completed the coursework.
In another matter, an engineer renewing her license for the 2020-2022 biennium was also found to be short the two required ethics hours. She had attempted to carry over ethics credits from the previous cycle, but this is not permitted under Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Failing a PDH Audit: The Critical Role of Record-Keeping
What happens when the Department audits your PDH and you can’t produce the records? An engineer faced this exact situation when an audit found he was four hours short of the 30-hour requirement for the biennium. The engineer communicated to the Department that his files had been destroyed in a flood and he could not provide all the necessary certificates.
While sympathetic, the board ultimately found that he violated the administrative code by failing to maintain records of his continuing education for the three most recent biennia. He was reprimanded, his license was limited until he made up the hours, and he was assessed costs of $2,234. This is a stark reminder that the responsibility to maintain, and be able to produce, your records is just as important as completing the hours.
The board is granted broad authority under Wisconsin Statute 443.11 to discipline licensees for these and other violations, making careful compliance essential.
Out-of-State Discipline and the 48-Hour Reporting Rule
In today’s connected world, a professional license is rarely confined to a single state. Many engineers hold credentials across multiple jurisdictions, which creates a web of reciprocal responsibilities. A disciplinary action in one state can trigger a cascade of reporting requirements and potential penalties in others, a fact that several engineers have learned the hard way.
How Disciplinary Actions in Other States Impact Your Wisconsin License
The Wisconsin Examining Board takes out-of-state discipline very seriously. One of the most critical and time-sensitive rules is the requirement to notify the Department in writing within 48 hours of being disciplined in another state. In one case, an engineer was disciplined by the Louisiana board and failed to report it to Wisconsin within the required timeframe, leading to a reprimand and costs of over $500.
Another engineer’s case began after he self-reported discipline from the Louisiana board, which had disciplined him for not reporting an earlier action from the Alabama board. This chain reaction resulted in a reprimand and costs of over $1,000 in Wisconsin for failing to provide timely notice and for his firm’s unlicensed practice. The lesson is clear: your professional record is transparent across state lines, and timely, honest reporting is mandatory.
The Violation of Making False Statements on an Application
Honesty is paramount from the very first step of licensure. Answering application questions untruthfully is a direct path to board discipline. One engineer answered “No” to the question on his 2017 Wisconsin application asking if he had ever been subject to disciplinary action, despite having been reprimanded and fined by the Kentucky Board in 2014. This false statement, combined with a failure to report a subsequent action from the Missouri Board, resulted in a reprimand and nearly $1,000 in costs.
In a separate case, an engineer answered “No” on his firm’s Certificate of Authorization application regarding prior discipline, failing to disclose a previous action against the firm in Louisiana. This also led to a reprimand for both the engineer and the firm. The board considers providing false information a serious offense, as it falls under the statutory definition of using “fraud or deceit in obtaining a certificate of registration,” which is explicitly listed under the penalties for violations of chapter 443.
In one case, an engineer renewing his license had recently been convicted of a third OWI, a misdemeanor, and had been diagnosed with alcohol dependency.
Personal Conduct and Fitness to Practice
An engineer’s responsibility to uphold the public’s trust extends beyond office hours and project sites. Personal conduct that demonstrates a disregard for the law or impairs judgment can be seen by the board as directly relevant to one’s fitness to practice, leading to significant limitations on a P.E. license.
How an OWI Conviction Can Affect Your P.E. License
While it may seem like a personal matter, a criminal conviction can absolutely impact your professional standing. In one case, an engineer renewing his license had recently been convicted of a third OWI, a misdemeanor, and had been diagnosed with alcohol dependency. The board concluded that these circumstances were substantially related to the practice of engineering. The final order stated that the applicant’s “alcohol dependency appears to have impaired his judgment, his concern for others, and his ability to obey the law, all necessary traits for a professional engineer”.
As a result, his license was renewed but placed under significant limitations for a period of at least two years. The terms required him to:
- Abstain from all personal use of alcohol.
- Attend recovery meetings at least once per week.
- Provide a copy of the order to his employer.
- Arrange for his supervisor to submit quarterly reports on his work performance to the Department Monitor.
This case demonstrates that the board has the authority to intervene when personal conduct calls into question the necessary character traits of a professional engineer. These orders are not kept private; they become part of the public record, accessible to clients, employers, and colleagues through the state’s public-facing orders search tool. After two years of successful compliance with the terms, the engineer was able to petition the board and have his license returned to full, unrestricted status.
Key Takeaways for Protecting Your Wisconsin Engineering License
Reviewing these disciplinary actions reveals several clear and consistent lessons. The vast majority of these violations were not due to a lack of technical skill, but a lack of attention to the rules that govern our profession. Protecting the P.E. license you worked so hard for requires active, ongoing diligence. Here are the key takeaways from these cases:
- Own and Automate Your Renewals. Do not rely on mailers or memory to track renewal dates for your personal P.E. license and your firm’s Certificate of Authorization. Set multiple calendar alerts. As these cases show, excuses like “administrative oversight” or that you “simply forgot” will not prevent a public reprimand.
- Master Your Specific PDH Requirements. It’s not enough to simply earn 30 hours; you must get the right hours, including the two required in professional conduct and ethics. Furthermore, you must maintain meticulous records. The board was not swayed by an engineer who claimed his files were destroyed in a flood , as the failure to maintain records is itself a violation.
- Disclose and Report Immediately. If you are disciplined in another state, you are required to notify the Wisconsin board in writing within 48 hours. Failing to disclose a prior disciplinary action on an application can be considered fraud or deceit in obtaining your registration. Your professional record is transparent across state lines; be forthcoming.
- Recognize that Personal Conduct Matters. Your professional responsibility includes demonstrating the judgment and character required to protect the public. The board has shown it will act when personal conduct, such as an OWI conviction, is deemed substantially related to an engineer’s fitness to practice.
Conclusion
Ultimately, these cases serve as a valuable reminder that our professional obligations are ongoing. Staying current with your continuing education through a trusted provider is one of the best investments you can make in your career, helping you remain informed about evolving standards and protecting the license that defines your professional life.
Contributor: Jordan Ellis