Berg, Apex, Olson, Miller, Welle, & Paustian v. North Dakota State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary decisions by the North Dakota State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors concerning former Ulteig Engineers employees who formed a competing firm. The court held that the Board's findings regarding disclosure of confidential information, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and improper solicitation of work were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, affirming in part and reversing in part the district court judgments.

Holdings

1. The Board's determination that Welle violated N.D. Admin. Code § 28-03.1-01-09 by disclosing Ulteig's confidential business and technical information, and by representing an adverse interest in the Fargo project, was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. The Board's determination that Miller violated N.D. Admin. Code § 28-03.1-01-09 by disclosing confidential information relating to Ulteig's transportation sector was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. The Board's determination that Paustian violated N.D. Admin. Code § 28-03.1-01-09 by transferring Ulteig computer files to an external drive and connecting that drive to an Apex computer was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
4. The Board properly determined that Berg, Miller, and Welle violated N.D. Admin. Code § 28-03.1-01-10 by failing to disclose their participation in forming a competing firm while continuing to work for Ulteig and access its confidential information.
5. The Board properly determined that Berg, Olson, Welle, and Apex violated N.D. Admin. Code § 28-03.1-01-12(6) by knowingly seeking or accepting professional-services assignments for which Ulteig had been employed or contracted.
6. The district court's attorney-fee awards to the respondents were reversed because the awards were moot after the Supreme Court affirmed the Board's original disciplinary orders.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board's findings that Welle, Miller, and Paustian disclosed Ulteig's confidential information were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Whether the Board's findings that Berg, Miller, and Welle failed to disclose known or potential conflicts of interest were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Whether the Board's findings that Berg, Olson, Welle, and Apex knowingly sought or accepted work for assignments for which Ulteig had been employed or contracted were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
4. Whether the district court's attorney-fee awards to the respondents could stand after the Supreme Court affirmed the Board's disciplinary orders.

Disposition

other