Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.43
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.43.105 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In addition to the unprofessional conduct described in RCW 18.235.130, the board may take disciplinary action for the following conduct, acts, or conditions:
(1) Offering to pay, paying or accepting, either directly or indirectly, any substantial gift, bribe, or other consideration to influence the award of professional work;
(2) Being willfully untruthful or deceptive in any professional report, statement or testimony;
(3) Attempting to injure falsely or maliciously, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects or business of anyone;
(4) Failure to state separately or to charge separately for professional engineering services or land surveying where other services or work are also being performed in connection with the engineering services;
(5) Violation of any provisions of this chapter;
(6) Conflict of interest—Having a financial interest in bidding for or performance of a contract to supply labor or materials for or to construct a project for which employed or retained as an engineer except with the consent of the client or employer after disclosure of such facts; or allowing an interest in any business to affect a decision regarding engineering work for which retained, employed, or called upon to perform;
(7) Nondisclosure—Failure to promptly disclose to a client or employer any interest in a business which may compete with or affect the business of the client or employer;
(8) Unfair competition—Reducing a fee quoted for prospective employment or retainer as an engineer after being informed of the fee quoted by another engineer for the same employment or retainer;
(9) Improper advertising—Soliciting retainer or employment by advertisement which is undignified, self-laudatory, false or misleading, or which makes or invites comparison between the advertiser and other engineers;
(10) Committing any other act, or failing to act, which act or failure are customarily regarded as being contrary to the accepted professional conduct or standard generally expected of those practicing professional engineering or land surveying.
[ 2002 c 86 s 225; 1961 c 142 s 4; 1959 c 297 s 2.]

Notes:

Effective dates—2002 c 86: See note following RCW 18.08.340.
Part headings not law—Severability—2002 c 86: See RCW 18.235.902 and 18.235.903.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1998–2020 · leading case: Nims v. Bd. of Reg. for Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors, 53 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nims v. Bd. of Reg. for Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors, 53 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “They are (A) whether, when Nims chose not to renew his license, the Board lost jurisdiction of the disciplinary proceeding that was then ongoing; (B) whether the Board can discipline for reasons set forth in RCW 18.43.105; (C) whether the statute of limitations or collateral…”
Ritter v. Bd. of Reg. for Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors, 161 Wash. App. 758 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 15× “¶17 Reviewing RCW 18.43.105, we notice that every provision involves an affirmative act or failure to act while in the course of professional duties.”
Ritter v. State, Bd. of Reg., 255 P.3d 799 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 15× “For example, the Board may discipline a professional engineer for nondisclosure, unfair competition, or improper advertising, all of which would necessarily occur in the professional setting.”
Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 43 P.3d 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 18.43.105. The board shall have the exclusive power to fine and reprimand the registrant and suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of any registrant who is found guilty of: Any gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of engineering or land…”
Mission Springs Inc. v. City of Spokane, 954 P.2d 250 (Wash. 1998). “See RCW 18.43.105(7), defining "misconduct or malpractice in the practice of engineering": "Conflict of interest—.”
Nims v. Wa. Bd. of Reg., 53 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “They are (A) whether, when Nims chose not to renew his license, the Board lost jurisdiction of the disciplinary proceeding that was then ongoing; (B) whether the Board can discipline for reasons set forth in RCW 18.43.105; (C) whether the statute of limitations or collateral…”
Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 43 P.3d 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 18.43.105. The board shall have the exclusive power to fine and reprimand the registrant and suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of any registrant who is found guilty of: .”
Fisheries Engineers Inc. v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 18.43.105(5). B. FAILURE TO ADDRESS STANDING IN THE TRIAL COURT The Board argues that Tappel lacks standing under either the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, chapter 7.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.43.105(10) — 2 cases
Ritter v. Bd. of Reg. for Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors, 161 Wash. App. 758 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶17 Reviewing RCW 18.43.105, we notice that every provision involves an affirmative act or failure to act while in the course of professional duties.”
Ritter v. State, Bd. of Reg., 255 P.3d 799 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “For example, the Board may discipline a professional engineer for nondisclosure, unfair competition, or improper advertising, all of which would necessarily occur in the professional setting.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.43.105(5) — 1 case
Fisheries Engineers Inc. v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 18.43.105(5). B. FAILURE TO ADDRESS STANDING IN THE TRIAL COURT The Board argues that Tappel lacks standing under either the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, chapter 7.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.43.105(7) — 3 cases
Mission Springs Inc. v. City of Spokane, 954 P.2d 250 (Wash. 1998). “See RCW 18.43.105(7), defining "misconduct or malpractice in the practice of engineering": "Conflict of interest—.”
Ritter v. Bd. of Reg. for Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors, 161 Wash. App. 758 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶17 Reviewing RCW 18.43.105, we notice that every provision involves an affirmative act or failure to act while in the course of professional duties.”
Ritter v. State, Bd. of Reg., 255 P.3d 799 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “For example, the Board may discipline a professional engineer for nondisclosure, unfair competition, or improper advertising, all of which would necessarily occur in the professional setting.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.