Can an unlicensed in-house engineer in Texas put 'Engineer' on a business card?

Plain-English summary

A state representative asked whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act lets in-house engineers, employees of private corporations that do not offer engineering services to the public, put their job titles ("Engineer," "Process Engineer," and the like) on business cards, cover letters, and other correspondence. The representative thought a section 20(a)(5) exemption should permit it, and found it hard to see how the public could be misled by an in-house engineer at a company that does not sell engineering services to anyone.

The Attorney General concluded they may not. Section 1.1 of the Act states the legislature's intent that only licensed persons may practice engineering or "call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an 'engineer'" or use the term "engineer" as a professional, business, or commercial identification, and that the Act be liberally construed to carry out that intent. Section 1.2 separately forbids an unlicensed person from using "engineer" and related terms as a business identification or in any way that tends to create the impression with the public that the person is qualified to practice engineering.

Section 20(a)(5) does exempt a regular full-time employee of a private corporation who works solely for that corporation and lacks final authority over engineering designs for works made available to others, and that exemption "includes the use of job titles and personnel classifications" by such persons. But the opinion read the exemption together with its opening condition in section 20(a): the exemption applies only if the person is "not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering." So a corporation may classify an unlicensed employee as an "engineer" and let the person use that title internally, but the person may not use it on business cards, stationery, or correspondence made available to the public, because that would represent to the public that the employee is a licensed engineer.

The opinion acknowledged the reading might seem harsh, but pointed to a line of prior opinions and to the legislature's history of according the Board broad authority over the profession (including a statute the very next year that overrode an earlier opinion). Given that history, the opinion was reluctant to read the statute in a way that narrowed the Board's authority, and noted the legislature could amend the language if it disagreed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The representative and the legislature (what the opinion held): The opinion held that the Act, as written, does not let an unlicensed in-house employee use the "engineer" title on materials made available to the public, and noted that if the legislature wanted a different result it could amend the language. The result rested on reading section 20(a)(5) together with the section 20(a) condition that the person not be held out to the public as qualified to practice engineering.

Private corporations and their unlicensed in-house "engineers" (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that a corporation may classify such an employee as an "engineer" and the employee may use the title internally, but not on business cards, stationery, cover letters, or other correspondence that reaches the public.

Common questions

Can an unlicensed employee in Texas be called an "engineer" inside the company?
Yes. The opinion held that a private corporation may use job titles and personnel classifications to classify a regular full-time employee as an "engineer" and allow internal use of that title under section 20(a)(5).

Can that employee put "Engineer" on a business card or cover letter?
No, not if the materials reach the public. The opinion held that using the title on business cards, stationery, or correspondence made available to the public would represent to the public that the employee is a licensed engineer, which the Act prohibits for unlicensed persons.

Why doesn't the section 20(a)(5) exemption cover business cards?
Because the opinion read the exemption together with the condition at the start of section 20(a): the exemption applies only when the person is not held out to the public as legally qualified to practice engineering. The exemption covers internal job titles, not public representations.

Does it matter that the company does not sell engineering services to the public?
The opinion did not treat that as decisive. It applied the statutory prohibition on unlicensed use of the "engineer" title in public-facing materials, citing the Act's instruction to construe its provisions liberally to protect the public.

Background and statutory framework

The Texas Engineering Practice Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, reserves the practice of engineering and the use of the "engineer" designation to licensed persons. Section 1.1 declares that only licensed persons may practice engineering or be designated as "any kind of an 'engineer'" or make use of the term as a professional, business, or commercial identification, and that the Act be liberally construed to protect the public. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 3271a, § 1.1 (Vernon Supp. 2002). Section 1.2 forbids an unlicensed person from using "engineer" and listed variants as a business identification or in any manner likely to create the public impression that the person is authorized to practice engineering, and provides that anyone who does so is conclusively presumed to be engaged in the practice of engineering. Id. § 1.2.

Section 20 sets out licensing exemptions, all subject to the opening condition in section 20(a) that the person is "not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering." Id. § 20(a). Section 20(a)(5) exempts a regular full-time employee of a private corporation engaged solely in services for that corporation who lacks final authority over engineering designs incorporated into works on others' property or made available to the public, and states that the exemption "includes the use of job titles and personnel classifications" so long as no name, title, or words tend to convey that an unlicensed person is offering engineering services to the public. Id. § 20(a)(5). A corporation acquires engineering legitimacy only through registration of an individual engineer responsible for the work. Id. §§ 17-18; Tackett v. State Bd. of Registration for Prof'l Eng'rs, 466 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1971, no writ). The opinion relied on prior Attorney General opinions reading the exemption to permit an in-house "engineer" designation while forbidding any use that misleads the public into believing the user is a registrant.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 3271a, § 1.1; § 1.2; § 20(a); § 20(a)(5); §§ 17-18 (Vernon Supp. 2002)

Cases:

• Tackett v. State Bd. of Registration for Prof'l Eng'rs, 466 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1971, no writ)

Prior Attorney General materials referenced: Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. MW-384 (1981), H-1104 (1977), H-677 (1975), C-691 (1966).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0525
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2002/jc0525.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS
JOHN CORNYN

July 9, 2002

The Honorable Warren Chisum Opinion No. JC-0525
Chair, Committee on
Environmental Regulation Re: Whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act
Texas House of Representatives permits in-house engineers to include their job
P.O. Box 2910 titles on business cards, cover letters, and other
Austin, Texas 78768-2910 correspondence (RQ-0495-JC)

Dear Representative Chisum:

You ask whether the Texas Engineering Practice Act (the "Act") permits in-house engineers who work for private corporations that do not offer engineering services to the public to include their job titles on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence.[1] We conclude they may not do so.

You believe that an employee for a private corporation whose in-house job title is that of "engineer" should be able to use a title, such as "Engineer" or "Process Engineer" on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence because of an exemption under section 20(a)(5) of the Act. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You find "it . . . difficult to fathom how a member of the public could be misled into believing that an in-house engineer for a company that does not perform or offer to perform any engineering services for the public is somehow offering such services by the mere use of the job title 'Engineer.'" Id.

The Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, specifically addresses the use of the designation of "engineer" in section 1.1. Section 1.1, in part, provides:

            [I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, that the privilege of practicing engineering be entrusted only to those persons duly licensed and practicing under the provisions of this Act and that there be strict compliance with and enforcement of all the provisions of this Act, and, in order that the state and members of the public may be able to identify those duly authorized to practice engineering in this state and fix responsibility for work done or services or acts performed in the practice of engineering, only licensed persons shall practice, offer or attempt to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an "engineer" or in any manner make use of the term "engineer" as a professional, business or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim or asset, and all the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and applied to carry out such legislative intent.

TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 3271a, § 1.1 (Vernon Supp. 2002) (emphasis added). Section 1.2 also addresses this issue, forbidding the use of specific terms or any combinations, variations, or abbreviations thereof:

            (a) From and after the effective date of this Act, unless duly licensed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, no person in this state shall:

                            (2) Directly or indirectly, employ, use, cause to be used or make use of any of the following terms or any combinations, variations or abbreviations thereof as a professional, business or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset or means of advantage or benefit: "engineer," "professional engineer," "licensed engineer," "registered engineer," "registered professional engineer," "licensed professional engineer," "engineered."

                            (3) Directly or indirectly, employ, use, cause to be used or make use of any letter, abbreviation, word, symbol, slogan, sign or any combinations or variations thereof, which in any manner whatsoever tends or is likely to create any impression with the public or any member thereof that any person is qualified or authorized to practice engineering unless such person is duly licensed under and practicing in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

            (b) Within the intent and meaning and for all purposes of this Act, any person, sole proprietorship, firm, partnership, association or corporation which shall do, offer or attempt to do any one or more of the acts or things set forth in Subsection (a) of this section shall be conclusively presumed and regarded as engaged in the practice of engineering.

Id. § 1.2.

Section 20 of the Act addresses licensing exemptions for certain individuals, and you believe that subsection (a)(5) provides the exemption for in-house engineers which would allow them to use the job title of "engineer," or some other term indicating that the person is engaged in engineering, on business cards, cover letters, and other forms of correspondence. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. Section 20(a)(5) provides:

            (a) The following persons shall be exempt from the licensure provisions of this Act, provided that such persons are not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering:

                            (5) any regular full time employee of a private corporation or other private business entity who is engaged solely and exclusively in performing services for such corporation and/or its affiliates; . . . and provided further, that such employee does not have the final authority for the approval of, and the ultimate responsibility for, engineering designs, plans or specifications pertaining to [the corporation's and/or its affiliates'] property or products which are to be incorporated into fixed works, systems, or facilities on the property of others or which are to be made available to the general public. This exemption includes the use of job titles and personnel classifications by such persons not in connection with any offer of engineering services to the public, providing that no name, title, or words are used which tend to convey the impression that an unlicensed person is offering engineering services to the public;

Id. § 20(a)(5) (emphasis added). Regular full-time employees of a private corporation engaged solely and exclusively in performing services for such corporation, therefore, are exempt from licensure "provided that such persons are not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering." Id. § 20(a) (emphasis added). We interpret the italicized language in subsection (a)(5) to mean that a private corporation may use job titles and personnel classifications to classify an employee as an "engineer" and allow the employee to use that title internally. However, an employee, not licensed under the Act yet classified as an "engineer" in a private corporation, may not represent to the public that he or she is an engineer, i.e., by using that title on business cards, stationery, and other forms of correspondence that are made available to the public. Unless an employee of a private firm is a licensed engineer, the employee may not use the title of "engineer" on business cards, stationery, and other forms of correspondence which would represent to the public that the employee is a licensed engineer.

Prior opinions of this office lend support to this view. "It is our opinion that the essence of section 20(g) [now section 20(a)(5)] is to exempt the average engineer in industry from the requirement of state registration; however, we do not believe that section . . . can be construed in such a way as to thwart the express purpose of the act by permitting any non-registrant to hold himself out as [an] engineer." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-384 (1981) at 3. "Although a person employed in the engineering department of an industry may carry the 'in-house' designation of 'engineer' without being registered, such designation may not be used in such a way that misleads the public into believing the user is a registrant." Id. at 4. Attorney General Opinion MW-384 also notes that the "board registers only individuals; a business entity, incorporated or otherwise, acquires its engineering legitimacy only through the registration of an individual, who is held responsible for the engineering work done on behalf of the entity." Id. at 5. See TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 3271a, §§ 17-18 (Vernon Supp. 2002) (corporation may engage in practice of engineering if registered with the Board and such practice carried on by only professional engineers registered in this state). See also Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. Nos. H-1104 (1977) at 2 (State Board of Professional Engineers authorized to regulate and restrict use of word "engineer" and its variations in academic titles); C-691 (1966) at 3 (it is violation of Act for individual, not licensed or registered, to use various designations in connection with name on stationery, building directories, telephone directories, business cards, advertisements, or other means of communication to public).

As you have observed, our conclusion here may appear to be an unduly harsh reading of the statute. As this office recognized in Attorney General Opinion MW-384, however, "[g]enerally speaking, the [Engineering] act forbids the use of the term 'engineer' or any of its derivatives to all except those who are duly registered." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-384 (1981) at 1 (citing Tackett v. State Bd. of Registration for Prof'l Eng'rs, 466 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1971, no writ)). In 1975, this office concluded that the Engineering Board lacked authority to promulgate a rule that would restrain Texas A & M University from permitting an unlicensed faculty member to use the title "professor of engineering." Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-677 (1975). The very next year, the legislature overturned the opinion by adopting a provision that specifically allowed the rule to stand. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. H-1104 (1977). In light of the expansive authority that the legislature has historically accorded the Board in the oversight of the engineering profession, we are reluctant to view the scope of the present legislative language in a manner that restricts the Board's authority. If the legislature believes otherwise, it may of course amend that language.

To summarize, this office does not interpret article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes to allow an in-house employee of a private corporation, though classified internally as an "engineer" or under some other engineering title, to use the title of "engineer" on business cards, cover letters, or other forms of correspondence that are made available to the public. The Act prohibits anyone other than a licensed engineer "to practice engineering or call themselves or be otherwise designated as any kind of an 'engineer' or in any manner make use of the term 'engineer' as a professional, business or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim or asset, and all the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and applied to carry out such legislative intent." TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 3271a, § 1.1 (Vernon Supp. 2002); see also id. § 20(a) (persons are exempt from licensure of Act provided such persons are not directly or indirectly represented or held out to the public to be legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering).

                                   SUMMARY

            The Texas Engineering Practice Act, article 3271a of the Revised Civil Statutes, does not allow an in-house employee of a private corporation, though classified internally as an "engineer" or under another engineering title, to use the title of "engineer" on business cards, cover letters, or other forms of correspondence that are made available to the public.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          JOHN CORNYN
                                          Attorney General of Texas

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General

NANCY FULLER
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

SUSAN DENMON GUSKY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Honorable Warren Chisum, Chair, Committee on Environmental Regulation, Texas House of Representatives, to Honorable John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General, at 2 (Dec. 20, 2001) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter].