Maine Supreme Court Clears Geologist In Ethical Dispute

by Pierce Atwood LLP

Last week the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the “Law Court”) issued a decision that reversed a determination by the Maine Board of Certification for Geologists and Soil Scientists (the “Board”) that a certified geologist had violated the Code of Ethics applicable to geologists and soil scientists (the “Code”) when interpreting groundwater data submitted to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”).  This decision may be of interest to clients, consulting geologists, and other environmental scientists working in Maine.

A geologist employed by an environmental consulting firm worked as part of a team engaged to assist a company in the closure of a landfill in Southwest Harbor.  In May 2004, the geologist submitted a report to the DEP in which he found elevated levels of sodium, manganese, iron, and volatile organic compounds in wells near the landfill, but concluded that none of the organic compounds exceeded federal drinking water standards or state guidelines.  The geologist also opined that there was no conclusive evidence linking the wells' elevated compound levels with the landfill.  Thus, he recommended no further action.

The geologist’s conclusion contradicted DEP’s earlier conclusion that some compounds were leaching from the landfill into neighboring residential wells.  DEP thus recommended that additional hydrogeological investigations be undertaken to evaluate the magnitude and extent of contaminants.  The parties agreed that the environmental consulting firm would drill additional wells and conduct additional testing at locations selected by DEP.  After receiving the geologist’s report presenting the results of the additional tests, DEP’s geologist told his supervisor that the consulting geologist’s interpretations and conclusions were “fundamentally flawed and not supported by the data.”  DEP’s geologist then filed a disciplinary complaint with the Board against the consulting geologist.

The Board’s disciplinary hearing focused on two features of the geologist’s second report: (1) his conclusion that there was no evidence that the landfill was impacting the residential wells, and (2) his conclusion that groundwater beneath the landfill did not flow toward the residential wells.  Both the DEP’s geologist and the Board’s expert, an associate professor of hydrology and environmental geology at the University of Maine, gave testimony in which they disagreed with the consulting geologist’s conclusions and expressed concern with his methods.  The consulting geologist defended his methods and analysis by testifying that he expected DEP to challenge his conclusions, and to request additional testing after he issued his 2006 report.  He further explained that he intended his report to express that, even if some compounds had leached from the landfill into the neighboring wells, there was no need to extend the investigation or delay closure because the levels of compounds found were below minimum levels provided by state and federal regulations.  Finally, the consulting geologist testified that he qualified his conclusion about the direction of the groundwater flow by stating that he was providing an “interpretation of conditions observed.”

The Board dismissed the allegation that the geologist had engaged in gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct. Nevertheless, the Board concluded that the geologist violated the Code by giving a professional opinion “without being as thoroughly informed as might be reasonably expected, considering the purpose for which the opinion or report is requested.”  This finding was based on the Board’s determination that (1) the geologist stated he found no evidence that the landfill impacted neighboring wells, despite data and other facts that would reasonably support a contrary conclusion, and (2) his conclusion regarding the flow of groundwater was not reasonably supported by the data in his report.

The geologist challenged the Board’s conclusion in Superior Court, arguing that the Board had violated his due process rights by failing to establish the standard of professional competence that he was alleged to have violated.  Additionally, he contended that because the Board found that he did not issue a report containing false information, or engage in gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct, the Board could not have found that he issued an opinion without being as informed as might be reasonably expected under the circumstances.  The Superior Court rejected these arguments and the geologist appealed to the Law Court.

The Law Court reversed the Board’s decision.  The Court reasoned that the Board’s determination that the geologist violated the Code was based on the Board’s disagreement with the geologist’s conclusions, and not on his failure to meet the Code’s requirement to be thoroughly informed.  The Court pointed to the fact that both the Board’s expert and the Board had reached their conclusions based on the information in the geologist’s report, not by relying on information that he should have, but had not, obtained. 

In sum, the Court held that “[t]he Board’s disagreement with a geologist’s opinion, without a concurrent determination that the opinion is false, based on false data, or reflects the geologist’s incompetence, cannot be the basis for a determination that the opinion constitutes a violation” of the Code.  Further, the Court held that the Code does not allow for a determination of an ethical breach where the Board’s conclusion is simply that a geologist’s opinion is not reasonable in light of the underlying data.

Overall, this case shows that while courts will usually defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, such deference is not absolute, particularly where an agency’s determination cuts against a rule’s plain language.  It demonstrates that a difference of opinion with an agency over interpretation of data, without more, does not constitute an ethical violation.  It also shows that environmental consultants may appropriately serve as advocates for their client’s positions, even if such advocacy is contrary to an agency’s position, as long as it is based on a reasonable interpretation of factual evidence.  Click here for link to the Law Court’s decision, Lippitt v. Board of Certification for Geologists and Soil Scientists.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pierce Atwood LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pierce Atwood LLP

Pierce Atwood LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.