For professional engineering firms, succession planning is often viewed as a business-continuity exercise. But when a firm’s technical review, client relationships and quality-control processes are concentrated in one principal, an unexpected leadership change can create something more consequential: a professional liability exposure.
A recent claim involving a midsize structural engineering firm illustrates how quickly that risk can develop.
A Firm Built Around One Principal
The firm had been founded and led for more than 30 years by its principal engineer. During that time, the principal remained deeply involved in the firm’s technical and client-facing operations.
He personally performed final technical reviews of complex structural details and maintained primary relationships with several longstanding institutional owners. Although the firm employed experienced project managers and engineers, many important quality-control functions remained dependent on the principal’s direct involvement.
The firm did not have a formal succession plan. Its quality assurance and quality control procedures were also largely informal and were not fully documented.
That structure may have functioned effectively under normal circumstances. The risk became apparent when the principal was suddenly no longer available.
An Unexpected Leadership Gap
During construction of a large mixed-use project, the principal unexpectedly suffered a serious health event and stepped away from the business for an extended period.
The firm reassigned oversight of ongoing projects internally, but no individual was clearly designated to assume responsibility for final technical review or primary client communication. The client was not formally advised that the firm’s leadership and review structure had changed.
As construction continued, the absence of clearly defined responsibilities began to affect project communications and technical decision-making.
Several requests for information and design clarifications were delayed or addressed inconsistently by junior staff who were not fully familiar with the assumptions underlying the original design.
The problem became more significant when a structural connection detail was revised to address constructability concerns. The revision was made without senior-level peer review and without a complete understanding of the original design intent.
The revised detail was ultimately approved and constructed.
A Limited Design Issue Becomes a Larger Claim
A subsequent field review identified that the revised connection was incompatible with actual site conditions. Corrective action required limited demolition, redesign and replacement of installed components.
The issue did not present an immediate safety concern. Nevertheless, the consequences extended beyond the connection itself.
The corrective work caused project delays and additional construction costs. The project owner alleged that the engineering firm had failed to maintain adequate quality control and continuity of professional oversight.
According to the owner, the breakdown in leadership and review procedures following the principal’s departure materially contributed to the error and delayed its resolution.
The owner sought approximately $850,000 in damages, including:
-
Selective demolition and reconstruction costs
-
Extended general conditions
-
Additional consultant fees
-
Other costs associated with the resulting project impacts
The engineering firm also incurred defense costs responding to allegations concerning quality-control failures and project oversight.
The Role of Succession Planning
The claim ultimately resolved as a professional liability matter, with the insurer contributing approximately $525,000, inclusive of defense and indemnity.
The claim analysis produced an important distinction: the underlying technical issue itself was relatively limited. The larger concern was the environment in which the error occurred.
The firm’s dependence on one principal for final technical review, institutional knowledge and key client relationships created a vulnerability that became apparent when that individual unexpectedly became unavailable.
Without a formal succession plan, there was no clearly established replacement for the principal’s technical-review responsibilities. Without fully documented QA/QC procedures, there was no institutionalized process to ensure that critical decisions received the appropriate level of review.
In effect, responsibilities that had previously been handled through the principal’s experience and personal involvement had not been converted into repeatable firm-level processes.
The Broader Risk-Management Lesson
The case demonstrates why succession planning should not be limited to ownership or management transition.
For engineering firms, a meaningful succession and continuity plan should address at least three areas:
1. Technical authority
Firms should identify who is authorized to perform final technical review when a principal or senior engineer is unavailable. The designation should be clear before an emergency occurs.
2. Institutional knowledge
Important design assumptions, client preferences, project history and technical decisions should be documented rather than residing primarily in one person’s experience or memory.
3. Quality-control procedures
QA/QC should be formalized to the extent appropriate for the firm’s size and project types. Critical revisions, particularly changes affecting structural connections or other consequential details, should trigger defined review procedures and appropriate senior-level oversight.
Communication Matters, Too
The claim also highlights the importance of client communication during a significant leadership transition.
When a principal who has historically served as a client’s primary technical and business contact becomes unavailable, clients may reasonably need to know who has assumed those responsibilities.
A formal transition plan can identify replacement contacts, establish decision-making authority and help preserve continuity. Just as importantly, it can ensure that the client understands who is responsible for technical questions and project communication.
Silence can create uncertainty at precisely the time when clarity is most important.
Turning Individual Expertise Into Institutional Controls
Experienced principals provide tremendous value to professional firms. Their judgment, technical knowledge and client relationships may be central to the firm’s success.
But when those functions remain concentrated in one individual, the firm can develop a hidden dependency.
The lesson from this claim is not that a principal’s involvement is inherently problematic. Rather, it is that critical functions should not depend exclusively on any one person’s availability.
A resilient engineering practice converts individual expertise into institutional processes: documented review protocols, defined authority, accessible project records, designated backup personnel and established client-communication procedures.
Preparing Before the Unexpected Happens
Succession planning is easy to postpone because the need often feels remote. But an unexpected illness or other sudden departure can expose weaknesses that have accumulated quietly over many years.
For engineering firms, the cost of preparation is generally measured in time spent documenting responsibilities, establishing review procedures and identifying qualified backups. The potential cost of failing to prepare can include project disruption, rework, client disputes, professional fees and a significant liability claim.
This case illustrates a fundamental risk-management principle:
Continuity is not simply about keeping the business operating. It is about preserving the controls that make the professional service reliable when key people are suddenly unavailable.
For firms whose quality assurance and client relationships have historically depended on a single principal, that may be one of the most important succession-planning questions to ask: If that person could not return tomorrow, would the firm’s systems—not just its people—know what to do?
For Additional Information Please Click HERE