> The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering. I

> The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering. I don't think that is the main question, the testify vs speak is secondary. He is not a "Licensed Engineer", but he IS an "Engineer" (Graduated Engineering school, and worked legally his whole life as an Engineer in the subset of "engineering" that doesn't require a license). So he is an expert in "Engineering" (the subset) by schooling and legal work experience, and should be able to provide expert testimony on the field where he is an expert. He is not thou, an expert in "Licensed Engineering", so he can't provide expert testimony on that. The question them becomes: The testimony he gave applies to the subset of engineering that is only allowed to a "Licensed Engineer"? Or in other words, would he be forbidden from working on the thing he is testifying about? If the answer is yes, then he broke the law, by presenting himself as an expert Engineer in a matter restricted to licensed, then he wrongly presented himself as licensed. If the answer is no, if the matter discussed is something he was allowed to work on (before he retired) without a license, then there is nothing wrong with his testimony.