Image credit: Archinect

Our Archinect In-Depth: Licensure series continues with an examination of exceptions and nuances related to the protection of the title 'architect' in the United States. In particular, we ask how architect-adjacent titles such as 'architectural designer,' 'architectural intern,' and 'design professional' can and cannot be used by unlicensed designers, with input from state licensing boards across the U.S.

In the second article of the Archinect In-Depth: Licensure series, we explored the history of how ‘architect’ became a protected title in the United States. Readers of that piece will be aware that the stated aim of such protection, established and maintained by 55 jurisdictions across the U.S., is to ensure that buildings are designed and delivered by qualified professionals in a manner that does not compromise the health and safety of the public.

As a side note, this is not the only lens through which the history of licensure is viewed. Licensure may have been the answer for those whose primary concern was protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public, but as the piece explored, it was also an answer for those whose concerns were grounded less in protecting the public and more in protecting the interests of a ‘self-selecting elite’ within the burgeoning profession.

When we nonetheless view licensure through its stated aim, namely its grounding in concern for the health and safety of the public within the built environment, we begin to reveal answers to the most common frustrations and confusions surrounding the use and misuse of the ‘architect’ title today.

Our series has already confronted one such frustration. In a subsequent edition of Archinect In-Depth: Licensure, named ‘Architect: Whose Title Is It Anyway?’, we unpacked why the popular use of the title ‘architect’ in fields such as information and technology does not contravene state regulations. Given that the fields in question fall outside the design and delivery of buildings, our article summarized, their use of the ‘architect’ title does not run the reasonable risk of confusing or deceiving the public into believing they are sufficiently qualified to design a building.

At the end of that article was a promise that our series would address another common source of confusion and frustration within the profession: The use and misuse of so-called ‘architect-adjacent’ titles including but not limited to ‘architectural associate,’ ‘architectural designer,’ ‘architectural intern,’ and ‘design professional.’

This piece is written to fulfill that promise. Specifically, it addresses a core question: What titles are and are not prohibited for use by an individual who has not yet completed the path to architectural licensure?

Rules and requirements governing licensure are written by state legislators as opposed to federal lawmakers, while the administration and implementation of those laws are carried out by state licensing boards as opposed to national bodies such as NCARB or the AIA.

To begin, it is worth reminding ourselves that the answer to this question lies in legislation. Furthermore, the answer lies in legislation written at a state level, not a federal level. As previous articles in our series have detailed, architectural licensure, including the protection of titles, is governed individually within each of the 55 jurisdictions (i.e., states and territories) across the United States. Rules and requirements governing licensure are written by state legislators as opposed to federal lawmakers, while the administration and implementation of those laws are carried out by state licensing boards as opposed to national bodies such as NCARB or the AIA.

So, what do these state licensing laws say about the use of architect-adjacent titles? To find out, Archinect wrote to all 55 licensing jurisdictions across the United States in May 2024, namely each of the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

The same question was sent to each: “Does your board’s protection of the title ‘architect’ extend to similar words such as ‘architectural,’ i.e. an ‘architectural associate’ or ‘architectural assistant’ or ‘architectural designer,’ or the title 'design professional,' or does the board deem such titles valid and legal for an individual who does not hold an architectural license in the state?”

As of July 2024, 28 jurisdictions have responded to our question. Of those, 14 referred us to their state’s statutes without directly answering the question in an affirming or dissenting manner, with some noting that their board was unable to provide an opinion or legal advisory on the statutes. The remaining 14 boards told us that architect-adjacent words such as those listed in our question are protected. An individual, therefore, may not use such titles unless they are a licensed architect in that jurisdiction. No jurisdiction told us that they would freely allow architect-adjacent titles to be used by unlicensed individuals.

In their reply, several licensing boards offered an explanation for why derivations of the word ‘architect’ such as ‘architectural designer’ fall under their purview of protection. The unanimous reason expressed by boards centered on the risk of confusing or misleading the public. “An unlicensed person cannot use the term architect, architectural, architecture, or anything confusingly similar to indicate that such person practices or offers to practice architecture or is rendering architectural services,” the Louisiana State Board of Architectural Examiners told us.

“[Mississippi code] specifically restricts the use of the title ‘architectural designer,’” the Mississippi State Board of Architecture similarly wrote. “In addition, as used in your e-mail, titles such as ‘architectural associate’ or ‘architectural assistant’ on cards, letterhead, etc., can also be misleading to the public implying that the individual is an architect and is, or can, provide architectural services similar to the use of the term ‘architectural designer.’”

No jurisdiction told us that they would freely allow architect-adjacent titles to be used by unlicensed individuals.

Meanwhile, the Ohio Architects Board’s approach centers less on a prescribed, codified list of titles but on whether any given title they encounter is likely to mislead the public. “Ohio’s Title Act does not make specific mention of these terms one way or the other,” a representative told us. “The Board will look at the totality of the facts to determine whether the title is likely to cause confusion or make it seem like they are holding themselves out as an architect.”

“Typically, titles that use the term 'architect' or 'architectural' will be deemed by the Board to be more likely to cause confusion than the term 'design' or ‘designer,’” the board added. “For example, an unlicensed person using the term 'Architectural Designer' will be likely deemed a violation of the Title Act by the Board (unless there is additional information contained in the bio that explains this person is not licensed). Similarly, a person using the term 'Architect' at an Ohio firm who is only licensed in California, for example, may also be deemed to be confusing to the public without some clarifying language as to the actual state of licensure.”

Ultimately, the clarifications we received from licensing boards showed broad consistency and alignment in their position on architect-adjacent titles. However, two specific titles elicit a difference of opinion and approach from boards, underscoring once again the independence of each board to write and interpret its own licensing requirements.

First is the title ‘design professional.’ The Louisiana State Board of Architectural Examiners noted that the ‘design professional’ title was an exception to their protection “as that term does not utilize any derivative of the term ‘architect.’” Similarly, a representative from the Ohio Architects Board told Archinect they had “never seen the Board take issue with the terms ‘Design Professional’ or ‘Designer’” and that “these titles are generally accepted.”

In contrast, the Mississippi State Board of Architecture told us that they defined a ‘Registered Design Professional’ as “an architect, engineer or landscape architect licensed to practice in Mississippi” and, therefore, “use of the title 'design professional' by an unlicensed person would be considered misleading and contrary to existing Board rules.” The Maryland Department of Labor noted that their state had adopted ICC codes on the use of design professionals “which indicates the licensee responsible for the work,” while the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation told us that “'Design Professional' is a collective term that refers to the four design professions that we license in RI: Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, and Professional Land Surveyors.”

The titles ‘design professional’ and ‘architectural intern’ are notable not only for variations in approach they illicit across states and territories but also among national organizations. 

The second title of interest is ‘architectural intern.’ While our question to licensing boards did not include the title ‘architectural intern,’ the boards of Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio included in their response a specific exemption for the use of the title ‘architectural intern,’ but only in the case of an unlicensed individual who has been awarded an NAAB-accredited professional degree in architecture, is actively enrolled in the AXP, and is working under the direct supervision of a registered architect. Of the remaining 24 jurisdictions that replied to our query, none mentioned an exception for the ‘architectural intern’ title.

The titles ‘design professional’ and ‘architectural intern’ are notable not only for variations in approach they illicit across states and territories but also among national organizations.

As Archinect reported at the time, March 2017 saw the American Institute of Architects issue a position statement noting that those who have earned an NAAB-accredited degree and are pursuing licensure can go by the titles ‘architectural associate’ or ‘design professional’ where such individuals could previously be only titled ‘intern.’ The decision, born out of the AIA Intern Titling Working Group, also noted that students working in a design firm while pursuing an architectural degree could still go by the title ‘intern.’

The AIA’s new position came at a time when the title ‘intern’ was undergoing new scrutiny in the profession, having been used for years as a title, including in state legislation, to describe an aspiring architect. In 2015, NCARB announced that it would embark on a new initiative to sunset the use of the term ‘intern’ among those working to become architects, with NCARB President Dale McKinney noting at the time that the ‘intern’ title “has become a term that has been perceived as negative by many in the architecture community and a term that really does not fully value the work that aspiring architects bring to the profession.” One year later, NCARB would formally rename its ‘Internship Development Program’ as the ‘Architectural Experience Program’ (AXP).

Where the AIA recommended the use of the ‘architectural associate’ or ‘design professional’ titles for unlicensed professionals, NCARB’s subsequent statement noted that such an approach contravened many state licensing laws.

Sunsetting the ‘intern’ title for the benefit of the profession can be seen as a common goal among NCARB and the AIA at the time. However, NCARB’s response to the AIA’s March 2017 position statement, which came shortly afterward in May 2017, suggests a difference in approach between the two organizations. Where the AIA recommended the use of the ‘architectural associate’ or ‘design professional’ titles for unlicensed professionals, NCARB’s subsequent statement noted that such an approach contravened many state licensing laws.

“In 46 U.S. jurisdictions, the use of the term 'architectural associate' is prohibited, and in 26 jurisdictions, the term 'design professional' may be an issue,” NCARB noted. “In addition, 23 states define an 'intern' as a post-graduate employee within their law — meaning that candidates cannot describe themselves as an intern prior to graduation.”

“Terminology often varies between jurisdictions, so be aware that each state or territory has its own rules regarding titles,” NCARB added. “Depending on where you live and work, using the titles 'architectural associate' or 'design professional' could lead to prosecution or disciplinary action.”

It is worth underscoring once again that determination on the use of these titles rests at the state level and not with NCARB nor the AIA. Indeed, an April 2017 article in Architect Magazine unpacking the AIA’s position statement noted: “While the Institute does not formally regulate position titles for architects pursuing licensure, the AIA is working to push architecture beyond its ingrained ways.” Meanwhile, NCARB’s May 2017 response noted that “replacing the term is a much more complex task that ultimately relies on what is allowed by your state board.”

For designers licensed and unlicensed, and particularly those who have exerted time, effort, and money on completing an architectural degree, the frustration and confusion that may arise from navigating these waters is understandable. As has been described above, designers with completed MArch degrees in one state may be enabled to use titles not open to those in a neighboring state, while national organizations adopt positions that, though aspirational, carry little legislative force.

Unlicensed architecture graduates are, in essence, caught between a rock and a hard place.

In addition, graduates see international peers not being held to the same standards. In the United Kingdom, title protection only encompasses ‘architect’ with graduates free to use terms such as ‘architectural assistant’ before becoming licensed, while a previous edition of Archinect In-Depth: Licensure noted how a selection of countries in Europe contained no title protections at all. Meanwhile, graduates from U.S. architecture programs striving to find terminology that lends value and recognition to their degree and skills without risk of contravening state laws look on in envy and frustration at their unregulated peers in the fields of information, technology, and beyond. 

Unlicensed architecture graduates are, in essence, caught between a rock and a hard place.