I don't see the problem.  The law doesn't way that only a non-architectural PLLC can in turn hire an architect.  Just what corporate forms an architectural firm can take. 

I guess you could argue that they can't use the word "architectural' for that division.

But I have a hard time getting worked up about little things like this.

It's about the stamp and the word 'architect'. An interior decorator cannot stamp nor advertise to clients that they'll be architect of record. 'Architectural' is a different word with no legal restrictions.

Decorators often conflate picking paint samples and drawing cabinets with architecture and thus advertise such services with that name.

They hire architects, especially in NYC (where interior work far exceeds new work) because 1. we know a lot more about actual construction which saves them time when submitting their decorations to the architect of record 2. their work is under the umbrella of skills an architect has thus we can easily do their work and 3. Due to a constant surplus of architectural designers in the city, plenty are willing to work for peanuts on uninteresting non architecture - so long as it's 'close enough'.

I dare say some architects or architectural designers actually prefer decorating.

It's not technically illegal to say architectural services...and if it were it's not like nys board of education and licensing is lurking job boards to find offenders. They'd only find it/investigate if a citizen brought it to their attention.

so offices like Mark Zeff and D'Apostrophe who post jobs all the time here would not be allowed to offer architectural services... not sure how they survived so long...

Here's a sample job ad I found...

sorry: 

I can't tell you how many ID firms put that first sentence on their websites and its totally illegal if the firm is not an architectural firm with licensed ownership...

http://markzeff.com/about/

The state's definition of 'architectural' primarily centers around the stamp. So long as the firm doesn't proclaim to stamp drawings they remain in the gray area and have not technically violated the law.

It is however obnoxious and misleading. I am curious if this would fall under the BBB in some form of false advertising. The only way to know for certain is to report them and see what NYS response is.

Further example of decorators encroaching on the field. A topic oft discussed on these forums and in the field. Should we report en masse to reclaim the word?

It's possible they get away with it by having a licensed architect as principal or staff who stamps using a separate legal entity/LLC on drawings. I know of a few unlicensed architectural designer led firms who do this...

there usually is a rubber stamper not associated with the firm at all...

JCarch: the firms in question offer arhitectural services! The client never knows that they are not licensed or dont have any licensed professional on staff regardless of whether they have a separate (personal) contract with the AOR. That is whatnis misleading (and illegal)

and franlly- I want to see them nailed for it.

Just because a state law is in the books does not mean that it can be easily enforced or that it can be enforced at all.  There are federal laws that sometimes complicate or contradict state legislation.  For instance, citizens united would likely throw a wrench in this one as corporations are considered "people" (as dumb as that is) the corporation is entiled to freedom of expression, speech, etc depending on how the high courts interpret it.  Many times if these potential conflicts exist, or are unclear/unprecedented the state will simply tread carefully with such matters...especially if trivial like this.  Also, its highly unlikely that BIG firms (pun intended) with "unlicensed architect" front men/women will be diciplined as high up politicians have likely associated with them on large scale public projects... 

jla-x: what you dont understand with firms like BIG is that they market their design abilities- not their CA/CD experience. They are brought in as "design" consultants per a separate contract. The AOR has a separate contract with the owner. 

Its one thing for a company to have a specific contract for design only, and its another to pretend to be an architect because someone signs off on your drawings, but not formally part of your company with stakeholder status. THIS is the big difference. The fact that design firms market themselves as full-service architectural firms by having an AOR stamp drawings is a conniving strategy that at the end of the day not only devalues, but also makes fun of this profession.

I simply dont get why more architects are not uoset by this.

I dont see the problem

so you dont see the problem in non-licensed individuals prentending to be Architects, haha

Nope.  Dont really care.  They are not defrauding anyone by doing what you explain.  They are simply hiring architects to provide in house services for their projects.  No one is pretending to be an architect.  The firms are offering architectural services stamp via an architect.  

How the doorman witch hunt going?  Did you get the state to pass a law requiring doormen to be paid less than architects yet? 

I think the limits imposed by nys hurt architects most because they limit their ability to work within, or start departments within established non-architecture design firms.  The law as its written limits opportunities for certain ventures.  Anyone with half a brain for business would realize this.  Im no Warren Buffet, but If I where trying to work as an independent architect in nyc I would hit up the interior firms and try to latch onto a big one and carve out a department within the firm that I could run rather then being a minion at an arch firm. 

didn't someone recently get arrested in NY specifically for practicing architecture w/o a license?  I'm not really sure how this is different.  As I recall, only architects are allowed to use any variation of the work "architect" as pertaining to building design. 

It's ok for software architects because no one would mistake the terms, not "ok" for building designers or interior designers.

B. Practice

2. Architects and Interior Design

New York State Education Law addresses the services which may and may not be provided by a certified interior designer, but it does not restrict the practice to those who are so licensed. It is a title law only. Anyone may use the title "Interior Designer" and provide the same services as a "Certified Interior Designer".

An architect retained to design a complete building designs both the exterior and the interior and in doing so needs to indicate how, or if, both the interior and exterior surfaces are finished. As interior design services are taxable in New York, the architect would be prudent to obtain a separate contract if interior design services, beyond those which are an integral part of the architectural services, are to be provided.

While an architect may retain an interior designer as a consultant, or have an interior designer on staff, and pass on those services to the client, an interior designer or firm may not pass on architectural or engineering services to the client. There is nothing to prevent an interior design firm from having an architect on staff to participate or assist in the provision of interior design services, however, even if the architect has ownership in the interior design firm, the firm itself is still not authorized to provide architectural services.

When architectural or engineering (A/E) services are involved in an interior design project the following approaches might be considered:

1. The client may retain his/her own architect or engineer.

   or

2. A three-way contract may be entered into whereby the interior design services and reimbursement are clearly identified, the A/E services and reimbursement are clearly identified and the agreement is signed by the interior designer, the A/E and the client. The key issue is that the interior design firm is not providing those services for which it is not authorized and is not agreeing to supply an A/E for a job where those services are an integral part of the overall project.

Pursuant to Sections 8301 and 8303 of the Education Law, interior design work is not, and cannot be, architectural or engineering work. In addition, architects and engineers should not sign and seal documents that do not involve any architectural or engineering work. It could be considered misleading or fraudulent to sign and seal work as though it represented architectural or engineering services when, in fact, no such services are contained in the work.