I had work for places that gave title "associate" to 1 or 2 year- employers as a reward.
Come to think of it, by law, any one who works there, including non architecture staff, is associated. You cannot say he works for us, but he is not an associate. It sounds stupid and illegal to me...
I also know firm that has principals who are not licensed. Mega firm has lawyer as principals, I can understand the professional-ism there...But it made me itch to take order from a guy who cannot even pass the bar (=basic knowledge, skills per state standards) (in medium size firms...).
I also know firms that advertises unlicensed peoples as designers, knowing it s illegal in CA, USA...
I'm not familiar with CA laws however I think it is legal to call a non licensed person in architectural firm a designer. They just can't design certain building types without being supervised by an architect.
Overall I think you may be reading too much into titles and your ego is being bruised because of it. I've worked at firms where partners where not architects. They had way more experience and knowledge than I did. I had no problem taking direction or orders from them.
That's not quite right. An unlicensed person can design any building, they just can't be "responsible" for it or stamp the drawings to actually get it built. Firms hire plenty of qualified unlicensed people to do this, even in higher up positions. Qualification is key.
I'm speaking from a legal standpoint. Sure, plenty of qualified, unlicensed people design buildings. However, the person stamping the drawings (if one is required) is legally considered to be the designer and has all the liability and gets all the credit.
\
The one who stamped will the the Architect of Responsible Charge (or sometimes called Architect of Record) and will be the party taking responsibility.
Jul 6, 21 1:33 pm ·
·
natematt
@Chad
Potato potato. I don't think it's really true that the person (or firm) with the liability gets all the credit. Even remotely.
My favorite credit topic in architecture is the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Huge chunk of the architectural community just credits Adjaye.... Fact is it was a 4 firm bond.... and the architect of record was Phil Freelon.
Legally they do. The firm that signs the drawings legally has the right to limit who can use the project for marketing purposes. Obviously it depends on the partnership and how a contract is written.
For example:
An architect in northern MN David Salmela was partnered with another firm owner (Julie Snow) who isn't licensed. Together they designed the Gooseberry Falls State Park visitor center. David dissolved the partnership and took sole credit for the project. Julie wasn't allowed to say she designed the project or use it in marketing material.
Sounds like it just depends how good your lawyer is ;)
Inversely. Can a architect stamping drawings at a firm take a project they are stamping and decide to leave and be like, "it's my project I'm stamping it, bye"? Not really, no. The operation of the individual architect within a larger entity is in some contrast to the way in which authorship of design is often discussed, regulated, and legally applied.
It's almost like the profession operates in an antiquated manner... .
It's not about how good your lawyer is. If you're an unlicensed designer and you partner with an architect you don't legally have the right to ownership of the design and / or marketing materials UNLESS you have a contract that says so.
In your stamping architect leaving example - it's up to the client. If they want the contract to go with the departing architect then they can break the original contract per the terms of said contract. They are free to take whatever design documents they have and have whichever architect they want continue to work on it.
Jul 7, 21 3:50 pm ·
·
rcz1001
What would be proper is the unlicensed person would be able to claim credit for their role and so would the licensed architect claim credit as AOR. If the unlicensed person was an employee of the Architect, it's a work-for-hire situation under copyright law. When it's not, federal law governs intellectual property rights as it would be the federal government's jurisdiction, not the state which legally can not confer or rule on matters of copyrights. That's a whole different legal monster. The AOR would have some inferred right to credit it as a work he/she was AOR for even if it isn't his/her right. Without contractual specifics on who owns the rights, the Federal court will have to conclude that the rights are the joint property of 'two authors' (or multiple authors). The unlicensed person and the AOR. It would be like if I was the primary designer of the project and you were the AOR for a project. We would have inherently joint-ownership of the intellectual property and it would be proper for both of us to rightly claim and rightfully credit each other. Ironically, we both would actually have liability to the project even though you were the AOR..... because I would be a seperate legal entity. This is speaking hypotherically. Clients would get a license to use the design for the construction of the project at that site unless the contract says otherwise.
anyone can be a designer.... it's not a real title with legal standing... or at least, it should not be.
Associate varies greatly. Some places will dish out the term to everyone over X many years while others reserve it as a sign of seniority/management. My office is in the latter category and making it to associate means your name is on the official letter head.
Don't read too much into titles. They differ in meaning from firm to firm & 90% of the time they're just fluff to make people feel better about themselves. The reality is none of them actually matter, it's all about what your actual role is. The naming gymnastics that people go through when they're unlicensed is hard to keep track of.
It's not always the individuals themselves worrying about it - I worked for a firm that wanted me to get every imaginable certification I could before my license because it bothered them for me to have business cards with nothing but my name. There's a longer funny story that goes with that...
Well, the principals in question could be the style gurus in a firm otherwise known for technical design. They can get away without being licensed because they are the in-house starchitects who do napkin sketches, pick colors, and figure out massing. You can find them in mid-range commercial practices that do multi-family projects.
I've personally never worked in a firm where "himself, the designer" wasn't licensed, unless you count the interior design firm where nobody was licensed. Even firms where some new graduate got fast-tracked (my own resentment), they weren't allowed to totally design jobs without some oversight.
Same here. I was one of those new grads that got fast tracked. I still worked very closely with a partner and the PA's to carry the project through construction.
I'm curious why you would think it's illegal for an architecture firm (or any other company) to use, or not use, whatever job titles they like. In CA, the only regulated titles are "Architect" and "any term confusingly similar to the word architect" (BPC §5536(a)) (ignoring engineers for the moment).
The word "designer" has never been held to be "confusingly similar to the word architect" that I am aware of, nor have the terms "architectural sales representative" or "software architect", but "architectural designer" has.
To add confusion, the State of California's own job title for its unlicensed architectural staff is "architectural associate".
On a personal note, I work for a huge corporation where my official job title, Principal Architect, does not mean the same thing it would mean in any architecture firm (I'm still at least 2 rungs below management), but if I'm ever looking for another job, that won't stop me from putting it on my resumé and letting people assume what they will...; )
I've never understood the infatuation with the term designer. It's so ambiguous without the word architectural. It's too bad there's not a decent title for folks before Project Manager unless you're licensed. But that's a biproduct of the fact that the profession doesn't require licensure for a large portion of the work force, unlike other professional occupations.
It takes a wordsmith to figure out how to describe your job in the early days without using the words architectural or building.
Jul 7, 21 10:48 am ·
·
RJ87
On second thought, I don't even like the term Architectural Designer. It just sounds weird. I didn't put a job title on my business cards when I graduated from school & started working. I'd do the same thing now if I got stripped of rank & title.
Jul 7, 21 10:59 am ·
·
atelier nobody
I've never understood why the term "draftsman" (or gender-neutral "drafter") went out of style. Admittedly, it still leaves a little ambiguity between architectural and engineering drafters, but it was a title I would have been happy to wear right up until the day I got my license.
Jul 7, 21 12:23 pm ·
·
RJ87
I think the reason was that draftsman sounded like a trade in itself. People now a days are so caught up in "designing" that they don't want to be viewed as the guy who actually draws the thing. Silly if you ask me.
I just like the weird contrast between firms that promote people based on time served, really no matter their qualifications.... and those who throw SR titles at people who have like 6 years experience.
It really does go to show that titles mean almost nothing as a indicator of ability.
At my firm associate has minimum requirements if you're a design professional, if you're not then there are actually less requirements haha. It's also more of a lateral title in our firm... I should probably get on that...eh. Won't make me a better architect.
Jul 6, 21 12:48 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
Don't even get me started on working under PMs (or AICs or PICs) who'd never done a set of CDs in their lives...
my favorite PiC might have done some stint using archicad many years ago... can't confirm. Unlike others, he relies heavily on his PM/PAs to know how to put a set together and to give us the time to do so. He's always had my back internally and we've always been able to negotiate client schedule demands with ongoing work to get enough manhours. I wouldn't mind PMs, PiCs, etc if they just took my estimates to heart rather than argue with me.
Jul 7, 21 3:49 pm ·
·
joseffischer
On the reverse, we have a very senior VP/PiC who constantly reminds anyone who will listen "In my day, we'd turn that around in X hours" which is always half, if that, the time we've suggested. I like to remind him that in his day, his team might be 10-15 people strong.
Jul 7, 21 3:50 pm ·
·
atelier nobody
I once had to politely bow out of a conversation with a client, because I was trying to explain realistically what the capabilities of BIM were, but a Managing Principal who knew nothing about BIM but what he'd read in the sales brochures kept contradicting me.
There is nothing illegal about advertising an unlicensed person being a project designer. However, a project designer may be under the supervision of the Architect of Record. Of course, it would be unlawful if an unlicensed person is referred to as an architect. One has to be careful. Laws have nuances to its applicability when all facts are taken into consideration. I have read your past posts and you seem to have a little oversimplification of the laws and it's application. When cases are brought before a licensing board. The board's "investigator" will gather initial facts, and if they think there may be a violation, a case is opened and then they'll send a letter and then more facts and details may be presented to the investigator and board. The board makes a determination but any board's action does not necessarily create or establish legal precedence unlike it may be for a ruling by judge in a court case. This is because licensing boards are quasi-judicial not judicial.
There is nothing illegal about representing those who worked on the project or may have had a big role in the design even if the person is unlicensed as long as there was Architect supervision throughout the design, generally from start to finish. Whatever meets the standards for stamping plans prepared by others that are allowed in California.
Oregon requires architects to be involved from start to finish throughout the preparation of plans. For example, what if the firm was designing a house that involved concrete walls. In Oregon, that would be exempt but would not necessarily be exempt in California. I would work with a California architect throughout the preparation even if I may be the lead designer, the architect would be involved throughout and for stamping requirements but it wouldn't necessarily be a situation where I do the work and when its done, hand it to the architect to stamp even if it was lawful in California. It is so the architect is not 'rubber stamping' something he or she may not have really very well-reviewed or had a role in and it's better that way from a professional standard of care standpoint.
Jul 6, 21 1:32 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Since the OP is talking about the title "Associate", there is absolutely nothing illegal for firms to refer to design staff members as associates regardless of license status. Associate is not a regulated title. It's a job position title. Historically, many firms have referred to those who unlicensed as Associates. If I worked for a firm I have done some stuff with, on an ongoing employment basis, I would be classified as an associate after a relatively short period of time as technical design staff. If the unlicensed person's title represented in public was "Architectural Associate" then it might be a problem because the title contained the word "Architectural" in the title. It's the rules unlicensed persons have to go by. I didn't invent these rules. It's a long history. I can go by Building Designer all day long. Titles don't make you competent. Knowledge and skills are what is the determining factor.
Many are trying to save money on taxes. Especially at the initial stages of the existence of companies, when profits are still small and unnecessary expenses can significantly hit the budget.
Jul 8, 21 10:40 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Associate and Principal
I had work for places that gave title "associate" to 1 or 2 year- employers as a reward.
Come to think of it, by law, any one who works there, including non architecture staff, is associated. You cannot say he works for us, but he is not an associate. It sounds stupid and illegal to me...
I also know firm that has principals who are not licensed. Mega firm has lawyer as principals, I can understand the professional-ism there...But it made me itch to take order from a guy who cannot even pass the bar (=basic knowledge, skills per state standards) (in medium size firms...).
I also know firms that advertises unlicensed peoples as designers, knowing it s illegal in CA, USA...
What do you think ?
I'm not familiar with CA laws however I think it is legal to call a non licensed person in architectural firm a designer. They just can't design certain building types without being supervised by an architect.
Overall I think you may be reading too much into titles and your ego is being bruised because of it. I've worked at firms where partners where not architects. They had way more experience and knowledge than I did. I had no problem taking direction or orders from them.
That's not quite right. An unlicensed person can design any building, they just can't be "responsible" for it or stamp the drawings to actually get it built. Firms hire plenty of qualified unlicensed people to do this, even in higher up positions. Qualification is key.
I'm speaking from a legal standpoint. Sure, plenty of qualified, unlicensed people design buildings. However, the person stamping the drawings (if one is required) is legally considered to be the designer and has all the liability and gets all the credit. \
The one who stamped will the the Architect of Responsible Charge (or sometimes called Architect of Record) and will be the party taking responsibility.
@Chad
Potato potato. I don't think it's really true that the person (or firm) with the liability gets all the credit. Even remotely.
My favorite credit topic in architecture is the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Huge chunk of the architectural community just credits Adjaye.... Fact is it was a 4 firm bond.... and the architect of record was Phil Freelon.
Legally they do. The firm that signs the drawings legally has the right to limit who can use the project for marketing purposes. Obviously it depends on the partnership and how a contract is written.
For example:
An architect in northern MN David Salmela was partnered with another firm owner (Julie Snow) who isn't licensed. Together they designed the Gooseberry Falls State Park visitor center. David dissolved the partnership and took sole credit for the project. Julie wasn't allowed to say she designed the project or use it in marketing material.
It all depends on the people involved.
Sounds like it just depends how good your lawyer is ;)
Inversely. Can a architect stamping drawings at a firm take a project they are stamping and decide to leave and be like, "it's my project I'm stamping it, bye"? Not really, no. The operation of the individual architect within a larger entity is in some contrast to the way in which authorship of design is often discussed, regulated, and legally applied.
It's almost like the profession operates in an antiquated manner... .
It's not about how good your lawyer is. If you're an unlicensed designer and you partner with an architect you don't legally have the right to ownership of the design and / or marketing materials UNLESS you have a contract that says so.
In your stamping architect leaving example - it's up to the client. If they want the contract to go with the departing architect then they can break the original contract per the terms of said contract. They are free to take whatever design documents they have and have whichever architect they want continue to work on it.
What would be proper is the unlicensed person would be able to claim credit for their role and so would the licensed architect claim credit as AOR. If the unlicensed person was an employee of the Architect, it's a work-for-hire situation under copyright law. When it's not, federal law governs intellectual property rights as it would be the federal government's jurisdiction, not the state which legally can not confer or rule on matters of copyrights. That's a whole different legal monster. The AOR would have some inferred right to credit it as a work he/she was AOR for even if it isn't his/her right. Without contractual specifics on who owns the rights, the Federal court will have to conclude that the rights are the joint property of 'two authors' (or multiple authors). The unlicensed person and the AOR. It would be like if I was the primary designer of the project and you were the AOR for a project. We would have inherently joint-ownership of the intellectual property and it would be proper for both of us to rightly claim and rightfully credit each other. Ironically, we both would actually have liability to the project even though you were the AOR..... because I would be a seperate legal entity. This is speaking hypotherically. Clients would get a license to use the design for the construction of the project at that site unless the contract says otherwise.
anyone can be a designer.... it's not a real title with legal standing... or at least, it should not be.
Associate varies greatly. Some places will dish out the term to everyone over X many years while others reserve it as a sign of seniority/management. My office is in the latter category and making it to associate means your name is on the official letter head.
Don't read too much into titles. They differ in meaning from firm to firm & 90% of the time they're just fluff to make people feel better about themselves. The reality is none of them actually matter, it's all about what your actual role is. The naming gymnastics that people go through when they're unlicensed is hard to keep track of.
It's not always the individuals themselves worrying about it - I worked for a firm that wanted me to get every imaginable certification I could before my license because it bothered them for me to have business cards with nothing but my name. There's a longer funny story that goes with that...
Well, the principals in question could be the style gurus in a firm otherwise known for technical design. They can get away without being licensed because they are the in-house starchitects who do napkin sketches, pick colors, and figure out massing. You can find them in mid-range commercial practices that do multi-family projects.
I sense a lot of resentment . . .
I've personally never worked in a firm where "himself, the designer" wasn't licensed, unless you count the interior design firm where nobody was licensed. Even firms where some new graduate got fast-tracked (my own resentment), they weren't allowed to totally design jobs without some oversight.
Same here. I was one of those new grads that got fast tracked. I still worked very closely with a partner and the PA's to carry the project through construction.
I'm curious why you would think it's illegal for an architecture firm (or any other company) to use, or not use, whatever job titles they like. In CA, the only regulated titles are "Architect" and "any term confusingly similar to the word architect" (BPC §5536(a)) (ignoring engineers for the moment).
The word "designer" has never been held to be "confusingly similar to the word architect" that I am aware of, nor have the terms "architectural sales representative" or "software architect", but "architectural designer" has.
To add confusion, the State of California's own job title for its unlicensed architectural staff is "architectural associate".
On a personal note, I work for a huge corporation where my official job title, Principal Architect, does not mean the same thing it would mean in any architecture firm (I'm still at least 2 rungs below management), but if I'm ever looking for another job, that won't stop me from putting it on my resumé and letting people assume what they will...; )
I've never understood the infatuation with the term designer. It's so ambiguous without the word architectural. It's too bad there's not a decent title for folks before Project Manager unless you're licensed. But that's a biproduct of the fact that the profession doesn't require licensure for a large portion of the work force, unlike other professional occupations.
It takes a wordsmith to figure out how to describe your job in the early days without using the words architectural or building.
On second thought, I don't even like the term Architectural Designer. It just sounds weird. I didn't put a job title on my business cards when I graduated from school & started working. I'd do the same thing now if I got stripped of rank & title.
I've never understood why the term "draftsman" (or gender-neutral "drafter") went out of style. Admittedly, it still leaves a little ambiguity between architectural and engineering drafters, but it was a title I would have been happy to wear right up until the day I got my license.
I think the reason was that draftsman sounded like a trade in itself. People now a days are so caught up in "designing" that they don't want to be viewed as the guy who actually draws the thing. Silly if you ask me.
I just like the weird contrast between firms that promote people based on time served, really no matter their qualifications.... and those who throw SR titles at people who have like 6 years experience.
It really does go to show that titles mean almost nothing as a indicator of ability.
At my firm associate has minimum requirements if you're a design professional, if you're not then there are actually less requirements haha. It's also more of a lateral title in our firm... I should probably get on that...eh. Won't make me a better architect.
Don't even get me started on working under PMs (or AICs or PICs) who'd never done a set of CDs in their lives...
my favorite PiC might have done some stint using archicad many years ago... can't confirm. Unlike others, he relies heavily on his PM/PAs to know how to put a set together and to give us the time to do so. He's always had my back internally and we've always been able to negotiate client schedule demands with ongoing work to get enough manhours. I wouldn't mind PMs, PiCs, etc if they just took my estimates to heart rather than argue with me.
On the reverse, we have a very senior VP/PiC who constantly reminds anyone who will listen "In my day, we'd turn that around in X hours" which is always half, if that, the time we've suggested. I like to remind him that in his day, his team might be 10-15 people strong.
I once had to politely bow out of a conversation with a client, because I was trying to explain realistically what the capabilities of BIM were, but a Managing Principal who knew nothing about BIM but what he'd read in the sales brochures kept contradicting me.
hiennguyan,
There is nothing illegal about advertising an unlicensed person being a project designer. However, a project designer may be under the supervision of the Architect of Record. Of course, it would be unlawful if an unlicensed person is referred to as an architect. One has to be careful. Laws have nuances to its applicability when all facts are taken into consideration. I have read your past posts and you seem to have a little oversimplification of the laws and it's application. When cases are brought before a licensing board. The board's "investigator" will gather initial facts, and if they think there may be a violation, a case is opened and then they'll send a letter and then more facts and details may be presented to the investigator and board. The board makes a determination but any board's action does not necessarily create or establish legal precedence unlike it may be for a ruling by judge in a court case. This is because licensing boards are quasi-judicial not judicial.
There is nothing illegal about representing those who worked on the project or may have had a big role in the design even if the person is unlicensed as long as there was Architect supervision throughout the design, generally from start to finish. Whatever meets the standards for stamping plans prepared by others that are allowed in California.
Oregon requires architects to be involved from start to finish throughout the preparation of plans. For example, what if the firm was designing a house that involved concrete walls. In Oregon, that would be exempt but would not necessarily be exempt in California. I would work with a California architect throughout the preparation even if I may be the lead designer, the architect would be involved throughout and for stamping requirements but it wouldn't necessarily be a situation where I do the work and when its done, hand it to the architect to stamp even if it was lawful in California. It is so the architect is not 'rubber stamping' something he or she may not have really very well-reviewed or had a role in and it's better that way from a professional standard of care standpoint.
Since the OP is talking about the title "Associate", there is absolutely nothing illegal for firms to refer to design staff members as associates regardless of license status. Associate is not a regulated title. It's a job position title. Historically, many firms have referred to those who unlicensed as Associates. If I worked for a firm I have done some stuff with, on an ongoing employment basis, I would be classified as an associate after a relatively short period of time as technical design staff. If the unlicensed person's title represented in public was "Architectural Associate" then it might be a problem because the title contained the word "Architectural" in the title. It's the rules unlicensed persons have to go by. I didn't invent these rules. It's a long history. I can go by Building Designer all day long. Titles don't make you competent. Knowledge and skills are what is the determining factor.
Many are trying to save money on taxes. Especially at the initial stages of the existence of companies, when profits are still small and unnecessary expenses can significantly hit the budget.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.