*agree with everyone*

Ding ding ding.

This… I stamp a lot, as an employee. It isn’t like my overlords in London are going to take “responsible charge” of a dinky repair project in Colorado or anywhere else worldwide; they entrust that to others. It’s just part of my job function and I’m just authorized to be an agent of the firm. Just run it through their insurance provider to ensure you’ll be covered under their policies. Also carefully review the employment contract; be sure you are protected for any work you performed while employed. Another tip; because architects are nervous about stamping and hard to find.... bump your salary request; It isn't easy for them to find someone willing, so you'll ask for about 30% more than someone unwilling. You'll also have to have the understanding that anything you stamp, you'll be responsible for, so your word is final (not your bosses)

those two items are solid advice

in particular, have the clear authority in writing or walk

Mightyaa, Who is registered

Mightyaa, Who is registered as the licensed professional for your firm with the state licensing board and the Department of State (I assume the US branch of the firm has been set up as a separate business entity as it is always the case)? The process you are describing sounds very strange and, forgive me, not quite legal. There are possible 2 scenarios foreign offices follow to work in the US. First, one of the partners gets the US license, following the NCARB foreign architect track, e. g. Daniel Libeskind did this when he moved his office from Berlin to NYC. Second, the company offers only concept design services and works with other firms as Architects of Record to get things built. In that case, the company is not considered the "arch" firm but only the "design" firm. Which one of the 2 scenarios is your company following?

again.. why do this? maybe for a pay bump, but it doesn't seem worth it in my mind, even in the scenario described.

vi_d; I am for three States. (other risk factor) For others, not sure… it isn’t my problem or my responsibility. I think you misunderstand the scope and size of this company; offices in 100+ countries… global giant with branches and services all over the place. I’m a very tiny slice. As an example our vacancies that show up on my corporate feed: Accountant in Toronto, Commerical Contracts in London, Implementador Agile in Argentine, Regional Head of Financial in Kuala Lumpur… and that’s just since last Friday.

square… Don’t forget the job and financial security. Think like a boss; who is more valuable to the firm and not easily replaced? Wouldn’t they also be the ones you’ll also most likely advance? Who would you be most nervous about starting off on their own; would it not be the one who’s got dozens of projects where they’ve been the architect of record versus just PM or PA? And on the flipside, if you do break out on your own, those AoR projects will look like real experience versus just starting off. There are ‘pros’ that come with accepting a bit of risk.

Mightyaa, can I ask what kind of insurance, if any, you carry personally? The company I’m considering is in a state that does not require owners to be the ones sealing docs.

None for professional liability... I'm covered under the firm's general liability insurance. On top of that, this firm has inhouse legal and has on occasion, hired outside specialist attorneys. I somewhat carry a lot more risk than most since I do expert testimony... meaning I tend to hurt people's feelings and they look to hurt me back. So, the firm protects its asset (me) because otherwise, I'm not as valuable to the firm or their clientele.

This would be one of those states. The firm in question said they are ultimately the ones responsible “even after I leave the firm” though that doesn’t align with what I’m reading here and elsewhere. I’ve also contacted an attorney who can review their policy and my contract if I’d like to shell out for it (obviously would be worthwhile).

DEFINITELY worth consulting an attorney about something like this. I've been fortunate that my only jobs with stamping responsibility have been in large firms with clear written policies and documents ready for signing - I'd be very cautious about being the primary signer in a small firm unless it had my name on the door.

Hopefully this isn’t a naive question, but can you expand on “primary signer?”

I’m assuming you’re referring to signing other work. I would only be signing my own work that I have immediate control over.

Typically, in situations like the the firm takes on the liability, not the architect that signed the drawings. I work in a 12 person firm with four other architects. All of us sign drawings. The firm takes all liability.

I agree but when you go to discovery in a lawsuit the person who stamped the drawings sits in the hot seat. I can assure you it's unsettling no matter how good or professional or confident in your skills it's still no fun.

If your firm is structured correctly the signing architect cannot be held liable financially for anything. You may be deposed or examined in the courts but that's to determine if the firms insurance has to pay out, not you.

That's correct and at the end of the day the insurer will pay but it doesn't remove the necessity of having to prep and go through the discovery which is brutal.

What if someone is injured?

i would never willingly put myself in a position to be deposed in a court for my employer.. to each their own i guess.

A framer fucked-up a wall-anchor for a bench on one of my office's projects (not mine, specifically) and some +400lb person got "injured". Sued everyone who ever looked at the site. High 6-figure lawsuit quickly followed. The office's owners are the ones that deal with the lawyers and insurance people, not the staff.

do you stamp projects non? regardless this sounds like the way things should be set up.. staff getting few of the privileges of ownership with more of the risk is a bad formula.

square, I have a stamp for only one of the two provinces where I am licensed but the process up here is a little different then how I understand it to be in the USA. Up here, you do not get a stamp when you are license, you only get one if you apply for a certificate of practice (which carries mandatory insurance premiums) and unless you're a sole-prac, the certificate is held by the Office Corp. So only the stamps of those with ownership get used. We have 3 stamps for ontario and 2 stamps (including mine) for quebec under the same certificate.

But we don't have active projects in quebec so my stamp is sitting quietly in it's box.  I stamp the ontario drawings with the stamp of which ever partner manages that project's financials.

Even if you didn't stamp the drawings if you're an architect that worked on a project you can be called to be deposed in a court of law. Not stamping drawings will not protect you from this.  

Please keep in mind this is for the US.

yes, anyone can be sued at any job.. but stamping the drawing at an arch firm willingly exposes you much more to the situation you're describing, which is my point.

statute of limitation is also important to the discussion. I believe it is 15y for me.

square - if the firm is set up correctly then no. In such a situation stamping drawings and being licensed hold the same amount of risk.

how can that be true.. do you have a doc or something that's relevant? in theory you're saying just because i'm licensed that i carry the equivalent risk as our principal who stamps the drawing? i'm not a lawyer, but for some reason i find that hard to believe (i could see how having a license increases exposure, but not how it makes it equivalent to also stamping).

if true, it's also an incentive to not get licensed in some ways.

also, maybe this is how your office is set up, but this doesn't seem typical? in other words i'd be pretty pissed if i got licensed and wasn't told this.. would also seem like a legal obligation on the firm to inform employees of such a situation.

The way I have always thought about it is being licensed comes with increased liability by virtue of the State granted license which consumers and clients relay on to gauge competency vs risk.

that makes sense to me, that having a license increases liability, but not to the point that it's the equivalent of stamping the drawing. am i missing something? seems to remove an action/choice by the individual?

square - if the firm is set up so that the firm takes all the liability then being licensed carries the same risk as stamping drawings - basically zero. The firm has all of the risk and liability in this type of situation, not the individual.

chad, i see what you are saying- i was reading it the other way around. still seems to me in the case of a legal problem the first person to look at is who's name is on the stamp, but i suppose what you're saying is it's more of a formality than anything.

I’ll pop in again: Negligence needs duty, breach, cause, and damage. While the stamp has a duty, it is mostly for the State and public. Most of the legal duty breaches comes from the contract signed; so it’s against the firm. The firm owed the client a service, not you personally. Who gets deposed; often as not, it is whoever is most familiar with the project they want to talk to. Unless you do expert stuff like me, you are what is called a factual witness; they just want your story and to uncover the facts. They’ll ask questions, you just answer truthfully. Really not a big deal once you’ve done it once or twice.

Sneaky, when you say “The way I have always thought about it is being licensed comes with increased liability” … The way this has been explained to me (at least at my current firm) is a higher % of licensed professionals actually HELPS the firm from a liability standpoint, as it reduces the risk in a sense. Though it obviously increases liability on the individual architect.

The short version of what I meant to say is more licensed professionals —> less chance of errors —> lower risk from an insurer’s perspective.

The way I understand it, and I might be wrong, is that getting your own license might lower the risk from the firm's insurer's perspective on the firm policy, but it would raise your personal liability. The license shows that you personally have the knowledge and training to know better. As mightyaa put it, the stamp has a duty to the public. So by getting the stamp/license you personally increase your exposure from a duty to the public perspective, but from the firm's perspective they always had that duty. But it helps the firm out the more architects they have on staff because as you put it, there is a reduced risk in errors, and the insurer recognizes that.

"Even if you didn't stamp the drawings if you're an architect that worked on a project you can be called to be deposed in a court of law."

This is no different from an unlicensed person working in an architecture firm - anybody who worked on a project can be called into any mediation/arbitration/litigation. 

"The way I understand it, and I might be wrong, is that getting your own license...would raise your personal liability."

Only if you stamp the documents - a licensed architect working under another licensed architect has no more personal liability than an unlicensed person working in the same firm.

If you are stamping documents, then you should have an indemnity agreement in place so that the firm assumes financial responsibility for your personal liability. The only time you should stamp documents without an indemnity agreement is if operating as a sole practitioner (in which case there's no difference between the "firm" and you as a person).

atelier nobody, I agree with what you're saying to an extent. I do think that getting a license exposes oneself to greater liability though. The most simple form of which would be exposing yourself to losing the license.

Additionally, you expose yourself by agreeing to abide by the state's practice act which might include a duty to report violations to the state (doesn't have to be on projects you're working on or violations committed by your employer). An unlicensed person has not agreed to such and can't be held to the same standard. Even if they were held to the same standard, proving that an unlicensed person knew of the violation and didn't report it could be harder than for a licensed person. The simple act of obtaining the license indicates you have certain knowledge and training which could be used against you in proving you should have had knowledge of, or recognized, a violation.

Anecdotally, though I don't know if this actually carries any greater risk, I feel increased exposure to liability as I have filled out disclosure statements for real estate transactions. If my task is to disclose any defects to the best of my knowledge, it would be an easier case to prove I should have had knowledge of some hypothetical defect compared to an unlicensed individual simply based on my status as a licensed architect.

^this is why i'm confused. anyone know a lawyer?

As I understand it... Standard of Care. If an average architect in your area would reasonably do / see / say something about a situation within the realm of our profession, then you doing just that is enough to cover yourself from most litigation (and vice versa for not doing / seeing / saying something).

EA: I haven't heard about duty to report violations in my state. Can you elaborate? Would it mean that an architect has a duty to report code violations in their friend's condo when they're over for dinner? Because that sounds nerve-wracking.

Check the law in your jurisdiction. NCARB's Model Law has the template for states to follow if they want to. Their basic outline indicates that violation and grounds for discipline would include, "Failure to report to the Board any information as required under Article VI - Complaints of this Act," (see Section 501, Subparagraph 2. n.) 

Article VI, Section 602 "Duty to Report Misconduct" states:

"Any Architect, Applicant, or Firm who has knowledge of any conduct by any Person that may constitute grounds for disciplinary action under any provision of this Act or any regulation duly promulgated hereunder shall report such conduct to the Board. An Architect, Applicant, or Firm who violates this Act or any regulation promulgated hereunder is required to self-report such violation to the Board."

This is only the Model Law though. Your jurisdiction could adopt it in full, in part, amended, or do their own thing. Check the law in your jurisdiction.

Here's an example for Colorado (I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread). Page 11-12 of the PDF here shows that one of the possible grounds for discipline is "Failure to report to the Board any architect known to have violated any provision of this article 120 or any board order or rule," (paragraph m., pg. 12). 

So if I'm licensed in CO and I see a post in these forums from one of the other architects that are licensed in CO that would indicate they violated the state's practice laws, I'm obligated to report that violation per the state statutes. Doesn't even need to be related to a project or employment. One of the other grounds for discipline is "Habitual or excessive use or abuse of alcohol, controlled substances, or any habit-forming drug," (paragraph i., page 12). I'm hoping caffeine doesn't count as a habit-forming drug. I don't even need to know them IRL. I simply need to be licensed myself, know who they are and that they are licensed, and know that there is a violation of the practice act. 

I'm not saying this happens a lot, or even at all. In fact, I'd be curious to know if anyone has actually been disciplined for something like this and what the circumstances were. I'm guessing it's rarely enforced, but that doesn't remove the liability. Liability that you take on when you get licensed and a unlicensed person does not have.

Which province is that?