Make sure to sue for lawyer and court fees as well.

Depending on the jurisdiction, you can take this to the DA for criminal prosecution for whom the employer may literally go to prison. Mainly, you should seek civil court lawsuit and sanctions by the licensing board but I wouldn't rule out taking it up to the DA or Attorney General (through the licensing board) to take action through criminal prosecution to put people like this behind bars. 

When someone intentionally, as in knowingly doing this is illegal, this rises beyond merely an accident but outright criminal. To this extent, people who do this intentionally, is a criminal and should be sent to prison for some amount of time, fined by not only the licensing boar but also the courts, and also sued in civil court. Jail time and serious civil damages, should be sufficient to discourage any future attempt at doing such a thing in the future. It needs to also communicate to others that such acts will be taken seriously.

At minimum a strong civil lawsuit and hefty disciplinary action by the licensing board. Criminal prosecution would further put the message that we are a country of laws and if you break the law, you go to jail / prison. This depends on your jurisdiction's laws.

It’s like super duper illegal in my area. Even having an employee stamp who is not equity partner is illegal. Come back and let us know how it goes.

Why #2? Just curious; I don't see any liability but I'm not a lawyer.

You want to give the defense as little information as possible. Even if something is not obviously useful for the other side, blanket advice in cases like this is remove all mention from social media and forums until it is resolved.

Hey FrankFB, why the thumbs down for an honest question?

While I am not FrankFB, I will say, it is general best practice to NEVER ever speak online (public venue) or any other public venue about legal matters that are active and pending. There is kinds of legal actions that can be made by the employer that can result in problems. Win or lose, it's money that the OP could be out for months if not years having to fight that b.s. just to start getting any recovery and even then, it may just only be partial and the OP is still forever out some. So yeah, it sucks. Anything a person says, write, will say, will write, have said or written can be used against them in legal matters. This is why these things are not talked about in public. It is why lawyers advise you not to talk about the matter. Let your attorney speak for you. Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from implications of talking stupidly about matters. Your mouth can blow your defense from arguments by the other side or even your claim if you are the claimant/plaintiff. That is probably at heart of #2 by archanonymous. Big open flappy mouths of dumbasses tend to screw themselves. Look at the orange face clown we have seen in news lately where he legal problems became bigger because of that mouth of his doesn't know when to shut up about certain legal matters which would be in his best interest.

Agreed. If I ended up in this situation I would be blaming myself at least a little bit. But that's why there's lawyers.

I don't think bennyc's questions are fair or valid.  They're nothing but a pathetic attempt by bennyc to boost his self worth with  impotent. ignorant snark .  

It's common for a digital stamp to be on the firms server with the architect and one or two other people having access to it. Theses other people are typically another trusted architect and IT.

'one or two other people having access to it' in my experience are front-end or job captain types, who have permission to stamp for logistical purposes only (much like how the OP has now stated). Would also point out that another 'architect,' assuming they're licensed in the relevant jurisdiction, should be using their own stamp - yes, legal and office standards vary, but come on....the liability stands with the ink (digital or not).

You're correct, liability is with the stamp.  I disagree with you about who has access to it.  I've NEVER seen a non licensed person have access to a stamp to use for logistical reasons outside of IT.

In most cases a studio or firm in the 10 - 25 person range will only have one person stamping projects. (IE a 100 person firm will have around four people stamping drawings) This is regardless of how many architects they have on the project. This is typically done for insurance and quality control reasons. In the 100 person firm example only one of the other four architects who stamp drawings would have potential access to another persons stamp.

Regarding stamp access - every licensed pa at every firm I've ever worked at is given a digital copy of the stamp (stamping architect's stamp, usually a principal) to affix to drawings after review with the stamping architect. So it's really not so tightly controlled as what you say... And wet stamps a thing of the past on 95% of projects.

/\ This. I've typically seen the stamping architect give a PA the stamp for a particular project (date) and have them (the PA) stamp the drawings. In my experience the undated stamp access is typically limited to a few people.

My (Quebec) stamp is mandated to be kept in a locked bullet and bomb proof case, kept under 24/7 armed guard watch. They literally want us to wet stamp all the time or remove digital stamps from servers/workstations after use.

BFE CO must just do it differently. I can still remember the rubber-stamp scramble back in the day; multiple ppl. passing giant sets around trying to make the courier pick-up time... That said, having 'IT' (don't know too many mid / small offices that have onsite IT staff, regardless) stamp drawings, digital or not, seems improper to me. Of course, we still do work w/ jurisdictions that req. wet stamps and hardcopy, so YMMV.

Electronic versions of my stamp are all over the place in CAD, BIM, PDF, & other formats. My SIGNATURE, on the other hand, I am very careful with. I use a DocuSign e-signature (which includes a scan of my actual signature), and I am absolutely the only person in control of it. The nice thing about doing it electronically is I never have to worry about having a job captain definitely not ;-) allowed to forge it if I'm out of the office (which I definitely never ;-) did when I was a JC) because all I need is my phone to sign wherever I am.

This is all theory that breaks down with larger firms. As one of the two people who stamp (out of ~25 staff), even I don't see half of what comes out of the office. In a firm of a few hundred or a thousand people, it's unlikely that the stamping architect is even aware of most projects, and definitely isn't stamping.

Amidst all the other bullshit, terrible labor practices, verbal abuse etc, at least the Starchitect I worked for personally reviewed the permit sets for the three projects I was PA on before stamping. And that's with a 100+ person firm.

I've never worked with a firm where the stamping architect didn't personally review the drawings. Keep in mind the largest firm I've worked with was around 200 people with most firms being in the 20-30 range.

"It's common for a digital stamp to be on the firms server with the architect and one or two other people having access to it. Theses other people are typically another trusted architect and IT." 

This practice is the problem and is fundamentally illegal. Why? It is not the mere storage of the stamp on a computer itself. It is the lack of control over the stamp. When you are required by law to have exclusive control over the stamp, your stamp (since we are talking digital stamps), you should keep your stamp and signature on your personal usb stick or something that you take with you and keep with you and under your EXCLUSIVE control. 

There is no such thing, truly, of exclusive control over something on a server. 

A scenario: The network admin by virtue of being the network admin has access to all files stored at all time. It's the super admin account of the network software that provides that option ALL THE TIME and can not be removed because that's hardwired in the code on every network software system on purpose. That's why it is called the "god" account for a reason. All it takes is the business owner (usually one of the so-called "trusted" person) to direct the network admin (an employee after all) to fetch the file even if not have direct access to it. Simple as that. Even if the employer doesn't have the "god" account or direct access to it, the firm owner effectively has control over it by control over the the network admin, an employee that does. A lot of time, the idea of putting the stamp and often also digital signature on such server is to make it accessible to others, ultimately. 

You see, that's the problem. This is why the very practice itself is fundamentally illegal because you are not actually in exclusive control of that stamp and signature. There's the problem, it's a common practice that is illegal, fundamentally. It is because you are not in exclusive control over the use of the stamp because others can use it without your knowledge or your involvement. That is the fundamental issue at hand.

As an architect, you are suppose to hve EXCLUSIVE control over the stamp. No other person in the universe... PERIOD. NO EXCEPTION. Anything other is bullshit and illegal, fundamentally.

It is not to say that the firm bosses abuses the situation. In some cases, it is good intentions with efficiency in mind. While it it fundamentally illegal, it is not abused by most firms to a point of criminal fraud. However, this practice exposes the risk of such fraud to occur and abuses.

Can you share what some of these 'red flags' were? I understand if not because of potential litigation but it would be good for younger architects who are more inclined to put up with bad behavior in the interest of advancing their career.

How about starting with the obvious - asking somebody who's an employee, (assuming) without the requisite compensation for risk, to stamp drawings for the office. WTF

The prior red flags were all related to unmet expectations and unfulfilled commitments. All very frustrating, but nothing that crossed the line to criminality.

That's always going to be a subjective call as no one is perfect. I wish you luck with this cluster.

It demonstrates, at a bare minimum, that the documents meet the requirements of the applicable building codes. Where do you practice that has so little value on professional stamps because what you explain is not normal business in any jurisdiction I’ve seen. Also, What’s
“nominating”?

‘’ The Architects Act requires any business that provides architectural services in …… to nominate a responsible architect to oversee the provision of those services. Businesses are required to make it clears who the nominated architect(s) is to ensure consumers know they are dealing with an architect, and to ensure the competent delivery of those architectural services.’

We are probably the most stringent when it comes to rule and regs as every architect requires a PI insurance in order to practice. If you are a registered architect, by law have a bare minimum knowledge to perform your duty already.
Do you you need to provide a university or high school certificate in your job application CV

Basic AOR stuff then. That’s not really a thing where we practice.

@NS Regardless of stamps on the drawings , registered cooperation /individual are still responsible and liable for their architectural service. Specs, Schedule, Arch dwgs,  are required documents for Building Permit. Do you stamp every single page of the specs in Canada ?

Specs get a stamp on the cover page.

What N.S. says is basically true to the legal intent. Ultimately, a tamp isn't even needed. A signature and architectural license number in legible print is needed. The stamp serves the purpose N.S. said but identifies your name and license number, the state that issued the license, what license it is, and sometimes there is an expiration date of the license. All that makes it. It is actually the combination of the stamp and signature. It is affixing the stamp AND signature that indicates that which N.S. said. The problem with signatures alone is, signatures can be damn near impossible to derive the name of the architect. We could do away with the "stamp" part and have that info handwritten or applied on the plans similar to the title block and then have the architect sign and date. This would work. Stamps goes back to days when plans were hand drawn and handwritten. So, having to hand write that information on every single page of the plans can be slow and exhausting so it was easier to have a ready made stamp and inkpad and affix the stamp and then apply signature and speed up the process. 

Additionally, in early days, you get the stamp from the licensing board. Some of them were embosser stamps. This meant that architects had the responsibility to return the stamp back to the licensing board when their license expires. Some states, the stamp either indicates Expires:, where you write in the date of license expiration or it would be in the stamp seal and you replace the stamp every year. For the latter, it can be a hassle to replace the stamp seal every year, so many states decided to not have the expire be on the stamp or that it can have the expire date handwritten. 

In any case, the licensing board had records (even before computers) of who is licensed and their expiration date so license number matters and the name to verify. So, the local official could decide, to check up on the seal if the architect's license is active in good standing even before computers. Today, a stamp is not technically needed but the info on the stamp would still be needed on the plans of who the architect that is responsible for the preparation. 

In the digital age can be a digital image affixed to the plans and then signed & dated by the architect during review. However, the laws would need to change somewhat in the way it is written and the rules. In any case, laws and rules can be in place that only the name, license number, state board, license type information of the architect responsible for the preparation and that architect's signature on those technical submissions. They can serve the function of the "stamp" without necessarily be fixed to a rigid design style but to a set of information and be legible. Especially in the digital age. However, laws and rules have to be appropriately amended.

I wouldn't worry about this at all.

Well it is concerning only to the degree that the OP's employer may argue that the OP's attitude toward stamping drawings was le ze faire to begin with...

Doesn't matter. That's like a thief saying the home owner didn't lock their door so they were le ze faire about keeping their properly. It's still theft and in this case also fraud.  

Not sure I agree... truly the above argument (my argument) would be a "tu quoque" fallacy in that (and to your point) it does not disprove the argument; rather it points out a different issue. And I am not trying to disprove the argument that this is fraud. It is. However, I believe the point I brought up is still valid... as the saying goes: "don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house." So my question is: does the OP live in a "glass house"?

Still doesn't matter and your point isn't valid.  

The OP could of done terrible design work that violated every single aspect of building code and zoning.  It won't matter and the OP wouldn't get in trouble for it from the review board.  

Licensing review boards don't review the quality of drawings or work in 99% of cases. Typically the only thing they will care about is the licensing uses and ethical standards. 

The only time a licensing board would review drawings is if someone makes a claim against an architect that their work as not meeting the standard of care and thus perpetuated fraud. In those cases a group of independent reviewers are brought in to give their options on said work. I should know, I've participated in theses reviews in these types of cases.

Why are you so concerned about this? Do you live in a glass house BB?  

Nope. Just thinking as a defense attorney. Sometimes you don't have to "win" to "win". You can strong-arm someone into not pursuing the case because by convincing the plaintiff that they have more to lose, they just drop the case. Same thing goes for being able to "financially strangle" your opponent with attorneys fees.

I think you've been watching too much TV.  That or you work with people who do a lot of illegal things.

There are no attorneys in the licensing board review. Once that is settled and if the review favors the OP then it could move to to a civil suit. In that case then the review boards decision will have a huge impact on the civil case and would favor the OP.  

intervening to mention that what y'all do seem to agree on here is a laissez-faire approach to spelling

Spellin' rite is for loozers. So is double posting. ;)

BB has points made that a defense attorney in the civil suit but may represent the client before the licensing board / investigation. There is nothing to prohibit attorney representation even in these matters with regards to licensing boards. Chad, you are right that the board members on many boards does not do the review of plans for matters relating to competency. They will often involve the use of independent reviewers. It is not that the board members (well, the architects on the board) can't do it. It is that they do that for liability shield and integrity of the process following a courtroom like process that they are jurist on the matters so the assessment be independent and there can be up to three sets of reviewers if it was pushed. There's the board's appointed independent reviewers. There's the reviewers by each party. This would be an extreme case scenario but not impossible to occur. Of course, this will be more commonly taken before a civil lawsuit with potential counter suit or actions against a third-party like the board's ruling, type actions. This is usually where it may get a bit more complex. However, this is all noise not particularly helpful to the OP and at this point should not be talking to you or anyone here and should now be avoiding making any posts or replies or comments of any kind relating to this case now that it is a legal matter with legal representation and should refrain from discussing this case until the case is over and completed and provide there isn't any sort of 'gag' order-directive to not discuss the case after the case is over. Sometimes that pertains to "non-disparagement" conditions. So, my suggestion to the OP is to follow the legal advice and direction of the lawyers representing the OP. Regarding the rest of us, we should not be making specific comments pertaining to the OP's case. We may or should discuss the issue brought up in the matters of the OP in a general profession-wide matter.

Don't forget grammar . . .

Its grammer.

I was going to make that joke but decided most wouldn't get it. ;)

There are also people out there who think that you shouldn't sue someone for using your stamp without permission because the regulatory board will look at your past projects for poor work.

Actually I never said that. I think using others’ stamp is illegal AND fraud. All I asked is if the OP had anything to worry about in his capacity as the stamping party while he was employed at that office. It’s kind of like if taxpayer was contemplating suing this/her CPA for cooking his books, but the CPA knows that there are a lot of illegal transactions that took place.

Actually I never said that. I think using others’ stamp is illegal AND fraud. All I asked is if the OP had anything to worry about in his capacity as the stamping party while he was employed at that office. It’s kind of like if taxpayer was contemplating suing this/her CPA for cooking his books, but the CPA knows that there are a lot of illegal transactions that took place.

That's how it sounded to me. You're assuming that the OP has also done something illegal or at the very least has something to hide that could be used against him in the licensing review and / or possible civil suit. You keep saying this is something to be concerned about yet don't understand that the licensing review doesn't care about past projects or use litigation. Only a civil case would use litigation.

Trust me- the OP’s former employer’s reputation is on the line and when he’s pushed into a corner, you’d be surprised the lengths he would go to to avoid any sort of financial ramifications. The licensing board review is only the tip of the iceberg. I would be really surprised if there were no civil lawsuit here.

Lawyers may make arguments before licensing board investigations. In general, licensing boards are quasi-judicial administrative law case that is neither litigation or prosecution. In some ways they are civil like but there is no litigation for equitable restitution. Sometimes cases may consist of administrative, litigation, and prosecutorial proceedings. In every scenario, the defense side is there to debunk or make counterarguments against the plaintiff/prosecutor. Their job is to poke holes and even make the plaintiff/complainant (civil and administrative) look like they were in error or dirty and unclean. 

For example, it is not the firm's legal responsibility to protect and control the use of the stamp. It is the individual licensee. So by uploading the stamp to the server, did the licensee violate his legal responsibility by abdicating and compromising the exclusive control of the use of the stamp seal as implied under the legal requirements of use of the stamp? You see, the licensee can face issues. 

The OP in this case could be fined by the board. This doesn't mean the firm is off the hook. The firm as an architectural firm has legal responsibilities because a firm engaged in the practice of architecture is responsible for performing the services and any business that engages in the practice of architecture is required to have a licensed architect in responsible charge. The architect must be in charge of the project exercising responsible control over the preparation of all documents to bear his or her stamp and signature. However, the firm did not have a licensed architect in charge to stamp and sign the documents. They used the stamp of an architect employed who was not involved with the project. This in effect, still constitutes unlawful practice of architecture of the firm. Lawful practice of architect isn't just having licensed architects employed. It also implies following the laws and rules including the person whose stamp appears on the plans, is a licensed architect, was in charge of the project exercising direction and responsible control over the preparation of those plans, specifications, and all other technical submissions bearing the stamp of the architect. Therefore, the firm can be sanctioned by the board, as well as civil litigations for negligence and tort. Even if the plans were technically adequate and would be safe... scientifically, and would on the technical aspects of the design decisions and specifications meet the standards of the profession, it would fail to meet the professional standard of care because it was not prepared by or under the direct control and supervision of an architect duly licensed in the jurisdiction. It was not properly stamped by a licensed person who was involved with the project. If there was someone duly license in charge, why was that person's stamp not applied but the stamp of someone who had nothing to do with the project? Big issue. The firm has its issues and likely a bigger financial hit than that of the licensing board sanction that may possibly be applied against the OP if the firm was successful at arguing that the OP should have exercised better control over his stamp. The OP isn't without any error, however, the firm is in more serious trouble.

BB - I understand that. I think you missed the part when I stated that if the license review board sides with the OP that it has a big impact on any civil suit against the boss. It's doesn't matter though. Even if the OP did horrible work on other projects (not saying they did) there is no way this could be used to justify or indemnify the boss for using the OP's stamp without permission. That would be like Bernie Madoff getting found not guilty because his client made a few previous investments that lost money. It's a BS argument.

Feel free to try this defense in your next fraud case though BB.  ;)

Edit to add : uh oh.  Balkins is here and talking out of his ass again.  

and I think you missed the part about a "tu quoque" fallacy, which never stands up in any kind of legal case because it does not disprove/refute the argument at hand. Its kind of like if my kid says: "my brother hit me" and his brother says, "yeah, but he hit me too."

BB - but that is exactly what you're arguing that could happen to the OP. The boss says 'yeah I used his stamp without permission but look at the OP's past projects, they're below the standard of care' Then you assume the review board will look at the projects and say 'my gowd you're right, OP you're in trouble!' Despite what Balkins' has stated lawyers are rarely used in license review boards. It has to be a rather unique case where some type contract legal document was the basis of the complaint / infraction.

May I ask how often you've dealt with licensing review boards or  inquiries? 

How much experience do you have with civil litigation regarding fraud?

I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm talking about two separate issues here and I acknowledge that I am the cause of the confusion. I UNDERSTAND that attorneys are rarely part of the licensing review board inquiries. What I AM arguing is that WHEN (not IF) this goes to civil litigation, that is that IF the OP did work that is below the standard of care, that may not dismiss the immediate suit, but it may be part of a countersuit.

Anything could be in a countersuit. The probability of it being justified and not thrown out is another matter. I don't think the OP has anything to worry about. You still seem to think that the boss saying the OP's work was below the standard of care could dismiss the immediate suite - it can't.

Yeah, but the argument regarding "standard of care" would only be litigated - if even brought up - by the client, and then I imagine e&o kicks in. Not to mention while the state board would be one of parties with standing, I imagine this is straight up crime, potentially a felony?

Way to go guys, you summoned Richard.

B3ta - yup. The 'boss' wouldn't be bringing up the 'standard of care'. I have no idea if what the 'boss' did is a felony but it is certainty illegal and wouldn't need a civil suite to have criminal charges brought against him.

Wilma Buttfit wrote:

"Way to go guys, you summoned Richard."

 No one summons Richard. He is a constant in the universe.

this seems like that platitude about the restaurant where the food is terrible and the portions are too small.

Chad, you do know lawyers can represent their clients even at a licensing board meeting and matters relating to ANY disciplinary action. They can expose a complainant of issues if there is anything they can dredge up against the complainant (such as the OP may be). A $5,000 fine is nothing to a firm that makes that kind of money a week or even a day but a similar fine has much more impact against the OP especially if all they have for income is the paltry pay they get as an employee. This can make such impact so much harder for the OP to afford the court filings necessary to proceed with legal actions but these licensing board proceedings stuff may be dragged into the civil court if it did. There is the importance in legal matters of the "clean hands doctrine". ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clean_hands_doctrine ) If the parties are not 'clean', equitable relief and such could be denied to all the parties. So, out that money but a firm can absorb the cost of their attorneys and their court costs more easily than a typical employee could. So the question at hand is, is the OP clean of any wrongdoing on his part? Be sure there is nothing that can't be used against you before going forward with any legal matters.

Elements the defense may use against someone like the OP: 1. Did the OP violate the licensing law responsibility of the OP to have exclusive control over the use of the stamp. Exclusive use of the stamp is an essential aspect inferred by the intent of the laws and rules pertaining to the use of the stamp. This is essentially the same in every single state. An architect may only use the stamp linked to his license and only that architect may use it. No matter the variation of how the rules and laws are written, there is uniformity in this aspect as ALL the states have adopted these provisions and even gone to efforts of some uniformity that is derived straight from NCARB model laws. Like this example from OAR 806 (Oregon Board of Architect Examiners): "(7) An architect may not seal and sign, or countersign, or allow their seal or signature to be affixed to any architectural plans, drawings, documents, specifications or reports not prepared by them or under their responsible control and supervision." It is implied that the architect must have control over the seal (another word for stamp, as the context implies). That seal may not be used by others. The architect must have exclusive control over. If they don't, how can they be in control of the seal and how it is used by others? All the licensing boards have similar provisions in statutes or in rules. Allowing the seal to be able to be used by others is abdicating control over the use of the seal and the responsibility of the seal not being "affixed to any architectural plans, drawings, documents, specifications or reports not prepared by them or under their responsible control and supervision." The latter can not be lawfully achieved unless the architect is exclusively in control over the seal that he or she is entrusted by the State of ______ that issued the license as an architect to and the PRIVILEGE, not right, to engage in the practice of architecture. Anything uploading to a server that is used by others that you are not the admin in control of, such seal in any manner, compromises the exclusive control of the seal. Understood? There is always at least one other person in a server used by others that are not exclusively controlled and administrated by you, has access to that seal and can use it. You have an utmost responsibility to make sure in every reasonable way that no one can use your seal. One way is to keep your digital seal on a thumb stick that you keep with you and when not in use, is stored securely in a vault just like physical seals were. You need to secure it. If the network admin can access your seal, in theory he/she can access it and use it behind your back. Their access control is god-level so they can access any file as easy as you can open a PDF file on your personal computer at home. Understand. The employer controls the network admin. They work for their employer. They are to do what the employer says and wants done. Especially if the employer is at the owner level. The employer-firm owner says, "get me Chad's stamp/seal and digital signature stored on the server" to network admin, the network admin is required as being an employee to do what the boss demands. The network admin then fetches the file. It is literally that easy. You have a duty to the State to exercise secure control over your seal. Otherwise, you bear responsibility and liability to whatever happens. Negligence on this is exposes you to whatever happens. Now, do you understand what I wrote here?

if they used his stamp, it also would have had his signature. putting someone else's signature on a document is always fraud. i can't see where there would be a gray area, regardless of whether he allowed it in the past or asked them to stop.

don't disagree in principle - I don't know if it's wet signature (100000% fraud) or electronic. if electronic.... it's tied up into all the use agreement questions.

Gregory - regardless of if the stamp is wet or electronic there is no use agreement that would allow someone to use and architects stamp and signature on drawings that the architect has never looked at. PERIOD   

chad - we don't disagree on that point.

Someone affixing a signature of someone elses name... it's not just fraud, it is FORGERY. Generally, that's a serious matter that can be a felony.

When and where there was a FIRM stamp, it only indicates that it is an official document of the firm and that it is a registered firm. I remember not long ago that there was actually a state that did have a firm stamp for registered firms. It would generally only be affixed on the first page of a set of plans and such BUT it would not be used in LIEU of an architect stamp. An architect stamp would be affixed by the architect in charge with preparation of the plans and documents per the laws and rules of the jurisdiction.

There's a few states that does or did. North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, and a there may be others. So it does exist. However, firm seals are not allowed to be used in lieu of the seal of the individual architect but can appear on the plans. Other than indicating a firm is a registered a firm, any corporate/company seal can appear but it can not appear without the seal of an Architect on plans that require an architect seal. Basically a firm stamp from these states are just a fancy version of a company/corporate seal that indicates the firm is registered to practice architecture as a business. It can not be, like any other company seal, be used in lieu of a architect stamp where an architect stamp is required by law/rule on the plans.

Some states prefer that a company seal doesn't appear on plans that requires an architect seal. This is just because there is often some similarity in look and appearance, being both round and often with similar style. However, such a seal may be used by businesses designing houses if they want to. It's old fashion practice of showing and indicating the document (whatever it may be) is officially sent by the business... such as legal documents for example. Technical submissions are legal documents in their own rights.

In my personal opinion, states where there is a firm registration requirement should have a firm seal but it should look different enough, and rules in place to indicate that a firm seal may not be used in lieu of the individual Architect stamp. They can coexist on a set of plans. The states could even require that the firm affix their seal at least on the cover-title sheet of the plans and other appropriate locations on other legal documents where a corporate/company seal is used. 

HOWEVER, the seal is only to indicate the firm is registered and should indicate on it, the expiration date (that can be handwritten legibly). This way, enforcement that firms, that are supposed to be registered to practice but are not, may be more efficiently executed. The building departments can check and then file a complaint to the board if a firm is practicing without registration... even if there is an architect, who is licensed and has stamped the drawings. This means, firms can still be held accountable. 

If you are going to have laws and registration for firms, the firms need to be held accountable. There are plenty of firms that practice, in states where architectural firm registration is required, without the architectural firm registration.

Richard - I don't think anyone is disputing that the use of the stamp and signature without him knowing was clearly wrong/illegal/etc. what I think is going to be interesting to see is how the boss' lawyer justifies the use - they will almost certainly say there was an understanding of how it was to be used, probably point out that he didn't physically sign every drawing prior to that, and he was still an employee. and they'll throw him under the bus and say it was his responsibility to point out that the arrangement wasn't permissible. at best, he walks away without any real punishment and maybe has some financial settlement. but any attorney worth their salt is going to position this as a simple misunderstanding. unless he's implicated himself in an email saying 'yeah, I know you told me not to use it but, whoopsie'.

That is a good point Gregory. It would be interesting to see. Mostly, would be an epic fail.

Getting rich, I don't know about that but if it happens, that would be icing on the cake.

He used ur stamp, then you took the risk instead of him.

Wait a sec... what about our digital submissions of our plans at the building department's office. You have no professional control over the building department, the laws, rules, and policies of a government entity. You have to professionally submit technical submissions ACCORDING to the requirements of the AHJ. That is not the same as the firm office. The firm is not a government entity. As a licensed professional, you have certain limited privileges to refuse to do what your employer tells you to do. An employer can not legally fire you for upholding your statutory responsibilities which is different than that of that IT guy. It would be a type of wrongful termination. You have legal duties and responsibilities as a licensed member of a licensed profession that a mere non-member of the profession may very not have. There's no legal requirement that you have your stamp on a server at the firm. There is no stronger justifiable reason for public health, safety, and welfare for why it needs to be over that of your professional duties of exclusive control over its use as it has stronger reasons why the public health, safety, and welfare is endangered by the lack of your exclusive control. Who's legally accountable to the use of the stamp or seal of an architect?

Some people has stamps and somes people's doesn't has stamps. The people's that has stamps are the people's who stamps is there LEGAL responsibility to do so according to how ever the AUJ says so. To be clear digital stamps are not actually stamps but images of a stamp and therefore not an actual stamp and therefore not LEGAL in each and every case. Legal previous case laws are the foundation of how cases are decided in MOST cases under the law in the jurisdiction that the AUJ has the authority to enforce the laws, codes, and regulations in. It is therefore there DUTY to enforce in there jurisdiction. That being said
said those people that has stamps are NOT some people that doesn't has stamps digital copy on a server or otherwise. Now if you want to put an IMAGE of your stamp on LEGAL DOCUMENTS you're in fact NOT actually STAMPING so technically and actually they have NOT been stamped and would be needed to be stamped with an actual stamp to be considered LEGALLY and actually STAMPED in MOST jurisdictions under the AUJ that has the appropriate authority to make that LEGAL determination.

If you have any questions I will be at my computer.

The previous post was sarcasm.

Sarcasm, OK. However, it's not the technical word "stamping" that matters. Another verb is used like "affixing" which in practice is basically applying or placing the Architect's seal to the technical submission. We know they are applying it to digital 'seals'. In any case, the responsibility is the same. Call it a stamp, seal, whatever the fuck, it is still referring to the same essential act and responsibility.

he says it with a lot of words though

An office is a place. I have my own. I've done remote working with computers and telecommunications technology since before most of you ever did. So go fuck off. Nothing about working in an office requires you have your digital version of your architect seal on the firm servers. Why don't you have your fucking usb stick with you and apply it to the plans when you do your final review? Wouldn't you have it on your key chain or something you have with you. The idea is to actively control access to your seal to your exclusive control over its use. It is the architectural licensing laws and rules that you agreed to upon licensure.

If you are not willing to follow the rules to the fullest, resign. Period. It is your responsibility. If you can't handle it, leave it to someone who can. If the architectural profession can't do their responsibilities to the state according to the laws with full accountability then maybe the state and public needs to begin reevaluation of whether we should continue to license architects and re-approach addressing public health, safety, and welfare through different means... maybe far stricter building codes and full scientific testing assessments of every assembly.

Ricky, no one is walking around with their stamp on a usb drive. That’s not how it works. Never was, never will. Every jurisdiction is it’s own rules. Case in point, I’m registered in 2 different places and one allows digital only stamps while the other does not. My P.engs also have similar issues.

Rick, anybody can order any stamp. They aren’t granted by the state. You order them from a stamp company who makes it for you but they don’t care if you are licensed and they don’t check to see if you even are who they say they are. Somebody gave me a stamp as a gift. Meaning they ordered my stamp pretty easily and had it in their possession for a time.

Rick, anybody can order any stamp. They aren’t granted by the state. You order them from a stamp company who makes it for you but they don’t care if you are licensed and they don’t check to see if you even are who they say they are. Somebody gave me a stamp as a gift. Meaning they ordered my stamp pretty easily and had it in their possession for a time.

Oops, hit enter too soon. Jurisdictions need to get in the habit of checking with the design profession to see if the documents were indeed submitted by them. I’m fairly certain my stamp has been stolen by a contractor but I don’t have any way of knowing. Just a hunch. What a stupid system.

Our digital stamps are on our server and in the cloud. 

File containing the stamps - only accessible by the owner of the firm and our IT.  

Individual stamps within the folder- only the architect they are associated with and IT.

None of these files can be accessed, copied, moved, or deleted except by the associated architect and IT.  The firm owner needs to provide a code to IT to be able to do anything to the files associated with the stamps.  Anytime these files or folders are accessed all architects with stamps get an e-mail alerting them.  

Physical stamps are locked in a safe with individual lock boxes for each stamp. 

Chad, yet I or anybody could order a stamp with your name and # on it.

It's harder to steel my coffee mug than my stamp. We keep ours in a shitty plastic stationary drawer thing right next to the ink pads. It's like we're asking for some ninjas, perhaps from the depths of Astoria, Or, to swoop in and start stamping drawings.

Rick, I think you need to go outside and touch grass for a bit. That is way too much anger for 6 in the morning.

NS you have steel coffee mugs ? Damn sounds heavy

steal... but yeah, steel mugs would be great. Corten too... get some extra zing.

Wilma Buttfit wrote

"Chad, yet I or anybody could order a stamp with your name and # on it."

You could.  Your point?

Almost anyone could also get your SSN, home address, and banking info.  Doesn't mean you don't protect that type of information though.  

The government doesn’t list your SSN on a website for people to check though. 

Anyway, I respect the degree of assurance it gives the people that their stamp won’t be misused in the office. The safe seems unnecessary from a practical standpoint, but the optics are cool… The point being most of the issues with stamp misuse are probably in firms, not random people stealing info off the internet (as easy as that might be) so there is value to this. 

 What happened to OP couldn’t happen at your firm, so anyone who really wants to take issue with the procedures should consider that.

Yeah, a safe isn't absolutely necessary but being secured and under some level of active oversight and if necessary stored safely in a fashion so someone has to take some effort to get to the seal. Where my seal is, I have the track light and the security camera so if someone were to steal it, there is some degree of means to identify who. The camera also serves for than for securing a stamp like my company seal. Upon CPBD certification, that seal like an architect seal, I would be obligated to secure the seal so it isn't misused. There's a legal responsibility even to the AIBD similar to the licensing board. What happened to the OP is unlikely to happen at another firm, it is not necessarily impossible. Some people steal info or seal and use it after they are no longer with the firm. This is how some cases occurred.

Stamps aren't 100% secure. Nothing is. I could steal anyone's stamp from an issued drawings via screenshot and photo editing very easily.   

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to protect them. Our security procedures' are to keep people from outside our office or consultants list from obtaining them and using them without our consent or knowledge. It also keeps everyone we work with honest.  It's not perfect.  

we all missed the chance to get rich making nft's for stamps. something to try for the next crypto bubble.

You best get on that. You could be a millionaire! in crypto

There was at least one clueless random poster who made the block-chain security jive argument for doc security back in the early covid times. They got ridiculed because it's such a dumb idea.

Chad, I do appreciate that your firm employs some mechanism of 'check' to mitigate abuse. Personally, if I had such a stamp/seal, I would feel more comfortable about there being some measure to mitigate situations like what the OP described. You firm might not addressed everything and there may be holes for a potential abuse, it is not a very large firms, so it is likely to be able to easily identify who or which boss abused the system but there are certain limits on resources but even on a smaller firm, compared to some, are doing a fair job in taking steps in making sure a person's seal is not misused by exercising some measure. There is some active steps demonstrated by your firm. Then there is you. What steps you take to keep track of the use of your stamp/seal within the scope of everything else you do.

Ricky, my stamp sits out in the open. My signature is readily available on the server as is a digital version of my stamp. This is 100% entirely normal.

Yup. The procedures' my firm has in place to protect our stamps is not common practice.

In my building design practice, although there isn't any stamp requirement, obviously. Any architect stamp is not required for our projects. However, we are legally responsible per law. The company seal that we have would be used for official legal purposesthat seal that a company seal would be used for but would be affixed to plans being issued (not in lieu of any sort of architect stamp). The onus of level of security over the company seal is not the same with the same level of legal mandates as an architect stamp, even then, it should not be used willy-nilly by anyone. 

If a company uses a company/corporate seal, as an official process and procedure on all official and legal documents, it is a general defense option to protect a business of legal responsibility if someone unauthorized were to attempt to legally bind us to something or whatever just scribbling a signature somewhat resembling the name of an authorized person such as a clear first letter of first & last name and rest of the name more scribbly but could be easily assumed by anyone that the party whose name is in print signed it. Cheap forgeries are done that way and often happen in the world. Yes, a person could simply order a stamp and seal and do that but that's money out of pocket. 

A CPBD seal would be something I would be obligated to exercise control over the use that someone else isn't using the seal. Likewise, and even more so, an Architect stamp/seal should be protected with every reasonable effort.

Ricky, you live in a world that does not exist.

"Ricky, my stamp sits out in the open. My signature is readily available on the server as is a digital version of my stamp. This is 100% entirely normal." 

Should it be, NS? What control measures ensure someone else doesn't illegally use it? What active steps are you taking to prevent or minimize the risk of that happening so that your stamp does not appear on drawings, plans, and other technical submissions that you have not exercised responsible control and supervision over the preparation of those drawings, plans, and technical submissions?

Ricky - you do realize that a middle schooler with a snip tool can steal nearly any signature from a digital set of drawings? You don't even need access to a firms server - just access to a cities online planning department.

Most firms only need to worry about external access to their servers.  Internal access to stamps typically isn't an issue as it's illegal to use another persons stamp and signature.  Firm team members can stamp drawings for other architects within their firm.  They just can't sign and date the stamp.  

Yes but that is not an excuse to be apathetic about the responsibilities you are entrusted by the laws and rules of ensuring your stamp/seal and signature are affixed only on technical submissions, you exercised direct control and supervision over the preparation of those technical submissions. What happens by some middle schooler use of stuff accessed online via FOIA is not under your control. There are steps you and your firm can do in responding to such situations but they can not be prevented 100% of the time. This doesn't mean the you and your firm has no responsibility to actively exercise control over access to the stamp/signature within the firm because what happens IN the firm is legally within your professional control. In case such does happen, you have defenses and measures to deal with a bad apple in the firm even in the legal system.

This has been my point. I know the profession has a somewhat reckless view on the issue. There are a lot of things that are to be desired in the world but we can directly address somethings. We can make legislation to require the building department to verify plans submitted were in fact submitted by the firm and prepared by or under the supervision/control & sealed by the architect.

Ricky, to answer your first question, we take no active or even passive steps. We don't need to. It's much better to live without always looking over your shoulder thinking everyone is out to get you.

Ricky - As long as a firm is protecting their server from unauthorized outside access there really isn't anything more that can be done. Every firm that I know of has some type of server protection in place.

You're comments about the building department show me that you've never submitted anything beyond a single family renovation or patio build. 

"Most firms only need to worry about external access to their servers. Internal access to stamps typically isn't an issue as it's illegal to use another persons stamp and signature. Firm team members can stamp drawings for other architects within their firm. They just can't sign and date the stamp." 

Yes, it is the law that it is illegal for someone committing forgery. Using someone else's stamp is essentially a type of forgery. It is the architect who is suppose to both stamp the drawing and sign & date. In a good ethical office, with good ethical people, it probably doesn't become an issue if someone else used the stamp. 

Perhaps, the profession should drop the system of individul stamp/seal (but just require on the plans the name, license# and info that is typically on the stamp/seal) of the architect in responsible charge of the plans and have a signature & date that is either digitally signed or hand signed/dated... and require all businesses that engages in the designing of buildings to be registered with that state architect board... including BUSINESSES (sole-proprietorships, general partnerships, and all other business entities) registered with the architect board (in one of two categories [minimum]: architectural firms, and building design firms). 

Then the business is subject to oversight of the licensing board. Such building design firms need not be licensed architects. There should be nothing prohibiting a non-architect in some contractual relationship with an architect under the responsible supervision of an architect. 

In any case, those firms (architect and building design firms) would have their firm seal/stamp from the board similarly to that of North and South Carolina. There will still be ways for things that happen outside the firm's control internal controls.

Firm seal would not negate the requirement of a licensed architect on projects that require one.

I'm not reading that.

There is nothing to say you have to read anything written here while you are busy.

If anything, the first paragraph is all that probably needed to be read and responded to.

So here: Yes, it is the law that it is illegal for someone committing forgery. Using someone else's stamp is essentially a type of forgery. It is the architect who is suppose to both stamp the drawing and sign & date. In a good ethical office, with good ethical people, it probably doesn't become an issue if someone else used the stamp. 

See above comment about living in a world that does not exist.

Non Sequitur, aside from a physical planet we didn't create, the social and business world are human 'constructs' that we make it to be. The way you handle or as firm manages the security of the architect seal in the firm... that is entirely your making. It is entirely under your control. It is not some meddlesome middle schooler and the public government's FOIA. That is outside the direct control of the individual architect. Within the collective control of the public and the adjudicative processes within the legal system legislated by the elected body. At the end of the day, the closer to 'home' as in closer it is to your individual nexus of control. You can decide, "Do I allow my stamp/seal to be uploaded to the firm server or not?" You're responsibility to choose. To do or not to do, to paraphrase the great Shakespeare. Just as much as you can put the stamp/seal on to the server, you can carry your USB. People used to carry briefcase with top secret classified documents that are handcuffed to their risk. How hard is it to stick the USB stick (or it can be a secure digital memory card) in a pocket and take it with you to work and home or wherever you go. Having it with you wherever you go is a simple matter of doing the same thing you do to keep your car keys on you and not lose your car keys. That simple. The exact same level of simple. What's the reason for it to be on the server? Is it simply a decision based on convenience? If so, it doesn't justify establishing a risk of misuse of the stam/seal by your co-workers. In the U.S., the very fact that they may affix the seal/stamp on to the drawings is technically violating the law because they are not even suppose to affix the seal/stamp. In many states in the U.S. (not looking at specific Canada province rules), the architect whom that seal/stamp is associated with, is the one and only person authorized to affix the stamp and signature, and only on projects he/she is responsible control over the preparation of their respective technical submissions having exercised direct control and supervision if not directly prepared those technical submissions. The interns and whoever else are not even supposed to affix the seal if they are not the architect of responsible charge for the project. It is the same kind of cherry-picking the laws they want to follow and choosing what laws they choose to not to abide. Individuals do not have the right to choose the laws they abide or not abide by. It's part of the responsibility of citizens which by the way, all architects re citizens of their respective country of citizenship. Visitors have responsibility to abide the laws and rules of the places they visit like it is for a guest in someone else's home. Citizens are subjects of the laws/rules of the government even in the U.S. Individuals are not kings and are their homes are not enclaves separate from the governance of the government. They are not sovereign states in and of themselves. This inalienable truth is they way it is even with architectural licensing and the laws and rules. They have their limitations including jurisdictional limitations even if the words of the laws/rules doesn't sound like it but there are lines where the laws reaches their limits but there are points where one is within the legal jurisdiction. What comes with the privilege to engage in the practice of architecture and the Achitect title is responsibilities. That is where this debate I have with a number of you. It is not like I am out to get you fined or license revoked. No. Okay. I understand there are 'common' practices but this doesn't mean it is actually compliance with the laws and rules as adopted.

Again, Ricky, you don't know how real architecture office function. This is not how things are done. We're just trying to educate you on the real world so that you can be actually informed instead of making things up as you go.

"What, fuck gun control... but I'm all about stamp control.  Gotta keep those murder stamps under lock and key at all times.  Won't sombody think of the children?"   - Ricky.

I wouldn't normally pipe up without a direct reason, and I don't want to flag Rick's comment because it's not spam and not offensive, but it's all just nonsense that doesn't - and never has in my opinion at least - contributed a damn thing to these forums. I'm 100% opposed to gatekeeping because in theory everyone has something to contribute. But it's been years since he's been here and he continues, day after day, to spew absolute nonsense. Please, can we do something about this? Rick has never seen, touched, or even smelled a physical stamp, yet he seems to think he knows everything about it. I don't think I can take it anymore.

N.S. how architects office is ran is how the people decide to run them. Period. There are books that testifies how they operate. Guess what, it's like those self-help books... they are all fucking opinions and everyone has one. Therefore there is no rules just there is no singular rule about how video game or any other software development works. There are some common themes but they are not the same. This is because that is not regulated by laws or government rules but are trending popular methods like project management methods and processes. For example: waterfall model or Agile or whatever method. They are options and choices of how to deliver a project. Every office has some choices about how to do things. It really comes to what is preferred and understood by the people. Change the people and they may have a different collective preference and what they understand. However, the law is black and white as the text itself. The law are a collection of shall and shall nots. That is what they are. If it is a may, it is not a law or rule for a purpose of laws is to establish black and white rules of what you shall or shall not do. Anything else are that which laws are not to impede. The shall and shall not also applies to exemptions. That is why the words "shall" and "shall not" are used. It is not of legislative intent to regulate what you may choose but regulate what you shall do or shall not do. When you look to the rules on stamping plans, you would see something along the lines of - "You shall not affix your seal on plans not prepared by or under your supervision and control". Right. Basically, sounds about right. I know there is also the requirement of signature but lets keep it straightforward. It is the legislative intent that the seal is not to appear plans that were not prepared by you or under your responsible charge. It implies intent by the legislative body (parliament) that you exercise control over the stamp or seal (physical or digital) in a manner that your seal is not used by others or otherwise allowed to be used by others. If you did, that's like leaving your house with the doors and windows open on your house with a sign saying - take whatever you like, have at it. You're liable to come home with items missing. Right? How is it really not tempting your co-workers stamping and forging your signature... putting all the legal burden on you for everything? When the stamps/seal of a licensed architect is unlawfully used, the building departments do not check if they were actually sent by you. They assume you affixed the stamp/seal and then proceed with reviewing plans. Some errors and omissions may still get past the plan review and then the permits issued and building gets constructed and then at some point in time later, there is a disaster resulting from the error or omission. Who's getting sued? The Architect whose seal is on the plans. If that's you, your screwed. Your negligence even if it was your negligence over control over the use of your seal attaches you liability to the disaster. You're screwed. You may even be sanctioned by the licensing board authority. There is not only protecting public health, safety, and welfare, there is also protecting your legal exposure as much as you can. No one but the licensing board has the legal authority to control the use of your seal not even the employer. You are by default bear statutory liability and named in any suit regarding any project relating to the plans that have your stamp/seal and signature on it. You have to convince a jury and judge that it wasn't your fault. It's easy to do that if it was some meddlesome middle school kid using something from the building plans via FOIA (or equivalent). When it pertains to your fellow co-workers and the firm you are a part of, that stink still lingers over and around you. Your innocence isn't so innocent, now is it? If you locked the doors and windows of your house, close the blinds or curtains of your house, then you showed some effort to prevent a burglary. If you had your doors open, windows open, and a sign saying take what you want... was it really a burglary? Are you really a victim? Think it through. I know firms do some of these practices as said. That's the fucking point of criticism of these practices.

"Again, Ricky, you don't know how real architecture office function. This is not how things are done. We're just trying to educate you on the real world so that you can be actually informed instead of making things up as you go. 

"What, fuck gun control... but I'm all about stamp control. Gotta keep those murder stamps under lock and key at all times. Won't sombody think of the children?" - Ricky." 

 First, gun control laws and the Constitution are not anything you can change U.S. You have to be a member of Congress to amend or repeal the any part of the Constitution. Not only you, but enough members of Congress. Good luck with that. Legislated laws have to be Constitutional otherwise it will be challenged in the courts and then ruled unconstitutional. How many times does it take for people to realize that gun control laws are unconstitutional and the 2nd Amendment has to be repealed and replaced. Until then, it is a waste of time. Oh right, you're a non-citizen of the U.S. and have zero legal standing. Less than I do. Right. All that is outside the scope of the profession of architecture. 

Real world fact is, the reason you store the stamps/seals on a computer server out of convenience, is simply because you're too darn disorganized (unprofessional after all by the way) to have it on you. You have your car keys and phone, why not your digital seal. It can be on your phone, a USB stick, or an SD/microSD. The "real world" fact is you are using "the real world" as an excuse to justify laziness and allowing individuals at your firm who are unauthorized by law to use your seal. 

The law doesn't just prohibit someone not authorized by law to use your signature, it also prohibits the use of the seal. So all this "real world" excuse is just attempting to justify unlawful practice of architecture. You don't get to choose the laws and rules to follow. You signed an agreement with your licensing board during license registration to obey and follow the laws and rules of the practice of architecture. That is an intentional agreement you have made with you government as it applicably applies here in the US with our respective state government. 

I know in the "real world", the members and firms tends to cherry-pick the laws and rules that they follow tending to ignore the laws and rules they don't personally agree with. Sorry, it is not up to you to choose what laws and rules you follow. The law does not allow you the freedom to disregard laws you don't agree with with immunity from any disciplinary action. Such a freedom would place every person above the law and laws entirely meaningless. The attitude is just shows contempt of the rule of law. 

Enough with the so-called "real world" bullshit. It's just excuses after excuses to do nothing to change. I think I'm pretty clear about that. You are the only person permitted by law to affix your architect seal AND signature on anything. If you don't agree with the laws or rules, there are steps in a legal process but it is a public process which means you will get your way. There may be opposition.

In shorts, let's stop with the excuses for justifying unlawful practice of architecture. Anyone using either your stamp/seal or uses your signature or both, regardless if it is physical/handwritten or digital, other than yourself is unlawful practice of architecture..... no exception in every country, state, or province that has an architectural licensing system and has an architectural stamp/seal and/or signature system or similar system. Otherwise, if everyone in a firm is allowed to affixed the seal, it defeats the whole purpose of the laws and rules.

It undermines the credibility of the architect's exercise of responsible control and supervision and the certifying the technical submissions were prepared in accordance with the standard of care.

Something something real world experience not applicable to the above. Ricky, stop digging down.

Admit you are aiding and abetting unlawful practice of architecture by intentionally allowing your seal to be able to be used by a person not authorized to use the seal and you are making a so-called "real world" bullshit excuse for it to some asshole on a web forum.... then shut up. Be honest for fuck sake. This asshole making this reply doesn't intend to report you but there could always be another asshole on the forum that would so maybe you should shut up first.

"You're comments about the building department show me that you've never submitted anything beyond a single-family renovation or patio build." what I said about building departments aren't limited to those projects you said. They happen on commercial projects, too. This also depends on the building departments. It is also not something I brought up to begin with. Someone here, maybe you or N.S. or someone else here essentially brought up the suggestion for building departments to verify plans.

"Jurisdictions need to get in the habit of checking with the design profession to see if the documents were indeed submitted by them." - Wilma wrote. Basically, I translated that to building department to be more specific.

Ricky, again, you live in a world entirely made up in your imagination. Just because you don’t understand how practice works does not mean we’re in the wrong. Admit that, then maybe we can have a useful adult discussion.

Answer this, and treat this that your career and future as a licensed architect depends on it.... why is your stamp/seal accessible by other people than yourself? Does your province require your seal to be used only on projects prepared by you or under your supervision? Yes or no then cite the laws and rules. 

You assume your fellow employees will never ever use your stamp/seal to stamp drawings that you may have never made. Add to that, thay can simply handwrite a signature remotely close enough to pass off as believably your. It just has to be your name in cursive print. Most building departments in your province isn't going to be intimately familiar with what your signature looks like. Sure, if you are likeable, it might be unlikely someone would screw you and commit felony and even get away with it, collecting money and yet you get landed into a lawsuit.

You are saying I live in a world of my own imagination. I live in the world for what it is. Our perceptions of the world is the fiction and is for everyone. You don't know the real world. You only know the world from your own perspective and personal experience. No on knows the real world because no one can. So anyone that claims such an audacious claim as knowing the real world is delusional and full of shit. You are only one person, one life out of a fuck lot. Arguably billions to quadrillions... if you count all life. Yeah, you know the real world of less then 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 of the world and yet only existed for decades out of 500,000,000+ decades. So, seriously, pretty fucking arrogant to claim knowing the real world. 

From what I know of it and the people in it, there are a lot of fucking hypocrits and criminals. We didn't adopt laws for people the violate it we adopted the laws so they be followed and obeyed. If you want to make and change laws become a representative/senator in state legislator or Congress, or equivalent title in Canadian provincial or national parliament. Maybe, write a Bill and get it passed. Okay? If an Architect violates the licensing laws or rules, what are they supposed to do? I know people are chickenshits that tries hide from accountability. What are they supposed to do under law? Turn themselves in and accept responsibility and accountability for what they did. 

What a novel idea that people be honest, and take responsibility for their wrongdoing. What history has shown time and time again how weak, pathetic, and spineless people tend to be because they are chickenshit cowards afraid of the disciplinary actions they may face. They never heard of leniency that comes with forthright honesty and self-driven accountability. People try come up with so much bullshit and excuses in the hopes of avoiding any accountability. Thinking, if they baffle people with bullshit they'll believe it. What I said, happens and is real in this world.

Ricky, yes, documents are required to be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed arch who is listed in our office's certificate of practice. A license without a certificate is useless and one cannot have a certificate without a license. We are 5 architects with licenses across 3 provinces and stamps are applied digitally presigned by who ever is tasked with that particular project. Doc are reviewed internally then they are sent to the printers for submission for permit. Nothing unique with this process. In fact you can look through my city's very public database of zoning applications are find dozens and dozens of high-quality pdfs with signed stamps. Any of these can be lifted and re-applied fraudulently. The crime is the fraudulent use of the stamp, not the omission of a private security detail. The idea that the stamp holder sweeps in to save the day with their glorious ink pad is not real.

bonus, I am currently stamping drawings using one of our equity partner's stamp... from my non-secure home office over a remote desktop connection.  Absolutely nothing with this process is a violation of anything related to our practice laws or architect act.  

What does your province laws and rules say, word for word. A link is okay for the sake of the forum. Generally, south of Canada, in the U.S., the stamp or seal as well as the signature is supposed to be affixed (whether that be a wet stamp/seal, embossed, and handwritten signature & dated or digital or some combination) AFTER the plans have been reviewed. I don't mean strictly affixing after it is printed. Historically, it would be but since digital stamps/seals and digital signature is permitted, it makes sense to affix it, digitally. Who does it, and when the do it is essentially the same. After it is reviewed and by the Architect. No one else. Firms that do it in the U.S., are in fact violating the law as it is still UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE. Even if you have a license, if you break the law or violate the laws and rules of the Architect title, license, and practice act it is unlawful practice of architecture. Any act that constitutes or potentially constitutes disciplinary action by the licensing board as the laws and rules are written is collectively unlawful practice of architecture NOT just unlicensed persons who engages in practice of architecture without a license. Any person who violates the architectural laws, whether unlicensed or licensed, engages in unlawful practice of architecture which is why the fines are issued. Show me where it says you may affix your seal before you had reviewed the plans? The reason the seal is not put on at the beginning is that person hasn't reviewed it. You have a small firm you are at. 5 architects. Okay. It is not the stamp or the ink pad. When Nintendo puts their Seal of Quality on any game they published until they reviewed the game developer's submission. When UL or CE puts their label or seal on a product, it is not until after lab tests and such have been performed. The Architect's stamp/seal "and signature by the licensed architect is a certification that the architect has exercised the requisite professional judgment about and made the decisions upon all matters embodied within the documents, that the documents were prepared either by the architect or under the direct control and supervision of the architect, and that the architect accepts responsibility for the documents." (or similar wording. The quote is from ORS 671.025 but it is likewise the point in other states as well.) If it was affixed to the documents before they been prepared, how do we know the requisite professional judgments and decisions by the architect actually took place. Architects are licensed with being entrusted to actually do this at all times without failure. Are you understanding the concern here? Why does your firm affix the seal before completed and reviewed? I hope the stamp and signature is after the plans are reviewed but if they are affixed before hand, there's a big potential problem.

Ricky, see below:

"...members have a professional responsibility to ensure sufficient supervision, direction, and control in order to fulfil their duties under the Architects Act and Regulation 27 with regard to the application of the seal. Further, as an underlying implication in applying a seal, members assume responsibility for the design and/or the review of the related construction for the explicit purpose of design compliance."

https://oaa.on.ca/knowledge-and-resources/practice-advisory-knowledge-base/practice-advisory-knowledge-base-detail/RN-01-OAA-Professional-Seal-Application-Usage-

Nowhere does it say we need draconian security to the extent you try to establish.  Again, if you worked in an office setting with several people and supervising bodies, you'd understand.  Everyone else here does... I wonder why you're the odd one out?

"Sufficient" is the common adjective to the words supervision, direction, and control. 

Here: "OAA members shall ensure their digital seal remains under their control to prevent unauthorized use and to maintain trust in the digital OAA seal. Also, the OAA member must always retain exclusive control of the use of the digital seal. Authority to use one's digital seal shall not be delegated to anyone nor shall the personal security codes enabling use of the digital seal be shared." 

Read it. It shall be noted the words "digital seal" have varying scope. In the U.S., it can mean what OAA refers to as "seal image". OAA has a more narrow meaning to "digital seal" than it is used in other jurisdictions which can mean any digital computer visualized version of a stamp/seal with and without cryptographic technology used as well as digital signatures, with and without cryptographic technology used. In some sense, I was taking the most broad and liberal meaning of digital seals and signatures. Considering the OP hasn't stated the jurisdiction. Then talking across the board without specific jurisdiction.

I'm not going to put in bold the key words. There appears to be intent that licensee has control over the seal in sufficient manner that no one else does. It implies exercising the necessary steps needed to ensure this requirement is met.

OAA at least did something that is not done everywhere such as attaching cryptographic digital certificate. In this particular case, there is some authentication aspect that provides some security. U.S. is a bit all over the map.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900027

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 27, s. 41 (3).

42. For the purpose of the Act,

read from there regarding seals.

I'm choosing to not file complaint to OAA. 1. I like you enough to not cause you that headache. 2. I'm not a citizen of Canada or that province and my nexus is not present to warrant a typical legal standing in a court. 3. I've been criticized for issuing a complaint to a board in Australia regarding some bozo, and have not done such since that time. 4. Doing so may inadvertently disclose your identity. 5. I don't personally think anyone's lives were jeopardized given everyone was licensed so if there are issues, it is a technicality issue. 6. I probably caused you enough hassle then to have a licensing board orchestra up your rear that you can play the Canadian national anthem from your ass. 7. It would be a fucked up thing of me to do so. My reasoning are based on personal not legal. I'm not legally required to at this time. This does not mean someone else on the forum is that big of an asshole jerk to do it. People like that exist.

Ricky, you do realize there is no basis for complaint, right? You have zero information regarding our own office internal protocols nor do you have the slightest idea how doc are produced and reviewed here other than my casual comments. Stay out of subjects you have no business in.

"OAA members shall ensure their digital seal remains under their control to prevent unauthorized use and to maintain trust in the digital OAA seal. Also, the OAA member must always retain exclusive control of the use of the digital seal. Authority to use one's digital seal shall not be delegated to anyone nor shall the personal security codes enabling use of the digital seal be shared."

"OAA members shall ensure their digital seal remains under their control to prevent unauthorized use and to maintain trust in the digital OAA seal. Also, the OAA member must always retain exclusive control of the use of the digital seal. Authority to use one's digital seal shall not be delegated to anyone nor shall the personal security codes enabling use of the digital seal be shared."

Read it. Apply it. 

Read that above and what you wrote. 

"bonus, I am currently stamping drawings using one of our equity partner's stamp... from my non-secure home office over a remote desktop connection. Absolutely nothing with this process is a violation of anything related to our practice laws or architect act. "

Correct. No violation Ricky.

Authorized use key word.

"The crime is the fraudulent use of the stamp, not the omission of a private security detail."

Non compliance with the board by letting others use your seal and you using theirs, as well as fraudulent use of the stamp are all violation of the law. Basically  they are all crimes. 

Again, it’s more complicated than that and I don’t have the time and energy to explain it. Find a new hobby.

My reply got axed. Oh well. I’ll summarize. The digital seal noted above is its own spectate product. Don’t confuse it with the typical scanned copy of the physical seal.

Read it again. You missed something important. You are not authorized by OAA to authorize another person to use your seal or to use someone else's.

We don’t use that type of stamp in our main jurisdiction but I do have one like it for my 2nd and I am the only holder of the password. Again, it’s more complicated and I don’t have the time to educate you.

"Authority to use one's digital seal shall not be delegated to anyone..." This means you are not authorized by the OAA to have the authority to make the decision of granting someone else to use your seal nor your partner to authorize you.

Ricky, again, leave it since you’re unwilling to understand.

Okay, N.S. in Ontario, you use digital or physical stamp? If physical stamp, the rules stems back to pre computer Era, it was still exclusive control was mandated. You just don't have the code (which is an access key). In the physical stamp/seal Era, you weren't allowed to use someone else's or allow someone else to use yours.

The other jurisdiction you are referring to, we can look at that and its rules. 

To further beat this horse, the regulations you list apply to the Notarius digital seal which we do not use.

Yes, but that's the electronic seal permitted by OAA. From what I can tell, it is that or the physical stamp seal.

You're not wrong on that BUT that process of either wet stamp or secure notorius seal (great name... not so great product) has not yet been implemented. They tried to a few years ago and it was a surprise to everyone when a 3rd party came in demanding we all pay $$$$ for the ability to keep doing exactly the same thing we were already doing for decades. It did not go well so it's still "under consideration". This is not publicly available information since it's an internal thing between the organization and its members. Again, like I keep saying, it's complicated and not as simple as you make it out. The scanned version of the physical stamp has always been kosher to apply to a title block when approved by one of the members of the certificate of practice. We don't just the junior staff to copy paste seals at will...

my quebec org no longer allows digital scans of physical stamps unless attached with a unique digital lock.  I have one linked to my workstation and not even ownership group knows the password.

Okay. Okay. That would be a justifiable defense, in my opinion, for any technicality issue. You would have to consult your own legal counsel on that matter. If the system is "broken" and doesn't work, you really can't punish architects for trying to figure out something. The only stickler issue is managing the spirit of the rule where the seal is not being misused. They wouldn't want some unlicensed employee making use of your seal, for example or another architect using your seal to skate around accountability. There's the essential rule in Regulation 27.... personal supervision and control.

We could have saved a little bit of the hassle had you said that particular detail a little earlier. I can understand that. I just don't assume that kind of snafu... that it's the case.

That's right. Spirit of the rule is maintained within the management circle. Just because scanned seals are available, not all are authorized to use them. I'm not about to go ask the junior staff I supervise to apply the stamp to the title block. I will review and apply one of the office's stamps but only after I've met with one of the partners. The Notorius thing may change that process but we're not there yet.

I know, currently, the board doesn't mandate that we have to use a seal like the Notorious digital seal. We can use electronic seal - pdf, image file, etc. as long as it's legible, right size on the plans, and so forth. However, architects are expected to not seal and sign documents they haven't been overseeing, exercising responsible control and supervision. We know the letter of the law. Then we have do what it takes to achieve and comply fully. In what I know of the real world, people don't always follow the rules fully..... crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's. This is because most just doesn't get reported and some rules are unpopular.

I know, in Oregon, we have major overhaul of the text of the law which doesn't effect the exemption and there's an overhaul of the administrative rules. Changes I like pertains to some changes relating to the architectural firm registration so if I added an architect to the ownership level, I can then register the business. The architect would have to be registered in Oregon, of course. Not unusual, there. I'll be looking into it at some point.

Rick, you are literally the worst kind of person.

I wanted him to give me a good enough defense why there's the disparity in his firm's practice and the laws. He finally got a fair defense. There are jerks who will take an opportunity filing a complaint anonymously or pseudonymously. There are prices that will do that.

PS: I'm still not assuming every jurisdiction has this issue that OAA has. At this point, the argument is resolved. There's probably some legal or administrative stay on that rule at this time in that Province.

That would be a very good defense. 

You are intentionally conflating the text and meaning of regulations and their intent to arrive at a warped pre-determined conclusion. And you are threatening to make false accusations to a regulating body based on this.

Beyond that, you have a decades-long history of misrepresenting yourself as an architect, illegally. You have had run-ins with your local AHJ, which have been documented extensively on this forum. You have a history of desperately wanting to be an architect, while not being able to actually do so. And you still represent yourself as an architect in nordic countries, for some insane reason

You have never worked in this industry. You are not in this world. You live in a fantasy. Your presence is tepidly ignored here (at best), so long as you aren't trying to f*k up other people's careers. Past that line, you should be permanently removed.

Those Nordic countries don't regulate the architect title, dumbass. The use of the title 'building designer" is an awkward alternative silly way of calling oneself an architect. It would be a dumb way of saying architect because that distinction that we have in the U.S. doesn't exist there. Offering services to another country is kind of outside of Oregon's jurisdiction. The services offered there does not mean they are services offered in the U.S. or the state of Oregon.

Often the laws do not stipulate everything but laws are frequently structured around Mandatory tone. Those shall and shall not. You are expected to comply fully. That's the norm. Laws are not intended to be cherry-picked.

Your arrogance speaks volumes as to why you do not work in this industry.

Your asshole makes enough noise.

I don’t know, but I did a project outside of Buffalo that required everyone’s seal and signature to be wet vs digital. Long story short, my carryon was a set of plans that day.

Yes, I have both a rubber stamp & inkpad company seal but also the embosser seal for a company seal. It is besides the point. The argument I am having is about how firms have the seals of the architect on the server (the digital seal) and how it fails to meet the laws and rules regarding the implied requirement of the architect's exclusive control over the use of the Architect stamp/seal. The law may be a pain but you are supposed to put up with the pain and hassle. The laws and rules are not there for your convenience. It's the burden of responsibility to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare. That is the point after all. 

You chose to accept the burden when you become licensed. You chose it when you chose to be in this profession. You chose to accept the burden and responsibility of abiding to the laws when you pledged your allegiance to the flag (U.S. citizens) or other like or similar acts in Canada or any other country. When you pledge your allegiance, to the flag, you pledged it to the republic (country) for which the flag is the symbol or icon of. You chose your loyalty and allegiance and the responsibilities and duties of citizenship, its allegiance, and everything that goes with it for the privilege of what your country does for you including defending your way of life from those who would take your way of life away and your very life away. The cruel world we live in, the burdens of life in this world. That's the damn world we live in. Right? 

So, what's one small little act of diligence to protect the health, safety, and welfare compare to what your country men and women do for you to even suck air, and have a life. Do your responsibility under law. Is it really that hard? Protect your fellow citizens from negligence, fraud, etc. Controlling the stamp/seal is one of the most minimal and basic of your responsibilities. 

I agree that there should be other changes in the laws, rules, and policies/procedures. Like building departments doing more verification and such that has been suggested but that's something to be addressed at the city and state level.

To circle back to the OP, the OP placing his or her stamp/seal on the server can expose him to failure of his/her duty of ensuring his/her stamp or seal is not affixed to plans prepared or under his/her control and supervision. The OP has a duty to ensure the stamp/seal is not misused in this fashion.

Don't you have a duty and obligation as a member of this forum to be polite, respectful, and considerate of other members by not posting walls of text ad nauseum and there by making a thread incoherent?

Yes or no? Just a one word answer please.

Arch2, the duty and obligation to be polite, respectful, and considerate applies to all members. The length of a response is not explicitly stated. If there was, there would be a character count for posts and comments if that is what the forum owner wanted it that badly. Being polite and respectful, however, is expected of you to do even with regards to people you don't like. 

You guys talk shit about others on Thread Central and places. The forum has unequal application of its rules. It is a clique culture here. I'll spare the litany of examples. You can just as well leave a person alone but decided you have to antagonize. 

Some of what I wrote are rhetorical questions for effect and you to internally ponder about not to actually respond to. What is being polite, respectful, and considerate? Sounds like a dumb question but what is entailed and what is the scope of the meaning of those words are not dumb to know.

So when someone disagrees with you you respond by intentionally flooding the thread with shit to get even.

The digital equivalent of shouting down

Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?

Good point taz. Might be worth it for me to do more of that which you suggested.

"So when someone disagrees with you you respond by intentionally flooding the thread with shit to get even." 

Perhaps there is a fair complaint about that. Perhaps too verbose. I could just leave you with this:

or this:

thread emeritus

Only after 10 years

In internet years that's probably like 10 days.

You also have to be at least 65. :(

you can be anything you want

We can - you can't JLC-1. ;)

Now excuse me - I have to figure out a stair design in a historic courthouse.  :: sarcastic glamor::  

Yep... one of the main reasons I rarely visit or post anymore. I mean why bother sharing actual experience from 30+ years of practice and legal support? This forum has it's own resident non-licensed expert to tell us 'how it is'..

why not

"You also have to be at least 65. :( "

But if I call myself 65 and make a stamp that says "Bench is 65" then it must be true?

Ooooo, good point Bench! Combine that with the NFT thing and you'd rule the world!

Stamps verify anything and everything. Just make sure to secure it so someone else can't verify my age of 65.

I thought you were in your early 80's Bench!?! Wait, maybe that was when you were born. What was I talking about? GET OFF MY LAWN! ;)

Somebody bring me a cloud so that I can shake my fist at it.

^because moisture control is a bitch already hear on the ground... can't imagine it's any easier 2000m up.

I thought we were talking about the cloud, not a cloud. I'm so confused. Can I just yell at both of them?  Where is my lead holder?  

Jawknee chimed in with a suggestion to design in the clouds. Don't know it was nuked, maybe there were followups I missed.

I think Jawk got a time out after responding to some comments in the RTU thread. Don't know if it's permanent or not.  

Damn, missed that one.

I just called Jawk out on his usual bs and said that he only tried to answer questions of new female users who don't know about his history. I told him that if he keeps posting like that I'll call him out every time I see it.

This misuse case was very recent. But instead of blatent theft it sounds like the architect "retired" and accepted payments from the developer for continued use of his credentials.

New York ‘Architect’ Says He Never Saw Plans for 642 Feet Tall Building - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

^ ^ Actually i think Gw is referring to a different case altogether ... but the one you linked was also the first one i thought of as well. Hard to ignore it when the cranes have been stuck in place for over a year now!

correct - different case. straight up theft in that one - the main point was identity theft on this shit is real. and every bit as much as a pain to resolve even though you've done nothing wrong.

Yeah, my example was a fraudulent use case, but the bigger picture is the fraud was brought to light by NYT journalists and not the DOB. I haven't read any follow up on DOB or state board actions.

Great idea. Not sure why I didn't think of that, thanks