Why the hell would a residential client want the copyright of the building? Do they even understand the limitations of architectural copyrights? I assume this is a modernist house, because there's not much that's copyrightable in a traditional house (unless it looks like a boot or possibly a duck). I would be curious as to what owning of the copyright means in their minds.

Release of the liability would almost be implied. Try to get some money out of this 'service'. Unless you think you've come up with some earth shattering way of organizing spaces that has never been done before, think of this as an additional source of income.

*copyright of this post belongs to rusty!

bruceprice: our firm will routinely issue our clients a "non-exclusive license" to use the design solely for the purpose for which we were hired. We do not transfer the copyright to the client.

I suspect your client's attorney may be trying to hoodwink you by stating that "architects have willingly transferred the copyright to the client" -- more than likely, he's actually referring to the concept of providing non-exclusive licenses, which is fairly common.

Your client cannot compel you to transfer the copyright -- don't do it unless you have a darn good reason to do so. As rusty states above, I quesion what value, if any, your client would gain from having the copyright. 

It probably would be a good idea for you to consult your own attorney -- pick one well versed in the issues surrounding architectural contracts. If you don't know one, ask your E&O insurer -- they'll be happy to refer one to you.

Good luck

perhaps they have an idea they can use copyright to ensure that you do not put photos and plans on your website nor publish images in magazines....? 

not that that would work, but...what other possible reasin could they have for the request.  very strange.  seems intuitively a bad idea to give it away in any case.  if they want it you should ask them to pay....

bruce, the lawyer is yanking you around, maybe at the client's request, maybe just because lawyers are greedy.
Typical architectural services contracts allow the Owner a "one-time license" to use YOUR design.  That's it.  You always hold the copyright.  Even now, without having the little C in a circle or filing for it, once the drawings are published - in this case, as drawings used for your contract with the client - you automatically own the copyright.  If the clients sell the house, they lose that license: they can sell the object (house) not the idea (design).

If they are concerned about you selling their "custom" design to some other client later in your career, you can put language in the contract that says you won't do so.  But *do not* give them copyright - that means they can rebuild your design over and over and over and make money on it cutting you completely out.

I suggest you contact a lawyer of your own, as quizzical recommends.  At the very least, get a copy of the AIA contract for residential work - it costs like 25 bucks - and read the language regarding copyright.  The book I use to teach my ProPractice class also covers architectural copyright very well: The Architecture Student's Handbook of Professional Practice.
That lawyer is full of crap.

I would suspect that they are deciding to move.  I have had several clients over the past few years that have decided to move and wanted to be able to sell their houses  with the the plans for an addition/renovation.  In their minds, they paid a great deal of money for these plans and want to monetize this.  Your insurance carrier probably has a bunch of literature about the problems with this (ie copyright issues - you know that if you go thru with this, that the client now owns the intellectual property to your details, right?  So that foundation waterproofing, or eave detail is now their property...not good).  We have had this situation a couple of times, the most successful being that we were able to "sell" our drawings to the new owner for $25K as long as they signed an agreement that was iron clad in terms of liability to us and that they only owned a one time license to use our drawings for that particular property.

I have a lot more info on this, but don't want to write such a long post.  Good luck.

Bruce says "full use" in his original post.  Something is fishy.  Maybe like Donna says they plan to rebuild the design multiple times.  Lawyer = professional liar.  The request coming from a lawyer has rightfully set your radar off.

Has the client paid you in full for the project as of to date?  It might be a sticking issue for getting that final payment.  It might be the full reason this whole thing is going on.  Lawyers love this kind of situation. 

Regardless of whatever that lawyer said he'd have a damn hard time proving in a court of law that your insturments of service are actually the clients property unless somehow your contract said they were.  There's not an architect alive that willfully gives up their copyright unless they're paid for it or have otherwise excellent reasons to do so.