it would be a great idea if you want to be a lawyer. do you want to be a lawyer???

No but it was thought that a fully qualified architect with a construction law degree might be extremely attractive to larger architecture practices. Would it not also put you in good stead for setting up your own practice if you knew the ins and outs of the legal side of the construction industry. My boss seems to think it could only be a beneficial thing as its not something that most architects know an awefull lot about. Would it not put you one step ahead of the game?

I think most architects know what to do and what not to do - getting enough fee and managing it properly to do the right thing is another question. Perhaps a business management degree would be more beneficial if the goal is to cover your collective butts/be more appealing.

I wonder about the legal implications of having an attorney in-house. Wouldn't the standard of care be implicitly higher? Seems like it might have the potential to bite one in the arse.

Lots of people think this sounds like a good idea, but it can be tough to find a niche. I'd suggest you talk to some attorneys and see what they have to say about it. Also try to seek out an in-house attorney in a large firm and ask a lot of questions.
If your intent is to work in an architecture firm setting then you're still going to have to decide what role you want: architect or attorney? Only the very largest of architecture firms have their own in-house attorneys. If, on the other hand, your intent is to work as an architect, then the law background could be helpful but unless you're planning to start your own firm immediately you'll still have to put in the early, low-paying underling years.


It's a long road, education-wise. Even the shortest route would take about 8 years of study, removing all of those as potential earning years. Then, when you finally get into the job market, if you want to get licensed as an architect you'd still presumably have to put in the low-paying intern time, putting you another few years behind where your law classmates will be financially.

There was a guy in a firm where I worked who had that combo of degress. He was in his early 30s, had spent 10 years combined in college, M.Arch, and law programs, and was really frustrated in his role as a 2nd-year architecture intern. It had been made clear when he took the job that the firm considered him an intern, and wasn't looking for a lawyer. He agreed to that saying that's just what he needed to satisfy his IDP requirements. But often when annoyed he'd say things to the effect of "I don't have to be doing this. My law classmates are making 3 times as much and have offices and secretaries, while I'm drawing window jambs on a desk made out of an old door." So consider whether, after law school, you'll still be in a mindset to want to go through the intern years.

On the other hand, that guy eventually left without ever getting licensed as an architect and opted for a law firm job (presumably with high salary and a secretary) but didn't sound a whole lot happier later. Apparently the architecture background actually tended to arouse suspicion that he was biased toward architects and the construction industry and he felt it was difficult to convince employers and clients that this background was a benefit.

I think if you're willing to sacrifice the setbacks in your earning years/potential AND you are very clear about what kind of role/job you want and have path planned to get there then it could be an excellent combination. But it's a tricky one.

I'm a license architect in California, been working for about 7 years and have my own small firm. I considered going back to school for a law degree, partly because we do have to deal with a lot of legal aspects of the business here and it interests me. However, I would only do it if you're actually interested in practicing law. Architecture firms want to hire attorneys who specialize in the field, and being an architect with some construction law knowledge but not much practical experience won't help you much in terms of getting a job (unless it's for a small firm who doesn't want to pay for their legal help but wants to do it on the cheap by using you, which doesn't sound like a good position to put yourself in).
My brother and his wife are both attorneys, so I know what they do in detail - it's a lot of research and paperwork... and I decided that I would be too frustrated creatively with that kind of job, as I think most architects would be. I think it'd be more beneficial to continue with your architecture career and maybe take some law classes on the side, if you're interested. That will give you a good starting point when dealing with attorneys if you have to, and probably look just as interesting to employers on a resume as having an actual law degree.

work in the field for ten years and then get the law degree. cuz frankly just having a degree, law or architecture really doesnt mean that much. enjoy those mold class action suits!!!

I second the suggestion to get a business degree. I've considered it myself. Architects are one of the few groups of professionals that (presumably) enjoy what they do to the point they are willing to loose money doing it. I'm lucky enough to work for a firm that is very open with employees about it's business practices and what it takes to keep the doors open. Without that I don't know where I'd be in understanding the business of architecture.

I remember mentioning this before on this site but having a law degree is by no means necessary at all for architecture, you take up all you need to know by taking a single construction law course in architecture school as there isn't that much to learn, construction law is just another aspect of the construction management side of things. Like others have said, if you want to learn construction law to get a degree out of it do it because you want to be a construction lawyer.

Frit, and like who are the other groups ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all law under one degree, and only after you graduate, article and pass the bar do you specialize in different fields of law: family, corporate, real estate.... by then you'd be considered a full fledged lawyer and would have to abide by acts of the legal profession? - Meaning that you'd charge the recommended hourly billings, maintian your professional standing, abide by your professional act, dispense legal advice only under certain conditions and pay for all the necessary malpractice insurance. If so, then it'll be a long road. And if you can avoid the pitfalls Aluminate's coworker fell to then by all means. However, depending on your location, some architectural associations that govern the profession won't allow you to practice law/dispense legal advice unless you are a lawyer that has been fully retained for the job. There are a lot of fine lines to consider in order to satisfy your profession and your individual insurances.

Domestic is right, construction law is just an aspect. You need to learn about building envelope systems, construction scheduling, management, and much more. Taking construction management courses with attention to construction law would seem to be a better advantage than a full law degree. You could also choose to work at companies where you'll learn such things on the job - contractor, field ops, etc. (and more appealing to have a balance of practical experience)

nevermore,

I dunno. I tend to avoid making authoratative statments like "We are the only profession who does X" because I'm usually wrong. I bet there are a few lawyers out there (like the Southern Poverty Law Center) who enjoy the work regardless of the paycheck, but that's not really the same thing. It's not like they are undercutting each other to land that client who can't pay the bill anyway. And if a doctor is willing to do your apendectomy for free because, by god, he just likes cutting into people . . . well, that's just creepy.