Hi. This dilemma has often arisen and I'd like some advice on how to proceed. We often have clients who want works carried out that, for instance, don't have planning permission, or who want to construct more than they have permission to. In such cases, as long as we tell them of the unlawfulness and the consequences, can we carry out services connected to the unlawfuthe work? Thanks.
chigurh
Apr 19, 17 2:58 pm
no. read the rules for your state board - I'm sure there is a clause on performing illegal work and that it is grounds for disciplinary action. You would be an idiot to do it.
Duncan Gunn
Apr 20, 17 1:05 pm
This is UK law and so the works are not "illegal" but "unlawful", which are subtly different.
chigurh
Apr 20, 17 3:46 pm
Bollocks!
Duncan Gunn
Apr 20, 17 3:47 pm
Very erudite. This forum is awful. I was really hoping for some professional advice.
s=r*(theta)
Apr 19, 17 4:48 pm
"We often have clients" who are you working with, the gambino family!! think about this; if they are telling you they plan to defraud someone, what make's you think they will be loyal to you?
Duncan Gunn
Apr 20, 17 1:06 pm
There's no defrauding!
archietechie
Apr 19, 17 5:08 pm
Tl'dr: No.
Things go south, your license is on the line...not the clients'.
tduds
Apr 19, 17 5:20 pm
Even if you could, why would you?
b3tadine[sutures]
Apr 19, 17 5:29 pm
Would your client's name be John Barron by any chance?
jcarch
Apr 19, 17 6:08 pm
We have clients talk about minor post-inspection enhancements, like "I'm going to turn the space above that closet ceiling into a play loft for my kids." We tell that that this is illegal (it would put them over the allowable FAR, etc.), won't draw anything up related to the item, and tell them that what they do after we're gone is up to them.
We recently fired a client - a first - because, while when he hired us he talked about creating small mezzanines into the double height lofts we were designing for him after work was done, by the end of SD he was basically planning to insert two whole new floors in the building, turning each loft into a duplex. That illegal work was having a very adverse impact on the design of the legal work, and to me, even if I could say I had nothing to do with it, the possibility of some future issue (fire, structural issues) was WAY to risky.
geezertect
Apr 20, 17 7:32 am
by the end of SD he was basically planning to insert two whole new floors in the building, turning each loft into a duplex.
Nice trick. The guy is Houdini if he could pull off something like that. Or maybe he's just the biggest bullshitter alive.
Either way, sleazy clients like that should be avoided like a very lethal virus, which they are.
jcarch
Apr 20, 17 12:04 pm
That's why we fired him...and it felt great to do it.
Chuck71
Apr 20, 17 12:43 pm
Unlike the other posts, I think there are a couple of aspects to this.
Firstly, the question of ethics. If you are being engaged as an Architect, it is because someone wants an Architect for their project. Being a professional means doing more than just working for your client for money, it means you are a member of a profession that is doing work in the community (obviously for a client and for money) but with some wider view on what professionalism means. You wouldn't for example be OK with designing a structure you knew was defective, because your client said that was OK if at some point in the future it happened to collapse.
So the question with ethics, in a jury of your peers, is working for this client, and accepting instructions from them of the kind you are getting, acceptable behaviour for your firm?
Legally though, there are different questions, and from a couple of different angles.
No doubt you could cover yourself (somewhat) by a series of disclaimers. I think that would work, if say you were simply doing design work, that would lead to an actual project that happens. If it hasn't happened, then no harm and no foul, if it does and you have disclaimers, then your clients risk.
There are plenty of projects around the world drawn up as puff pieces that have no real chance of being built.
This view would still work, if you were clear with your client in doing documentation, that this was not able to be constructed unless permissions were in place. I don't see any problem here, though this may be unethical if you were doing design work that had no chance of being built at all because it was dangerous, violated fire codes etc.
That would be completely unacceptable conduct for any professional, and if you do something like that, you should be struck off, and without question.
Unlikely to be built is of course but still otherwise legal, if permissions are granted is one thing. If you client wants to ignore clear written warnings that 4 stories is unlikely but 3 fine, but they accept the risk and you get that in writing? OK, work is work.
But designing a 20 storey project where it will never happen, well why are you wasting your time and skills on this?
Where it becomes a real problem though, is if you do this, and your client calls for quotes, you process those, and then you work as their Architect on the site through the construction. That is inducing others to behave in what may be an illegal manner.
Now, your client could say "I'll indemnify you". Except of course, there is no indemnity against criminal conduct, as others have said in "aiding and abetting". Other parties should perhaps be responsible for their own conduct, but they they may not be experienced enough, and instead be relying on you as an Architect as a guide to what is legal, or not.
I had something similar a few years ago, where a client wanted to do something illegal, and was telling our contractor he would be indemnified if there was a problem. Sitting at the table in the same meeting, I had to disagree with the clients and his project managers view and make it clear the contractor would be doing something illegal, and likely to be prosecuted for it. The Client wasn't happy with me, but I was right, and what could he do about it? Not fire me, he'd have to fire my boss, whose interests I was also protecting.
Designing for this work though, that was something else, as on the drawings I could clearly state "subject to receipt of planning permission". No conflict at all there, as this is a simple statement of fact, and not at all misleading, as long as I don't mislead anyone else that permission actually exists when it doesn't.
There is of course, another scenario, where you design a project that has no chance of being built, and you client does this because it wants to fraudulently sell units off the plan in advance, based on your drawings and your name. If you know this is going to happen, or suspect it will, then in engaging with this client you are participating in activity that is likely to be subject to criminal sanction, and you could be the one in front of a judge. Run a mile from anything like this.
So I think you need to ask questions of your firm, its client, and where you are going with this project, and understand the 'shades of grey' that come with this subject.
It's a potentially complex subject, though I think that if you are already worried about it, there is already a problem for you to deal with, with ethics if nothing else.
Chuck71
Apr 20, 17 12:57 pm
I should also like to add, you are an ARB registered Architect.
Is the work you are considering doing compatible with this?
Are you at risk of being struck off for unacceptable professional conduct, given one of ARB's remits is to maintain the reputation of Architects.
You should also check with your indemnity insurer, as they have a stake in this, and you should not be putting them at risk.
Hi. This dilemma has often arisen and I'd like some advice on how to proceed. We often have clients who want works carried out that, for instance, don't have planning permission, or who want to construct more than they have permission to. In such cases, as long as we tell them of the unlawfulness and the consequences, can we carry out services connected to the unlawfuthe work? Thanks.
no. read the rules for your state board - I'm sure there is a clause on performing illegal work and that it is grounds for disciplinary action. You would be an idiot to do it.
This is UK law and so the works are not "illegal" but "unlawful", which are subtly different.
Bollocks!
Very erudite. This forum is awful. I was really hoping for some professional advice.
"We often have clients" who are you working with, the gambino family!! think about this; if they are telling you they plan to defraud someone, what make's you think they will be loyal to you?
There's no defrauding!
Tl'dr: No.
Things go south, your license is on the line...not the clients'.
Even if you could, why would you?
Would your client's name be John Barron by any chance?
We have clients talk about minor post-inspection enhancements, like "I'm going to turn the space above that closet ceiling into a play loft for my kids." We tell that that this is illegal (it would put them over the allowable FAR, etc.), won't draw anything up related to the item, and tell them that what they do after we're gone is up to them.
We recently fired a client - a first - because, while when he hired us he talked about creating small mezzanines into the double height lofts we were designing for him after work was done, by the end of SD he was basically planning to insert two whole new floors in the building, turning each loft into a duplex. That illegal work was having a very adverse impact on the design of the legal work, and to me, even if I could say I had nothing to do with it, the possibility of some future issue (fire, structural issues) was WAY to risky.
by the end of SD he was basically planning to insert two whole new floors in the building, turning each loft into a duplex.
Nice trick. The guy is Houdini if he could pull off something like that. Or maybe he's just the biggest bullshitter alive.
Either way, sleazy clients like that should be avoided like a very lethal virus, which they are.
That's why we fired him...and it felt great to do it.
Unlike the other posts, I think there are a couple of aspects to this.
Firstly, the question of ethics. If you are being engaged as an Architect, it is because someone wants an Architect for their project. Being a professional means doing more than just working for your client for money, it means you are a member of a profession that is doing work in the community (obviously for a client and for money) but with some wider view on what professionalism means. You wouldn't for example be OK with designing a structure you knew was defective, because your client said that was OK if at some point in the future it happened to collapse.
So the question with ethics, in a jury of your peers, is working for this client, and accepting instructions from them of the kind you are getting, acceptable behaviour for your firm?
Legally though, there are different questions, and from a couple of different angles.
No doubt you could cover yourself (somewhat) by a series of disclaimers. I think that would work, if say you were simply doing design work, that would lead to an actual project that happens. If it hasn't happened, then no harm and no foul, if it does and you have disclaimers, then your clients risk.
There are plenty of projects around the world drawn up as puff pieces that have no real chance of being built.
This view would still work, if you were clear with your client in doing documentation, that this was not able to be constructed unless permissions were in place. I don't see any problem here, though this may be unethical if you were doing design work that had no chance of being built at all because it was dangerous, violated fire codes etc.
That would be completely unacceptable conduct for any professional, and if you do something like that, you should be struck off, and without question.
Unlikely to be built is of course but still otherwise legal, if permissions are granted is one thing. If you client wants to ignore clear written warnings that 4 stories is unlikely but 3 fine, but they accept the risk and you get that in writing? OK, work is work.
But designing a 20 storey project where it will never happen, well why are you wasting your time and skills on this?
Where it becomes a real problem though, is if you do this, and your client calls for quotes, you process those, and then you work as their Architect on the site through the construction. That is inducing others to behave in what may be an illegal manner.
Now, your client could say "I'll indemnify you". Except of course, there is no indemnity against criminal conduct, as others have said in "aiding and abetting". Other parties should perhaps be responsible for their own conduct, but they they may not be experienced enough, and instead be relying on you as an Architect as a guide to what is legal, or not.
I had something similar a few years ago, where a client wanted to do something illegal, and was telling our contractor he would be indemnified if there was a problem. Sitting at the table in the same meeting, I had to disagree with the clients and his project managers view and make it clear the contractor would be doing something illegal, and likely to be prosecuted for it. The Client wasn't happy with me, but I was right, and what could he do about it? Not fire me, he'd have to fire my boss, whose interests I was also protecting.
Designing for this work though, that was something else, as on the drawings I could clearly state "subject to receipt of planning permission". No conflict at all there, as this is a simple statement of fact, and not at all misleading, as long as I don't mislead anyone else that permission actually exists when it doesn't.
There is of course, another scenario, where you design a project that has no chance of being built, and you client does this because it wants to fraudulently sell units off the plan in advance, based on your drawings and your name. If you know this is going to happen, or suspect it will, then in engaging with this client you are participating in activity that is likely to be subject to criminal sanction, and you could be the one in front of a judge. Run a mile from anything like this.
So I think you need to ask questions of your firm, its client, and where you are going with this project, and understand the 'shades of grey' that come with this subject.
It's a potentially complex subject, though I think that if you are already worried about it, there is already a problem for you to deal with, with ethics if nothing else.
I should also like to add, you are an ARB registered Architect.
Is the work you are considering doing compatible with this?
Are you at risk of being struck off for unacceptable professional conduct, given one of ARB's remits is to maintain the reputation of Architects.
You should also check with your indemnity insurer, as they have a stake in this, and you should not be putting them at risk.
They will likely be able to give good advice.