The community college had sued architectural and design firm Burt Hill Inc., now known as Stantec Architecture and Engineering LLC, for using unlicensed architects with no higher-education project experience and interns from Drexel University after being promised services from "senior-level" professionals [...]
Additionally, the community college claimed Burt Hill caused delays in the project and upped the final price of construction by over 50 percent from $28 million to $42 million.
— thelegalintelligencer.com
13 Comments
Um, hello: "unlicensed" architects? No such thing.
'twould be nice if the keyboard warriors behind the curtain of the fourth estate could be sued for misrepresentation as well.
Feigning ignorance might be a good excuse if architecture wasn't, ostensibly, the purview of this particular website.
Nice to see the judgement against the firms was substantial, too. Nicer if it'd been quadruple the amount.
actually, yes they were using unlicensed architects...an unlicensed person doing yhe work of an architect is an unlicensed architect by basic logic....which is how just about every project is delivered in the US...Maybe a union wont be necessary after all...better start making that tilte thing more accesible...LOL I love when shitty systems fail...
an architect has a license. if you don't have a license, you're not an architect.
someday, maybe you'll get the wording of the current regulations changed. for the time being though, the term 'architect' is not a reference to how good you are, or how good you think you are. real-life is pretty mundane, as is the title 'architect.'
Now that they will give any shmuck who pays for school a license, should this be the end of such lawsuits?
"No your Honour, those are not interns... they are Architects! even-though they have yet to receive their diploma. Totally qualified for this work, this case should be thrown out."
But I'm sure some senior level dude flipped through the drawing set at the last minute before he stamped them, which is the standard of care and not unusual at all. Surprising they won, that is a sizeable chunk of money. Maybe that firm should call their interns "senior interns" to AVOID any future confusion (tongue in cheek.)
when firms have a few licensed architects and dozens of designers and interns doing the work of "architects" which is pretty much the standard business model, then Its no surprise that the courts will rule in favor of the client in such a matter. The client paid for x and got y. If the legal distinction betweem x and y was less defined and more informal, then the differene between x and y would not be so easy to pin point, and the case would have probably got thrown out. If you have "interns" on payroll running a project..even if they have 10+ years experience you are damn right that client will deem the work as incompetent. Titles play a big role. Would you want someone learning on your dime?
The case should have been thrown out though because as tintt said, the firm didnt really do anything outside of normal standard practice (according to the article anyway.) it seems they shot them self in the foot with the wording in their contract..Is that standard language?
I worked on a project once where the civil+MEP engineers *sucked so badly* at everything they did and were really holding back the design progress. It turned out they were subcontracting their design work to a nominal 'drafting company' who were wholly incapable of doing it. It was wasting our time and making us look bad. And after several harsh talks it was clear they weren't going to give up on outsourcing. We ended up having the owner fire them.
So I'm cautiously glad to see the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Architects get a lot of unfair blame for things outside their control. But one thing we can control is who performs the work we take on. Reputation is pretty much all a firm has got - don't sell it off.
They only have the case if the firm knowingly deceived the clients. Otherwise, there is no legislation against using "unlicensed architect". And there is no legal definition what "senior-level" means. (We've all gotten bad haircuts from "senior stylist", only to find that it is the lowest level under "advanced", "director" and "creative director".)
In the end, they sue because it was more expensive than expected. It is a problem that can't be solved. No one knows what is a fair price for architectural services prior to project completion especially in case of ad hoc projects. Projects take so long that commodity prices and exchange rate can push everything over the top. Plus many clients would try to pay as little as possible. They would often go with the lowest bid firm with false promises. What do they expect?
Um, hello: "unlicensed" architects? No such thing.
Um, hello. There is such a thing. They are architect in countries or U.S. territories that do not have architectural licensing laws.
However, the term is a misuse under the legal context.
when firms have a few licensed architects and dozens of designers and interns doing the work of "architects" which is pretty much the standard business model, then Its no surprise that the courts will rule in favor of the client in such a matter. The client paid for x and got y. If the legal distinction betweem x and y was less defined and more informal, then the differene between x and y would not be so easy to pin point, and the case would have probably got thrown out. If you have "interns" on payroll running a project..even if they have 10+ years experience you are damn right that client will deem the work as incompetent. Titles play a big role. Would you want someone learning on your dime?
Don't promise that the work will be prepared by senior staff. Promise that it will be prepared under the responsible supervision, direction and control by senior staff. There's a difference in what the saying says. Be more careful about how you promise things in a contract is the key.
Had more care been taken in going over the wording of the contract, this would not have occured. Wording in contracts makes a big difference. All firms have employees working for them and the only way someone is going to learn and gain experience is that they get in the pool and do the work. Keeping them out of the pool isn't going to provide experience development opportunities for these people.
Law firms have paralegals and law students and fresh graduates from law school who have not passed the BAR exams yet.
total balkins bate......whatever, society can not afford real fees and now they can sue for getting what they paid for.....win win for lawyers
Sounds like total bullshit, Olaf.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.