Several chapters of the AIA in California, including AIA California and AIA Los Angeles, have published an open letter to the California Architects Board (CAB) in opposition to proposed changes in how licensed architects in the state must advertise their license number. California Code of Regulations 135 (CCR 135) would require licensed architects to include their license number on “all forms of advertisement presented to the public in connection with an offer to provide architectural services.”
According to CAB, the new regulations are designed to raise public awareness of the difference between unlicensed and licensed architectural services by requiring architects to display their licensure numbers in advertising.
The open letter in opposition to CCR 135 sets out four areas of concern on behalf of the AIA chapters. The first takes aim at the initial estimate by CAB that “licensees needing to update existing marketing materials (i.e. business cards, letterhead, contracts, forms etc.) may incur one-time set-up printing costs of up to $100.” According to the open letter, the AIA chapters have been informed by members that such costs will be significantly higher, including the redesign of business cards for non-licensed staff.
In response, a defense of CCR 135 published by CAB ahead of a December 9th board meeting states that the regulation will not become effective until July 1, 2023, providing firms with more time to comply. “An attractive stamp with an architect’s name and license number could be designed and used to bring older printed materials into compliance if they are employed after July 1, 2023,” the CAB response reads. “While larger firms and individuals and firms with a multi-state practice may face greater challenges to comply with the regulation, they are also better situated to absorb such costs.”
The second concern expressed by the AIA California letter reads that “CCR 135 attempts to protect consumers from unlicensed architects by solely placing a new requirement on licensed architects, subject to disciplinary action and fined for failure to follow the proposed advertising regulation.” The letter instead notes that the focus on CAB should be on stopping the illegal advertising of architectural services by unlicensed architects instead of placing a greater onus on licensed architects.
In response to such concerns, CAB has stated that “the enforcement unit of the Board will work with architects to educate them about the impact of the regulation and there will be sufficient time for architects to revise their advertising materials to bring them into compliance with the regulation.”
The open letter’s third concern surrounds a “lack of clarity” within the regulations on when and where architects must include their license number. “Some forms of advertising clearly fall within the scope of CCR 135, such as business cards and letterhead,” the letter reads. “However, there is a lack of clarity of how this applies to other forms of ‘advertisement.’ For example, would all emails from an architect’s work email have to include the architect’s license number, or all social media posts about a project have to include a license number?”
In response to similar complaints, CAB’s latest agenda notes read that “as modified, the regulation has been narrowed to only require including an architect’s license number on advertisements that offer to provide architectural services.” This will exclude “an architect’s personal online profile, comments not soliciting business that an architect posts to a website or chat room, sponsorship of community events, posting of the name of the architect and builder at a jobsite, and other such communications that do not constitute an advertisement offering to provide architectural services.”
However, CAB notes that “architects participating on social media platforms that connect individuals so they may offer their professional services should be required to include their license number.” CAB continues by noting that “all online websites and portals on which an architect has an online presence will need to be individually evaluated to determine if an architect having an online presence on such a website or web portal is advertising or offering architectural services.”
“If a member of the public can locate an architect on a website by searching for architectural services, having an online presence on the website would constitute an offer to provide architectural services,” CAB adds. “The crucial consideration is whether the architect listed on that website is essentially an advertisement by which they can offer their architectural services.”
The AIA California’s final concern explains that CCR 135 could encourage the illegal use of a license number. “As we have seen with general contractors, those who illegally offer and provide contractor services routinely use false contractor license numbers, either a number that is randomly generated or one that is stolen from a licensed contractor.” The letter expresses a concern that widespread advertising of license numbers could invite the same illegal actions for architectural services.
In response to such concerns, CAB notes that architect license numbers are already public information and that “the Board does not believe adoption of the proposed regulations will significantly increase the fraudulent misuse of architects’ license numbers.” Noting that “many architects” already include license numbers in advertising, the board states they have not observed an increase in fraudulent license number use as a result.
If passed, the regulations are currently scheduled to come into effect on July 1st 2023.
9 Comments
California architects, quit whining. Construction Contractors have to do that as well in many states like Oregon & Washington, and I think also in California. Hiding your license number in advertisements isn't going to protect you from someone making a fake stamp seal and impersonating you. They can search the CAB database and get all the info they need to get a stamp made. Having your license number listed on business cards, yellowpages ads, and vehicles where your business logo is presented is presenting to the public that you are licensed. Quit whining guys. I'd recommend that also is required of engineers and other licensed professions. It will also make it easier for clients to verify that you are licensed especially if there are multiple architects with the same name (because of common first, middle, and last names are used), so they can be certain you are in fact licensed and in good standing even before contacting you. If construction contractors have to, why not other licensed professionals in the AEC.
There are also a lot more contractors out there than Architects. Publishing the architects' license number isn't going to stop anyone from fraudulently making a stamp to deceive or use a random number. Additionally, using a random generated number is easy to verify as false and is unreliable because all it takes is a few moments of a person's time to check and verify.
Please keep in mind that AIA California chapter et al excuses are weak. While publishing the license # in advertisements makes it easier for people to identify architects who are licensed and those who are not, the same way it is to verify a contractor's license. It won't merely make a difference in impersonating someone who is licensed. Contractors had started requiring their licenses displayed in ads and such since before public internet in places. The very public database itself of the licensees listed are the mechanisms used by finding names of architects and their license to impersonate with a fake stamp.
However, requiring the license to be published does more service for the public and perhaps also the architects themselves because when they look for an architect, it would enable them to verify the architects' licenses even before calling the architects. As a marketing tool, it would hurt the unlicensed designers a little bit more than it would architects.
Naturally, the word 'Architect' is the most likely term a person would cognitively think of when searching for who a person who designs buildings because it is a more publicly recognized term.... even for projects that do not require an architect to design. You should consider it a means to more clearly convey that you are licensed by the fact of a license number that any prospective client can search and verify.
People who impersonate as an architect are going to easily search for names on the licensing board and can then make a stamp to falsely impersonate. That isn't going to change in any way. Severe consequences would be a better tool for deterring.
The listing of a license in advertisements, websites, etc. is akin to having a badge on display on a uniform letting people know you are a police officer.
Architects in California would be more accepting of this if there was any effort at all put towards actually enforcing the unlicensed practice laws and backing them with meaningful penalties. Forget proactive enforcement (which Nevada does) - in California few complaints are even investigated due to "lack of resources". And on top of that, in the rare case where they do pursue the unlicensed "architect" the maximum penalty is if one is found guilty is only $2,000, which is just about what it costs between exams, registration fees and NCARB to get licensed. It's not a disincentive if the penalties for pretending to be an architect are less than the cost of becoming one...
I would think it depends on the violation. I agree that impersonating an architect would amount to forgery and impersonating another person and be charged under criminal charges in court. In addition to prison time, court judges can impose penalties as a judge beyond that of the architect board. Use the criminal charges and courts for stuff like that. I agree the board penalty should be higher given the nature of the crime is a step up in severity than merely misusing the architect title but I think penalties maximums should be increased up to $20,000 base charge plus $250 per day. Impersonation would have a $1,000 fine per day (instead of $250 a day) the person was engaged in fraudulent impersonation from earliest date until discontinuance plus judicial penalties that can include prison time and permanent injunction as part of court order. Violation would be contempt of court. Facts of the case can justify penalties from light penalties to more severe. That is how it should be.
If someone is practicing what constitutes practice of architecture, without a license, I believe the penalties should range from current minimum up to $20,000 + ($1000 per day) depending on the facts of the case. I believe unlicensed designers legally practicing their profession while complying with the law should not be harmed or affected. If they follow the law, no foul... no harm.
I agree that the board needs to do better enforcement. Although I'm a building designer, not a licensed architect, I believe both professions can coexist. I believe it is important for the professions to abide by the laws as they are adopted/amended/etc. We can do our collective best to educate the public and emerging professionals. I think penalties need to serve its purpose to deter future violations of the law. Some need stronger penalties than others given the facts of each case.
Why hide anything?
Perfect logo..... must be on the title block. (lol)
Perhaps the CAB should pro-actively regulate and sanction individuals who improperly (and illegally?), misappropriate the designation "Architect" when used in their job or role description. Specifically, all of the so-called "software architects", "data platform architects", et. al. What are their license numbers and how did they obtain the right to use the "Architect" designation?
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.