91视频

Back in 2023, with little fanfare, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 224: long overdue legislation that modernized the regulation of the practice of architecture in the state. Though the changes have been in effect for well over a year now, very little has been written about the changes or their implications. It鈥檚 time for a little catch-up.

Changes to the law were developed by the Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners 鈥� the regulatory body for architects in Oregon 鈥� based on stakeholder sessions and research done primarily at the administrative level. The legislative history itself turns out to be minimal but does indicate that the changes arose from National Council of Architectural Registration Board鈥檚 Model Law and by statutes that govern architecture in other jurisdictions.

The changes are too numerous to cover in this article, but the highlights include changes to the definition of the practice of architecture; a new definition and application of an architect鈥檚 鈥渞esponsible control;鈥� new provisions governing architectural firm ownership, naming, and liability; use of the title 鈥渁rchitect;鈥� retention of project files; and allowing out-of-state architects to now offer service in Oregon contingent on later registration.

The first major update is to the definition of the practice of architecture itself 鈥� something that cannot be done without being properly registered in the state. The new definition now provides in full: 鈥淧ractice of architecture鈥� means engaging in the art and science of designing, in whole 鈥巓r in part, buildings and the space within and appurtenant to buildings and providing related 鈥巗ervices that include, but are not limited to, planning, developing design concepts, preparing 鈥巘echnical submissions and other documents that define a building鈥檚 form and function, 鈥巆oordinating construction work and the work of other consultants and providing construction 鈥巔hase services.鈥�

New to the definition is the reference to the 鈥渁rt and science鈥� of design. Importantly, it is not just the art, but both art and science, thus distinguishing the practice of architecture, which requires registration, from preliminary design analysis often undertaken by laypersons or employees of non-architect developers in the early stages of project development.

The legislation also added a new definition for 鈥渞esponsible control,鈥� which 鈥渕eans a degree of control over an operation that is consistent with the scope of a registered architect鈥檚 professional knowledge and the application of a registered architect鈥檚 professional standard of care.鈥� Responsible control ties into the duties of an architect to oversee the design work the architect stamps, local oversight of a foreign architect, new document retention requirements, and the practice of architecture by an architectural 鈥渇irm,鈥� which is a business entity like a corporation or limited liability company that can only provide services through an owner or employee who is a registered architect and has responsible control over the services. The responsible control over the services by a registered architect of an architectural firm replaces the previous requirement that two-thirds of the board or owners of the firm be registered architects or engineers.

SB 224 does clarify whether an architect retains personal liability for professional errors even if the architect performed services through an architectural firm 鈥� regardless of how that firm is formed, be it a professional corporation, a standard business corporation, or other type of entity. The law now provides that a 鈥渟hareholder, director, member, officer, employee or agent of an architectural firm may be held personally liable for negligent or wrongful acts or misconduct committed by the shareholder, director, member, officer, employee or agent, or by a person under the direct supervision and control of the shareholder, director, member, officer, employee or agent, while rendering professional service on behalf of the architectural firm to a person receiving the service the same as though the service were being rendered by an individual.鈥�

Another newly defined term is 鈥渢echnical submissions,鈥� which means those documents 鈥巗tamped by a registered architect and submitted to a permitting authority. Not only do such 鈥巇ocuments require a stamp, but the stamping architect now has an express duty to retain them, as well as any documents that demonstrate responsible control, for 10 years from completion of the project.鈥�

The bill has liberalized the ability of out-of-state or 鈥渇oreign architects鈥� to offer architectural services in Oregon without first registering or receiving special permission, as long as the offer discloses that the foreign architect is not yet registered and cannot perform the actual services until becoming registered. Also liberalized is the use of the 鈥渁rchitect鈥� title itself. Where the prior law purported to outright ban the use of the title 鈥渁rchitect鈥� by anyone who was not registered, the new law 鈥� recognizing the free speech limitations on banning specific words 鈥� simply prohibits assuming or using 鈥渁 title, form of address or other designation 鈥� that indicates 鈥� that the individual is an architect or that the individual or business entity engages in the practice of architecture.鈥�

Finally, the law has updated the use of the old medieval term 鈥渃lerk of the works鈥� to allow an unregistered employee of a registered architect to undertake tasks such as drafting and site observations, as long as the employee is 鈥渁cting under the registered architect鈥檚 instruction, control or supervision鈥� and does not purport to be an actual architect.

There are many nuances to the new law and other facets that have not been considered or may even conflict with prior court decisions. If presented with a question about how the new law may impact your profession or a project, it is always best to consult an attorney experienced in these areas who is up to date on the changes.

Bill Ohle is a Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt shareholder. Contact him at 503-796-2414 or [email protected].

This column is intended to provide readers with general information and not legal advice. Consult professional counsel for help regarding specific situations.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.