2.1 An architect shall not accept compensation in connection
with services from more than one party on a project
(and never in connection with specifying or endorsing
materials or equipment) unless the circumstances are
fully disclosed to and agreed to (such disclosure and
agreement to be in writing) by all interested parties.

2.2 If an architect has any business association or direct or
indirect financial interest which is substantial enough to
influence his/her judgment in connection with the performance
of professional services, the architect shall fully
disclose in writing to his/her client or employer the
nature of the business association or financial interest,
and if the client or employer objects to such association
or financial interest, the architect will either terminate
such association or interest or offer to give up the
commission or employment.

2.3 An architect shall not solicit or accept compensation
from material or equipment suppliers in connection with
specifying or endorsing their products. As used herein,
“compensation” shall not mean customary and reasonable
business hospitality, entertainment, or product education.

2.4 When acting as the interpreter of building contract
documents and the judge of contract performance, an
architect shall render decisions impartially, favoring
neither party to the contract.

1.1 In practicing architecture, an architect’s primary duty is to
protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. In discharging
this duty, an architect shall act with reasonable care and
competence, and shall apply the technical knowledge and
skill which is ordinarily applied by architects of good
standing, practicing in the same locality.

1.2 In designing a project, an architect shall take into account
all applicable state and municipal building laws and
regulations. While an architect may rely on the advice
of other professionals (e.g., attorneys, engineers, and other
qualified persons) as to the intent and meaning of such
regulations, once having obtained such advice, an architect
shall not knowingly design a project in violation of such
laws and regulations.

1.3 An architect shall undertake to perform professional
services only when he/she, together with those whom
the architect may engage as consultants, is qualified by
education, training, and experience in the specific technical
areas involved.

1.4 No person shall be permitted to practice architecture if,
in the board’s judgment, such person’s professional
competence is substantially impaired by physical or
mental disabilities.

Architects are governed by licensing laws and jurisdictions. To provide uniform requirements for licensing, the National Council of
Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) has established Model Law and Model Regulations for state legislatures to adopt and
registration boards to enforce. In addition to these laws, NCARB also publishes Rules of Conduct, which is recommended rules for
licensing boards. As explained in NCARB’s monograph Professional Conduct (www.ncarb.org/publications/pdpmonographs.html):
“The Rules of Conduct are, like criminal laws, standards for minimum acceptable conduct…. If practitioners decide to conduct their business according to higher standards, so much the better. Most architects can fairly easily meet most of the Rules of Conduct by acting on a common sense understanding of right and wrong…”
The NCARB Rules of Conduct define specific practices expected of licensed architects. These are practices that protect the public;
they are written to be enforced by state boards, which are charged with the responsibility to guard the health, safety, and welfare
of the public. As might be expected, a violation of the Rules of Conduct that has legal consequences also constitutes a violation of
professional ethical conduct. In all cases, legal jurisdiction takes precedence over ethical concerns.

Rules that govern an individual’s personal and professional life may
be classified into four general and overlapping categories: laws,
morals, ethics, and etiquette. These are social contracts that have
developed over time and have become rules that members of society
have agreed to live by. Laws are rules that are absolute and enforceable by established governing agencies. Morals are disapproved behavior; they are not codified or endorsed as law. Etiquette or good manners are suggested conduct, usually applied in social settings.

A definition of ethics requires a distinction of the differences
between these categories. What is the basis for their justification?
What is society’s obligation to observe them? How will they be
enforced? What is the appropriate jurisdiction of each?

Legal statutes are based on commonly accepted business practices
and legal precedents established between individuals or legal entities. The rights of individuals are protected by universal acceptance of this legal arrangement. Legal responsibilities and contractual obligations are outlined in contracts and described through specific legislation. Correct behavior is commonly agreed upon through established norms. The process for determining penalties and consequences of violations is pre-established. Laws also reflect contemporary social beliefs and the established morality of the times. In contrast to today’s laws that reflect contemporary social standards and norms, in Colonial New England there were harsh penalties for smoking tobacco, cursing, lying playing cards, and selling guns or boats to Native Americans.

Morals and etiquette are not as widely accepted, developed,
defined, and applied as laws. Morals and etiquette are not usually
codified and enforced. While many laws reflect universally
accepted morals and the implications of such morals, many morals
such as lying and deceit are not generally legislated. Violation of
these moral decrees may not be prohibited by law, however, society
still disapproves. Etiquette is more subjective and less universally
defined. Desired behavior may be categorized as etiquette or simply
good manners. Behavior is not mandatory; disregard of etiquette
generally assumes no severe consequences.

Ethical conduct falls somewhere between legal and moral obligations
and general guidelines of good behavior. In early English
scholarship, the terms morals and ethics were treated as synonymous,
as they often are today. Over time, ethics was defined as the study of morality or a system of moral precepts. Ethics hastraditionally been divided into three subject areas: metaethics,
normative ethics, and applied ethics. The term metaethics describes
the search for universal truths, the role of reason in making ethical
judgments and the definition of ethical terms. Normative ethics
refers to the more practical and pragmatic study of ethics.
Normative ethics defines moral standards used to determine and
regulate behavior. Applied ethics engages truth, reason, moral standards, and acceptable behavior to address specific dilemmas. These issues may relate to environmental concerns, capital punishment, gun control, animal rights, or nuclear war. Applied ethics attempts to resolve disputed issues by applying the issues explored in metaethics and normative ethics.

In current vernacular, ethics is a set of commonly held rules established by a unique group such as a church, a profession, a corporation, or a legislative body. It may be argued that ethics and morals are inherent to nature, and that humans are genetically wired or even spiritually bestowed with a predisposition for right or wrong. This is debatable, however, it is generally believed that humans have an ability to differentiate between right and wrong and have the free will to make that choice. Defining what is right and wrong necessitates a discussion of ethics and morality.

Some ethical issues lack moral certainty or elude legal definition. Ethical dilemmas present issues that have competing, but equally
compelling values. Ethics also defines fairness in a given situation
or attempts to describe a balance between opposing views. For
example, individuals may be faced with circumstances in which
speaking the truth conflicts with maintaining a confidence
entrusted to them. An architect may find that an obligation to a
client’s needs is at odds with the needs of the general public or the
needs of a local jurisdiction. These situations may represent mutually
viable positions and are not necessarily differentiated by right
and wrong.

In some situations, certain ethical standards may take precedence
over others. For instance, life safety issues are usually seen as more
important than a client’s dictates. A commitment to the environment
may hold sway over personal issues. In the legal world, and
arguably in the moral world, the definition of right and wrong,
correct and incorrect, good and evil is well established. Ethical
dilemmas are not so easily defined; they require a definition of
conduct, or an ethical code.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the
opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of NCARB or serve as official policy of NCARB.

Today’s headlines are filled with stories about athletes using performance-enhancing drugs, business leaders engaging in insider trading, and government officials under indictment. While
celebrities and politicians may make front-page news, ethical misconduct is not limited to public figures. Lack of moral direction is endemic throughout society.
The fact that the media reports the aberration, not the norm, presents a skewed perspective. Most people live moral and ethical lives, most of the time.
Architects often view the profession, their fellow practitioners, and even themselves as somehow immune from temptation, istraction, or misbehavior. Traditionally, professions such as architecture are very highly respected. The public expects architects to exemplify the highest ethical values.
However, architects are relentlessly confronted with conflicting values, incompatible loyalties, and subtle temptations from a variety of sources. Within every project, decisions must be made about the quality of materials versus budget constraints, owner-prescribed requirements versus building codes, or client confidentiality versus legal disclosure. Often the resolution of conflicts does not require a decision about right and wrong, it requires action to resolve situations in which competing
principles may be correct, but contradictory.

Author:
Phillip H. Gerou, FAIA, NCARB

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL
RULES OF CONDUCT:
DISTINCTION AND CLARIFICATION

5.1 Each office engaged in the practice of architecture shall have
an architect resident and regularly employed in that office.
5.2 An architect may sign and seal technical submissions only
if the technical submissions were: (i) prepared by the
architect; (ii) prepared by persons under the architect’s
responsible control; (iii) prepared by another architect
registered in the same jurisdiction if the signing and sealing
architect has reviewed the other architect’s work and
either has coordinated the preparation of the work or
has integrated the work into his/her own technical submissions;
or (iv) prepared by another architect registered
in any United States jurisdiction and holding the certification
issued by the National Council of Architectural
Registration Board if (a) the signing and sealing architect
has reviewed the other architect’s work and has integrated
the work into his/her own technical submissions
and (b) the other architect’s technical submissions are
prototypical building documents. An architect may also
sign and seal drawings, specifications, or other work which
is not required by law to be prepared by an architect if the
architect has reviewed such work and has integrated it into
his/her own technical submissions. “Responsible control”
shall be that amount of control over and detailed professional
knowledge of the content of technical submissions
during their preparation as is ordinarily exercised by architects
applying the required professional standard of care.
Reviewing, or reviewing and correcting, technical submissions
after they have been prepared by others does not
constitute the exercise of responsible control because the
reviewer has neither control over nor detailed knowledge
of the content of such submissions throughout their preparation.
Any registered architect signing or sealing technical
submissions not prepared by that architect but prepared
under the architect’s responsible control by persons not
regularly employed in the office where the architect is resident,
shall maintain and make available to the board upon
request for at least five years following such signing and
sealing, adequate and complete records demonstrating the
nature and extent of the architect’s control over and
detailed knowledge of such technical submissions throughout
their preparation. Any registered architect signing or
sealing technical submissions integrating the work of
another architect into the registered architect’s own
work as permitted under clauses (iii) or (iv) above shall
maintain and make available to the board upon request
for at least five years following such signing and sealing,
adequate and complete records demonstrating the nature
and extent of the registered architect’s review of and
integration of the work of such other architect’s work
into his/her own technical submissions, and that such
review and integration met the required professional
standard of care.
5.3 An architect shall neither offer nor make any gifts, other
than gifts of nominal value (including, for example, reasonable
entertainment and hospitality), with the intent of
influencing the judgment of an existing or prospective
client in connection with a project in which the architect
is interested.
5.4 An architect shall not engage in conduct involving fraud
or wanton disregard of the rights of others.
5.5 An architect shall not make misleading, deceptive, or falsestatements or claims.

4.1 An architect shall not, in the conduct of his/her architectural
practice, knowingly violate any state or federal criminal law.

4.2 An architect shall neither offer nor make any payment or
gift to a government official (whether elected or appointed)
with the intent of influencing the official’s judgment in connection
with a prospective or existing project in which the architect is interested.

4.3 An architect shall comply with the registration laws and
regulations governing his/her professional practice in any
United States jurisdiction. An architect may be subject to
disciplinary action if, based on grounds substantially similar
to those which lead to disciplinary action in this jurisdiction,
the architect is disciplined in any other United States jurisdiction.

4.4 An employer engaged in the practice of architecture shall
not have been found by a court or an administrative tribunal
to have violated any applicable federal or state law
protecting the rights of persons working for the employer
with respect to fair labor standards or with respect to
maintaining a workplace free of discrimination. [States may
choose instead to make specific reference to the “Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended” and the
“Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, as
amended” and to state laws of similar scope.] For purposes
of this rule, any registered architect employed by a
firm engaged in the practice of architecture who is in
charge of the firm’s architectural practice, either alone or
with other architects, shall be deemed to have violated
this rule if the firm has violated this rule.

3.4 An architect shall not deliberately make a false statement
or fail deliberately to disclose accurately and completely a
material fact requested in connection with his/her application
for registration or renewal or otherwise lawfully
requested by the board.
3.5 An architect shall not assist the application for registration
of a person known by the architect to be unqualified
in respect to education, training, experience, or character.
3.6 An architect possessing knowledge of a violation of these
rules by another architect shall report such knowledge to
the board.

The development of the AIA’s Code of Ethics and Professional
Conduct demonstrates the variety of issues addressed in the ethical
arena as well as the dynamic interrelationship between ethics and
business practices. The AIA established the first architectural
ethical code in 1909. In light of today’s practices, some of the
original prohibitions seem outdated:
 Design-build
 Paid advertising
 Fee-based competition
 Uncompensated design competitions
These restrictions were derived from common business practices,
not necessarily from widely accepted moral principles. In 1947
the AIA issued Document No. 330, Standards of Professional
Practice, which did not materially change the prohibitions of the
1909 code. The 1947 document also defined the Responsibilities
of the Profession, Advisory by outlining the aspirations and goals of
the profession.
In 1972, the issue of competition was addressed, not by the
architectural profession, but by the United States Department of
Justice requiring architects to comply with the 1890 Sherman
Antitrust Act. Compliance mandated that architects be allowed to
compete on the basis of fees. The AIA’s prohibition of competition
constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Design-build was approved as an acceptable contract form for AIA
members in 1978. The following year, a federal court ruled that
enforcement of the supplanting rule constituted a violation of
federal antitrust laws. In 1977, an architect’s AIA membership was
suspended for violating the supplanting rule of the Code of Ethics.
Even though the ethical violation was not disputed, the court
ruled in favor of the architect on legal grounds and awarded
substantial monetary damages. Rulings by the court and Justice
Department led to the reconsideration and an internal
examination of the AIA’s Code of Ethics.

Ethical codes are based on the core values of an institution or
profession. Core values may be derived from moral codes, secular
beliefs, social conventions, traditional philosophies, or even
religious doctrine. Although ethical standards find their common
foundation in these virtues, each individual code adopts the traditions
and business practices that are exclusive to that institution.
An ethical code for architects will describe the issues and practices
that are unique to the architecture profession. It will be distinctly
different from codes adopted by legislators, doctors, or priests.
Ethical codes must define the core values and business practices that
assist in daily decisions and help guide professional judgment. For
architects, these core values include obligations to legal statutes as
well as obligations to colleagues, clients, and even the environment.
Although ethical codes may clearly define these imperatives,
occasionally judgment by an impartial moderator may be
necessary. In these instances, boards or councils are convened to
interpret the established code, to render decisions based on the
facts of the case, and to impose penalties when necessary.
In the United States, there are two commonly accepted standards
of conduct for architects. In 1977 the National Council ofConduct for adoption by individual Member Boards. The Rules of
Conduct are derived from the Council’s mission to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of the public. Architects are legally
bound to this responsibility by the licensure laws in each jurisdiction.
NCARB’s Rules of Conduct have been adopted, with modifications,
by a number of NCARB Member Boards as part of
licensing regulations. Licensed architects practicing in jurisdictions
that have adopted these rules are legally obligated to comply with
their prescriptions. These are legal statutes. As such they are not
defined as ethical standards, although they are necessarily included,
specifically or by inference, within the authority of ethical canons.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has also established a
definition of ethics for architects in the Code of Ethics and
Professional Conduct. This code not only addresses public health,
safety, and welfare issues, but also includes rules that deal with
professional interactions and aspirations, as well as mandatory
rules of conduct. AIA members are held accountable for a wide
range of issues, from seeking aesthetic excellence to respecting the
environment. Although this code applies only to AIA members, it
has the potential to benefit every licensed architect.

3.1 An architect, making public statements on architectural
questions, shall disclose when he/she is being compensated
for making such statement or when he/she has an
economic interest in the issue.

3.2 An architect shall accurately represent to a prospective or
existing client or employer his/her qualifications, capabilities,
experience, and the scope of his/her responsibility in
connection with work for which he/she is claiming credit.

3.3 If, in the course of his/her work on a project, an architect
becomes aware of a decision taken by his/her employer
or client, against the architect’s advice, which violates
applicable state or municipal building laws and regulations
and which will, in the architect’s judgment, materially and
adversely affect the safety to the public of the finished
project, the architect shall

(i) report the decision to the local building inspector
or other public official charged with the enforcement
of the applicable state or municipal building
laws and regulations,

(ii) refuse to consent to the decision, and

(iii) in circumstances where the architect reasonably
believes that other such decisions will be taken
notwithstanding his/her objection, terminate
his/herservices with reference to the project unless
the architect is able to cause the matter to be
resolved by other means.

In the case of a termination in accordance with Clause
(iii), the architect shall have no liability to his/her client or
employer on account of such termination. [Continued on
page 36.]