The Title on the Door: Holding Out, Fronting and the Registered Architect
You are a director of Wan & Leung Architects Limited, the authorised person (AP) and lead consultant for a 22-storey composite office tower in Cheung Sha Wan. While recruiting, you find the LinkedIn profile of a former architectural technician, Mr Chan, who left eight months ago. It reads 'Architect | Project Lead - RIBA Part 2 equivalent'. Chan now works for 'Chan & Co Architects Studio Limited', a company registered at the Companies Registry, which advertises 'full architectural services'. Your client mentions that Chan's company has submitted alteration and addition plans for a restaurant fit-out in your building. The plans are signed by a registered architect, Mr Yip, who charges a flat fee per submission; site records show he has never visited the site. Your fellow director, Mr Wan, says: 'Chan drew our plans for years and he may send work our way. Don't make trouble.' Your own technician has started signing emails 'Architectural Designer (Architect)'.
1. Identify the potential breaches of the Architects Registration Ordinance (Cap. 408) and the Code of Professional Conduct disclosed by these facts, and state which party bears which exposure.
Read the worked answer
Framework. Cap. 408 protects the titles 'architect' and 'registered architect'. The Board's disciplinary jurisdiction is over registered architects, but the Ordinance creates offences for unregistered holding out.
Mr Chan. Describing himself as 'Architect | Project Lead' is a holding out. The test is what a reasonable reader would understand, not his subjective intention, and 'RIBA Part 2 equivalent' does not cure it. He may lawfully prepare drawings under the supervision of a registered architect, but he must use a title that makes his unregistered status clear, such as architectural technician or assistant. Exposure: an offence under Cap. 408, and a further problem if he signs or certifies anything as an architect.
Chan & Co Architects Studio Limited. The corporate name is itself a representation, and 'full architectural services' compounds it. If the company does not provide those services through a registered architect, the representation is misleading. The statutory restriction on corporate use of the title should be checked against the current Ordinance and Board guidance before deciding whether a complaint is warranted.
Mr Yip. This is the more serious issue. Signing plans he did not prepare, on a fee-per-submission basis, breaches the Code's requirement that an architect must not sign or certify work he has not adequately supervised or checked. He is also at risk of aiding unregistered practice.
Your practice. Mr Wan's 'don't make trouble' is not a defence. Complicity - allowing the firm's name, staff or registered status to support Chan's holding out - is itself misconduct. You are not obliged to police the market, but you must not participate in it.
2. Draft the substance of the written advice you would give Mr Wan on what the practice must and must not do, explaining the risk to the firm.
Read the worked answer
1. Internal titles and communications. No unregistered employee may use 'Architect' in email signatures, name cards, LinkedIn profiles or fee proposals. Standardise titles (Architectural Assistant, Technician, Project Coordinator) and issue a short written policy that staff acknowledge. This is the cheapest protection available.
2. Supervision and signing. Every drawing, specification and certificate leaving the office must be prepared or checked by a registered architect who can demonstrate the check. Introduce a signing register so that the practice can show, months later, who checked what and when.
3. No fronting. The practice must not lend its name or a registered architect's signature to another entity's submissions, whether for a fee or as a favour. Signature-only services for a share of the fee are a classic route to a disciplinary finding, and they also void the assumption that the practice controlled the design.
4. Distance from Chan. Do not endorse him. If he uses your practice's name or claims an association, write requiring it to stop and keep a copy. Whether to complain to the Board is a judgement call; a complaint is not mandatory, but continuing to tolerate known holding out that benefits your firm is indefensible.
5. Record the instruction. Answer Mr Wan's oral suggestion in writing, politely, so the practice's position is documented. If he insists, escalate to the board; if the board agrees with him, you have a personal decision to make.
Why it matters. The risk is not only discipline. Insurers ask about scope and supervision, the practice's ability to be named AP on future submissions depends on its record, and in a small market reputational damage travels faster than any sanction.
3. The client proposes that your practice 'co-sign' the fit-out submissions prepared by Chan's company for a fee, so that the submission can proceed quickly. Analyse whether the practice can do this and what you would offer instead.
Read the worked answer
Refuse the arrangement as proposed. A signature is evidence that the signer has done the work or controlled it. If Chan's staff prepare the drawings and your practice merely adds a signature, the practice is (a) aiding unregistered practice, (b) certifying work it did not control, and (c) accepting liability for defects it had no opportunity to prevent, with no realistic recovery from Chan's company.
There is no such thing as a harmless co-signature. The AP's statutory function depends on the AP actually directing and checking the design. A signature given for a fee, without that control, misrepresents the position to the Building Authority and to the client.
What could work. The client appoints your practice as AP/consultant on a normal fee. Your staff take over design development and checking. Chan's company is engaged by the client as a drafting resource working under your direction, with its staff described as technicians. Your quality assurance and signing procedures apply to all output. The fee must reflect the work actually done, not the signature.
Practical handling. Put the refusal in writing with the reason, and offer the restructured route in the same letter so the client has a way forward. If the client insists on the original arrangement, decline the instruction. A client who wants a signature rather than a service is a client whose project will end badly, and the practice will be the one named when it does.