Ethics in Architectural Practice

As with any learned or licensed profession, ethics are essential to architectural practice. First, architects must meet their legal obligations: the laws and codes that protect the general public, and the standard of care that governs their professional services. After that, there are many decisions an architect has to make that don’t always have a clear answer. This is where the profession’s ethical standards come in. By adhering to these principles over a career, architects can build a reputation for professionalism, competence, and integrity, while designing safe, healthy, and sustainable buildings for generations to come.

Who We Serve – and in What Order

An architect’s obligations are not balanced. The state grants architects the right to practice in exchange for protecting the public, which is why public safety comes first. Next is our contractual obligation to our clients. Then come our ethical obligations to colleagues, firm, and finally, ourselves.

Most of the time, the various needs overlap and everyone is happy. Unfortunately, there are times when an architect needs to make a decision in the best interest of the public, which could create a short-term hardship for the client or firm. Over the course of a career, serving these interests in this order (however painful in the moment) tends to serve you well.

WHO WE SERVE
1. The public: the law demands that our duty to the health, safety, and welfare of the public (including building occupants) overrides our client’s instructions.

2. Our clients: honest, competent service, including advising them on environmental impact and on occupant needs.

3. Our colleagues and firm

4. Ourselves

When you have to make a tough decision – and you will – you can use this hierarchy to evaluate your decision. Start by fulfilling legal requirements and let your integrity govern the non-legal issues.

State Licensure and NCARB – The Legal Side

In the United States, each state issues professional licenses to architects. As part of the initial licensure and subsequent renewal processes, architects make a legal representation of their credentials and agree to uphold the standards of the profession. While the specifics in each state vary, it is common for architects to confirm:

• completion of mandated continuing education to stay up to date on evolving practices in the profession
• that they will protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public
• any claims, court cases, or judgments against them

National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB)

NCARB is the nonprofit organization that ensures collaboration among the many state licensing boards in the United States. It developed these Model Rules of Conduct “to ensure the expected professional and ethical conduct of architects found in law remains focused on the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public.”

The following rules are a model for US architectural licensing boards to adopt, but your jurisdiction’s board may have adopted a different version, so be sure to understand what you are bound to follow.

Rule 1 – Competence covers the primary requirements of the profession: protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public; following applicable laws; and only doing work that you are qualified for.

Rule 2 – Conflict of Interest requires architects to avoid situations where their professional judgment could be influenced by money, relationships, gifts, or any other reason. In some cases, a conflict of interest is acceptable if all parties agree to the conditions in writing.

Rule 3 – Full Disclosure requires forthright honesty. Architects should be truthful and should never misrepresent their credentials or participation in projects. There is also a rule that requires architects to report licensing violations, plus a rule that requires reporting decisions that are illegal and that put the public in danger.

Rule 4 – Compliance with Laws is self-explanatory. Architects shall follow the laws of the United States and local jurisdictions, shall not assist clients in illegal conduct, and shall not attempt to influence public officials with gifts or other payments.

Rule 5 – Signing and Sealing Documents advises that architects should only sign or seal documents that they prepared or that were prepared under their “responsible control.”

Rule 6 – Further Obligations to the Profession and the Public says that architects who supervise licensure candidates must help them document their experience properly.

Professional Standard of Care

Architecture is a licensed profession. As such, architects are expected to perform their duties in accordance with the ordinary care of a reasonably prudent architect under similar circumstances. This is referred to as the standard of care.

The key phrase is “under similar circumstances.” The standard of care is the same for every architect, but the circumstances are not. A hospital in Los Angeles carries seismic risks, code requirements, and consequences of failure that a single-story house in Cleveland does not, so a reasonably prudent architect on that project would do considerably more to address them.

For architects, meeting the standard of care requires knowing the codes, risks, and practices that apply to each project, and recognizing when a circumstance calls for expertise beyond your own. This helps ensure that you meet your obligations to your clients and, more importantly, the general public.

From a legal standpoint, the standard of care is the baseline requirement of professional practice. The various ethical standards go beyond the legal minimum.

AIA Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct

The AIA Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct provides guidelines for AIA member architects to follow in fulfilling their professional obligations. It is arranged in three tiers of statements: Canons, Ethical Standards, and Rules of Conduct. The Canons are broad principles of conduct that define the ethical responsibilities of architects to the environment, society, clients, colleagues, and the profession. The Ethical Standards are more specific goals, within each canon, that an architect should aspire to. Rules of Conduct are mandatory requirements that regulate the conduct of architects in fulfilling their professional responsibilities.

The AIA Code of Ethics has a long history, dating back to the early days of the organization in the mid-19th century. The first version of the Code was adopted in 1909, and it has been revised and updated many times over the years to reflect changing ethical standards and professional practices. For instance, the AIA adopted a revised Code of Ethics in 2007 that included a new canon related to environmental stewardship. Further updates were made in 2026.

While the Code of Ethics only applies to members of the AIA, it is worth adhering to even if you are not a member or a licensed architect. Everyone involved in designing and constructing buildings will benefit from following the principles laid out in the Code.

Canon I: General Obligations

The General Obligations canon covers several overall principles touching on the general aspects of the profession. Architects should work with reasonable care, protect human rights, and respect both cultural heritage and the history of the building professions. This canon also includes rules that explicitly forbid architects from harassing or discriminating against others, or from designing spaces intended for execution, torture, or indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement.

Canon II: Obligations to the Public

Canon II requires architects to always act lawfully and to not counsel or assist a client’s fraudulent or illegal conduct. In addition, architects should volunteer and otherwise be involved in their community. Finally, architects should act in the public’s interest on environmental equity and justice. Specific rules prevent bribery and fraud, require disclosure of payments for endorsements, and require architects to report client decisions that are illegal and negatively affect the health, safety, or welfare of the general public.

Canon III: Obligations to the Client

This canon requires architects to act professionally and competently for their clients, part of which includes hiring expert consultants for areas where the architect may have limited knowledge. Architects must avoid or disclose conflicts of interest, always remain truthful, and protect the confidentiality of their clients.

Canon IV: Obligations to the Profession

Canon IV requires architects to uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession. They must also make reasonable efforts to ensure that people they supervise do the same. This includes reporting violations by other AIA members to the AIA National Ethics Council.

Canon V: Obligations to Colleagues

AIA members shall respect their colleagues and acknowledge their contributions to projects. They should also contribute to, and assist in, the growth of less experienced colleagues to help the profession continue advancing. Firms shall also help develop their employees, and employees shall act professionally toward the firm.

Canon VI: Obligations to the Environment

Canon VI was added in 2007 and covers an architect’s obligations to the environment. It asks AIA members to promote sustainability and responsible energy use.

Violations of the AIA Code of Ethics

Violations can be reported to the AIA National Ethics Council, which will investigate the complaint. Penalties include admonition, censure, membership suspension, or even termination from the AIA.

Codes of Ethics for Other Architecture and Design Organizations

The American Society of Interior Designers: Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct

Most of our readers are in the United States, but we also have readers in other countries around the world. Each of those countries has a professional organization for architects. The following links will take you to the code of ethics for some of these groups.

Royal Institute of British Architects: Professional Standards

Royal Architectural Institute of Canada: Professional Conduct and Ethics

International Union of Architects: Recommended International Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice Policy on Ethics and Conduct

When Interests Collide

Here are some hypothetical examples of ethical dilemmas that an architect may face. The correct action may seem obvious as you read them, but consider the pressure you may be under to sidestep your ethical obligations. Keep in mind that these are only examples and do not constitute advice on how to handle specific conflicts.

During construction administration for a large retail project, you discover an error with the egress path design. The project is already over budget and under intense schedule pressure. Fixing the mistake requires changing the door hardware and orientation, which will be costly for the client and may delay the project. You try to justify ignoring the problem by telling yourself that the building is fully sprinklered, so a disaster is unlikely. You’ll have to pay the team to revise the drawings and may face a claim. However, your obligation to the general public outweighs the client’s budget, the project schedule, and your firm’s bottom line. Notifying your client and the contractor (and potentially your insurance carrier if the mistake may lead to a claim) of the error and following proper construction administration processes to issue corrections is the best way forward.

A talented colleague pursuing licensure has always struggled with test anxiety. The exams are expensive, he has a toddler, and his wife is expecting their second child in a few weeks. He needs to pass this final ARE division to become licensed, but the test anxiety is crippling. Given his talent and knowledge, you could rationalize that it is inevitable that he will eventually pass the exams. How much would it hurt to tell him about some of the questions you had when you recently took the exam? Your obligation to the public and then the profession, through the ARE Candidate Agreement, outweighs your colleague’s need for assistance. However, you can advocate for your firm to assist him by providing paid time off to study or free study materials.

Case Studies

There are many well-known case studies that describe how design issues were addressed or how they could have been addressed more ethically. You can review the AIA National Ethics Council Decisions to get a sense of how things have gone wrong.

These cases demonstrate how professionals handled (or failed to handle) conflicts between their obligations.

William LeMessurier and the Citicorp Center

This case is a striking illustration of ethics in structural engineering that may have affected the welfare of the general public. LeMessurier discovered a design flaw in the Citicorp Center tower that made it vulnerable to strong winds, potentially leading to a catastrophic failure. Instead of avoiding the issue, LeMessurier worked tirelessly to rectify the problem, collaborating with the building’s owners and city officials. He emphasized public safety over reputation and financial considerations. However, the repairs were carried out at night and were not publicized – very few people knew the situation until many years later. This case explores the line between client confidentiality and public transparency, while underscoring the importance of professional integrity and the ethical duty of design professionals to protect human lives and well-being above all else.

The Grenfell Tower Fire in London

Although not solely an architectural issue, the Grenfell Tower fire raised ethical concerns about the choice of building materials, construction practices, and regulatory review. The use of flammable cladding and insulation in the renovation of the tower was seen as a breach of safety and ethical standards, ultimately leading to a devastating fire and 72 fatalities. The Inquiry found the architect, Studio E, held a significant portion of responsibility and fell below the standard of a competent architect, alongside serious failings by manufacturers, the contractor, consultants, and regulators.

The Frank Gehry MIT Stata Center Controversy

Renowned architect Frank Gehry’s Stata Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) faced numerous problems after completion. The building had leaks (leading to mold issues), cracks, and other problems that MIT attributed to design and construction failures. This led to MIT suing Gehry Partners and the contractor. The suit was settled in 2010 with no finding of fault. Still, some critics argued that Gehry prioritized his artistic vision over practical functionality, raising questions about the ethical balance between architectural innovation and the practical needs of the building’s occupants and owner.

United States v. American Institute of Architects (1972)

Prior to 1972, the AIA Code of Ethics (called the Standards of Ethical Practice at the time) prohibited members from submitting competitive bids for their services, treating price competition as an ethical violation. The US Department of Justice argued that a rule that prevented architects from competing on price was an antitrust violation. In 1972, the AIA entered into a consent decree with the Department of Justice and removed the prohibition from its code.

It is important to note that no individual architect was named as a defendant in the case. Rather, the DOJ claimed the rule was anticompetitive in and of itself. It shows that a code of ethics can serve the profession’s interests while claiming to serve the public’s. Ethical rules deserve the same scrutiny as any other decision an architect makes.

Evolving Ethics and Long-Term Thinking

Ethical behavior, in any profession, is an evolving topic. Our understanding of ethics in architecture is complex and constantly changing as new ways of practicing the profession continue to develop. It is important that we routinely evaluate our systems so that we can serve the public, our clients, and ourselves in a manner that is consistent with societal expectations.

Every architect will face moments when the ethical choice creates a short-term burden for themselves or their clients. In my experience, it is important to remain strong because those moments are rarely rewarded on the project when they happen. The decisions that hurt most in the moment, such as walking away from a client or eating the cost of a mistake, are the ones I’m most glad I made. Ethical decisions are rewarded over the decades of a career, in the clients who come back, the consultants who want to work with you, and the reputation that follows you into every completed project.

Help make Archtoolbox better for everyone. If you found an error or out of date information in this article (even if it is just a minor typo), please let us know.