The National Ethics Council (NEC) has ruled that Duncan T. Todd, AIA, violated Rules 4.101 and 4.201 of the Institute’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Code of Ethics), as those provisions read before the Code’s revision in 1997:

Rule 4.101 Members shall comply with the registration laws and regulations governing their professional practice.

Rule 4.201 Members shall not make misleading, deceptive, or false statements or claims about their professional qualifications, experience, or performance.

The NEC found no violation by Todd of Rule 4.202, which before 1997 required AIA members to “make reasonable efforts to ensure that those over whom they have supervisory authority conform their conduct to this Code.”

The case against Todd was initiated with the NEC in 1996, but held in abeyance pending proceedings by the California Board of Architectural Examiners (CBAE). In 1999, the CBAE concluded that Todd had violated California law by holding himself out to the public as an architect without being licensed in California. In doing so, the CBAE found that Todd had become the principal of a California firm in January 1993, but had not become licensed in California until March 1994. In the meantime, the following events occurred:
• In March 1993, in a statement of qualifications for work at various U.S. Army installations, Todd’s firm included his resumé showing him as “Design Architect.”
• Later, in March 1993, the firm made a presentation to a school district, including Todd’s resumé on letterhead identifying him as “Duncan T. Todd, Architect.”
• In June 1993, the firm sent materials to another school district, again with a resumé bearing the heading or letterhead of “Duncan T. Todd, Architect.”
• In October 1993, the firm submitted a proposal to another local school district, designating Todd as “Partner in Charge and Project Architect” for the proposed project.
• In December 1993, the firm issued another statement of qualifications to the Army, identifying Todd as “Design Architect.”

The CBAE issued a citation and levied a fine against Todd for his violation of California law.

The NEC held that the CBAE citation, based on Todd’s holding himself out as an architect without being licensed in California, was sufficient in itself to establish a violation of Rule 4.101 of the pre-1997 Code of Ethics. In addition, misstatements to third parties concerning Todd’s education and license status were found to violate Rule 4.201, but this violation was considered secondary and was not treated as distinct from the violation of Rule 4.101 for purposes of imposing discipline.

In determining the appropriate penalty in this case, the NEC noted that Todd had knowingly violated California’s licensing laws repeatedly over a period of a year and added that Todd had a particular responsibility, as a principal of his firm, to present accurately his qualifications and those of his firm. It also noted, however, that Todd had complied with the CBAE order and made policy changes within his firm to ensure that the firm’s proposals would be accurate in the future. Taking these various factors into account, the NEC imposed the penalty of censure.

This publication is provided pursuant to Section 8.32 of the Institute’s Bylaws.

Copyright 2003 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved.