In accordance with procedures set forth in Chapter 8 of the Institute’s Bylaws, the National Ethics Council (“NEC”) has ordered the suspension of AIA Architect member Alfred De Vido from membership in the Institute for four years for violating Rules 2.101 and 2.104 of the Institute’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

Rule 2.101 states that “Members shall not, in the conduct of their professional practice, knowingly violate the law.” The commentary for Rule 2.101 states that “The violation of any law, local, state, or federal, occurring in the conduct of a Member’s professional practice, is made the basis for discipline by this rule . . . Allegations of violations of this rule must be based on an independent finding of a violation of the law by a court of competent jurisdiction or an administrative or regulatory body.”

Rule 2.104 states that “Members shall not engage in conduct involving fraud or wanton disregard of the rights of others.” The commentary for Rule 2.104 provides that “This Rule addresses serious misconduct whether or not related to a Member’s professional practice. When an alleged violation of this rule is based on a violation of law, then its proof must be based on an independent finding of a violation of the law by a court of competent jurisdiction or an administrative or regulatory body.”

De Vido was the proprietor of a firm bearing his own name and was retained to provide services in connection with a program of renovations and additions to the home of the complainant and her husband.

Based on his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree by a New York state court, the NEC found that De Vido had violated Rule 2.101. Section 155.05 of the New York State Penal Code, states that “A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property, or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third party, he wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner thereof.” De Vido committed the crime by overbilling his clients in connection with his professional services to them.

In addition, the NEC found that De Vido had violated Rule 2.104. While the evidence did not conclusively establish the exact amounts of the monies involved, it was clear that De Vido wrongfully and intentionally took substantial sums of money from the complainant. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to De Vido, the claimant was denied use of at least $325,000 for approximately four years. It is reasonable to infer that the complainant suffered financial harm and that De Vido knew, or should have known, that she would suffer such harm.

The NEC also found that the complainant failed to satisfy her burden of proving a third alleged violation, this one involving Rule 3.301. This rule states that “Members shall not intentionally or recklessly mislead existing or prospective clients about the results that can be achieved through the use of the Members’ services, nor shall the Members state that they can achieve results by means that violate applicable law or this Code.”

In determining an appropriate penalty, The NEC considered as key factors not only the seriousness of De Vido’s conduct in and of itself, but the additional fact that his license to practice architecture was suspended and that his illegal and unethical actions were of an especially egregious nature. De Vido’s self-dealing did not reflect a single isolated act, but a continuing course of conduct.

Second, while admitting his criminal conviction and his suspension from the practice of architecture, he offered no reasonable excuse for his conduct. Worse, he did not appear to have acknowledged the full seriousness of his actions, nor their ethical implications.

Third, De Vido’s actions violated the trust that his clients placed in him when retaining his services and reflects poorly on both the profession and the Institute. De Vido’s criminal conviction, as well as the fact that he is an AIA member, were reported in the press and become a matter of public knowledge. Therefore, as a representative of the Institute, his actions harmed both the AIA and the profession of architecture.

Given these factors, the NEC has imposed a penalty of a four-year suspension from membership. During the suspension, De Vido is prohibited from exercising any of the rights and privileges associated with AIA membership, including use of the Institute’s name, initials, or symbols, until he is reinstated in good standing.

Copyright 2004 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. Home Page