Rogers, et al. v. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners

The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners issued cease and desist orders against three licensed professional engineers for the unauthorized practice of architecture in connection with the engineers' work in preparing comprehensive building plans and specifications for certain public works projects. Section 1051.703(a) of the Architecture Practice Act does not categorically preclude licensed engineers from preparing comprehensive building plans and specifications for the class of public works projects identified in that section, nor does not §1051.601 categorically exempt licensed engineers from the Act's requirements. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reversing the Board's decision and remanding for further proceedings. Austin Court of Appeals, No. 03-10-00182-CV, 08-03-2011

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

The principal issue in this administrative appeal is the extent to which engineers licensed under Texas’s Engineering Practice Act, Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 1001.001-.604 (West 2004 & Supp. 2010), are exempt from the provisions of the Architecture Practice Act, Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 1051.001-.801 (West 2004 & Supp. 2010). The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (the “Architecture Board”) issued cease and desist orders against three licensed professional engineers, John J. Rogers, Jr., James R. Winton, and Burl Richardson (collectively, the “Engineers”), for the unauthorized practice of architecture in connection with the Engineers’ work in preparing comprehensive building plans and specifications for certain public works projects. See id. §§ 1051.701, .703(a). Based on the language in section 1051.703(a) of the Architecture Practice Act, which specifies that “architectural plans” for a class of public works projects “may be prepared only by an architect,” the Architecture Board determined that the salient inquiry in the underlying enforcement proceeding was whether the Engineers were practicing architecture in preparing the plans and specifications at issue. Id. § 1051.703(a). We hold, however, that the dispositive issue here is not whether the Engineers were practicing architecture, but whether they were practicing engineering, because section 1051.601 of the Architecture Practice Act broadly exempts licensed engineers from its registration requirements to the extent they are performing “an act, service, or work within the scope of the practice of engineering as defined [in the Engineering Practice Act].” Id. § 1051.601. Because the record is insufficient to conclusively establish or negate the applicability of the exemption, the district court properly reversed the Board’s final order and remanded for further proceedings. We will affirm the district court’s judgment.

Rogers, et al. v. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New Jersey Law Journal