Comment |

Architects Have a Duty of Professional Service



There is some misunderstanding, both inside the profession and among the population at large, about what architecture is and what architects do. The misunderstanding begins with popular cultural depictions of architects, both fictional and real, as iconoclastic visionaries who wave their hands around, making beautiful buildings appear—buildings that will be immortalized in the glossy pages of magazines and hardcover coffee table books.

This image of the architect is being reinforced by modern home improvement shows in which the designer and builder are the primary on-air personalities and it only takes one hour to buy, design and renovate an entire house. It's also being reinforced, unfortunately, in architecture schools, where professors are teaching aspiring architects to think of their designs as grand conceptual gestures and to equate architecture with culinary arts and fashion design, but not to anticipate what working as an architect will really be like.

Architects are taught in school that what they want to design matters, and little is discussed about client expectations, except that in the case of design studios, the clients are the professors. Architects learn to please other architects to ensure the best critique, grade and peer recognition. That peer recognition extends into professional life, where architects look to have their work published in journals juried by other architects.

© / Worawee Meepian

As a professional providing a service, an architect's first duty is to his or her client, with a supplementary duty to the public for safety and welfare.

This is obviously a wrong approach. Architecture is a professional service. Most architects come to understand this fact as they move up the ranks of practice. When you look in the offices of real architecture firms today, you don't see Joanna Gaines or Howard Roark (perish the thought!) or Bobby Flay. You see people who are working hard, using their knowledge and experience and skill to design projects on behalf of their clients.

But habits of hand-wavy thinking remain, embedded through the architect-as-chef idea, where big ideas matter and where a silver cover is whipped off a plate, revealing the delectable and beautiful creation hidden within, and that is why architects sometimes think that their beliefs matter more than those of their clients.

The Duty of Professional Service

As a professional providing a service, an architect's first duty is to his or her client, with a supplementary duty to the public for safety and welfare. The client is the one paying for the architect's services, of course. But architects are responsible for far more than their own services. The construction cost of the facility will dwarf the architect's fees, and the long-term costs of operation, maintenance and market-worthiness of the facility could again dwarf the construction cost.

The client is assuming massive risk based on the architect's work, risk that extends far beyond the architect's period of engagement. The architect must help the client fully understand and manage that risk and all its long-term implications, including the risks that arise because the contract documents are inevitably imperfect. While seemingly daunting, there are a number of relatively straightforward things architects can do to ensure that they are providing proper professional service and meeting the duty they have to their clients:

1. Leave your beliefs and preferences at the door. The client shouldn't need to care how much an architect loves shiplap as an interior wall finish; perhaps he was hired because of the client's love of shiplap, in which case the client will ask for it. In the context of a professional service, what the architect likes and wants doesn't matter. Instead, listen to what the client wants, and provide a design that allows the facility to meet the client's needs and desires.

2. Know what you're talking about, and honor the limits of your knowledge. Many architects think of themselves as generalists, knowing something about everything. Generalists are useful, but there will be big knowledge gaps between what they know about a topic and what specialists know. Where a specialist's input is required, architects will need to first realize that they need it, then obtain that input. Additionally, they must make sure the client is aware when the architect has reached the limits of his or her knowledge and is either seeking or advising the client to seek outside help. There's no shame in this; doctors do it all the time!

3. Obtain the client's informed consent. The idea that a designer can send her clients away, renovate their entire house, and dramatically reveal it upon completion is patently absurd, even if it makes for good television. In real life, clients are intimately involved with the project continuously. Architects must communicate with the clients about every decision that materially impact the clients' interests in the project, and owners must agree to those decisions. Those interests are certainly financial, but may also involve the appearance or function of the facility, depending on what the client thinks is important. As a follow-up to No. 2 above, consent without factual information doesn't count. When the architect knows what he's talking about and is communicating accurately, the client can properly decide whether or not to accept the architect's advice. When the architect substitutes his or her opinions for facts, informed consent goes away.

4. Prioritize the writing of correct specifications. Specifications that are begun early on in the process and developed along with the drawings have the best chance of aligning all the documents to the project requirements. They also allow the specifier the opportunity to use his or her more specialized knowledge to improve the overall quality of the technical aspects of the entire design. A good specifier will care more about getting things right than about the overall appearance of the facility and can flag things that could be overly costly or create unnecessary long-term risk for the client.


It's impossible to overstate this, because architects like to profess that they value "healthy and livable communities" or that they "honor the broader goals of society." Architecture is a professional service. Like the practice of law or medicine, architects must be problem solving only on behalf of their clients, not society, providing their best skill and knowledge as educated, experienced professionals to meet their clients' needs and minimize their risks.

About the Author

Elias Saltz, CSI, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP is an architect and Senior Specifier at Conspectus Inc. Along with writing specifications, his responsibilities include understanding project requirements and code requirements, advising on building envelope performance and assisting clients with construction document quality control. Additionally, he has a blog called “The Skeptical Specifier” and participates in, as well as a blog for Conspectus.

He is the Treasurer of the Chicago Chapter of CSI.

 You can follow him on Twitter @EliasSaltzCSI.



Let's Fix Construction is written by a collective group of construction professionals involved in, an online impartial platform to provide forward-thinking solutions to many longstanding issues that have plagued construction. Organizers and contributors seek to better the industry by sharing knowledge, while creating open and positive communication and collaboration. Many of the posts have appeared first on and are republished on Durability + Design with permission. Author information is available at the bottom of each blog entry.



Tagged categories: Architects; Business management; Construction; Consultants; Contractors; Design; Designers; Developers; Engineers; Good Technical Practice; Specifiers; Architecture; Asia Pacific; Education; EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa); Latin America; North America; Specification

Comment from Richard Koziol, (4/19/2018, 8:07 AM)

I disagree. The Architects first duty is the public health safety and welfare, with equal duty to his/her client, provided that the services and duties desired or requested by the client are ethical and legal.

Comment from Elias Saltz, (4/19/2018, 11:37 AM)

@Richard, designing for public health, safety and welfare is a legal requirement that the architect must follow as part of his duty to the client. Essentially, a safe building is part and parcel of reducing the owner's risk. I think architects get in trouble when they expand the definition of 'welfare' and advocate for broader societal good that may conflict with the owner's stated desires/needs.

Comment from Warren Brand, (4/24/2018, 11:49 AM)

Nice article. Would love to hear comments about #2. How would people gauge their experience with architects and their likelihood of being in compliance with #2.

Comment from Stephen MCLAUGHLIN, (4/25/2018, 7:40 AM)

I have been and architect since passing my exam in 1976. I totally agree with your assessment of the profession and the deplorable direction of our schools of architecture. The silver lining here is that if you teach yourself the building codes and learn about materials through CSI and others, and ctually serve your clients, then you can have a very lucrative career. Your clients will loyally return to you and will appreciate the value you bring to the table. Contractors too, will steer work your way if you know what you are talking about and support the project and client goals. I am now comfortably retired, and it wasn't because I pushed lofty societal goals onto my clients.

Comment from Michael Halliwell, (7/30/2018, 11:32 AM)

Architects, like engineers, have a duty (usually a legal requirement, but also often enshrined in the bylaws of the professional association / regulating body) to the public for safety. However, after that, it seems that all bets are off. You'll often hear techs and construction crews grumbling about designs that are a mess to actually build and/or operate. I have personally found that a solid career, recognized by peers and clients, is not one of spectacular designs and fancy buildings in glossy magazines, but rather solid, dependable designs meeting the needs of the client and having a reputation of good, solid, honest and dependable work delivered on time and on budget. Sure, we all want those "career defining" projects, but I find you're far more likely to get them after you have a solid career and reputation, rather than using them to make a career and reputation.

Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Quikspray, Inc.

Modern Safety Techniques


base painters

NLB Corporation

PreTox Products - NexTec, Inc.

Paint BidTracker

Tarps manufacturing, Inc.


Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL

The Technology Publishing Network

PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms & Conditions   |   Support   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us