Back in 2023, with little fanfare, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 224: long overdue legislation that modernized the regulation of the practice of architecture in the state. Though the changes have been in effect for well over a year now, very little has been written about the changes or their implications. It’s time for a little catch-up.

Changes to the law were developed by the Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners — the regulatory body for architects in Oregon — based on stakeholder sessions and research done primarily at the administrative level. The legislative history itself turns out to be minimal but does indicate that the changes arose from National Council of Architectural Registration Board’s Model Law and by statutes that govern architecture in other jurisdictions.

The changes are too numerous to cover in this article, but the highlights include changes to the definition of the practice of architecture; a new definition and application of an architect’s“responsible control;” new provisions governing architectural firm ownership, naming, and liability; use of the title “architect;” retention of project files; and allowing out-of-state architects to now offer service in Oregon contingent on later registration.

The first major update is to the definition of the practice of architecture itself — something that cannot be done without being properly registered in the state. The new definition now provides in full: “Practice of architecture” means engaging in the art and science of designing, in whole or in part, buildings and the space within and appurtenant to buildings and providing related services that include, but are not limited to, planning, developing design concepts, preparing technical submissions and other documents that define abuilding’s form and function, coordinating construction work and the work of other consultants and providing construction phase services. 

New to the definition is the reference to the “art and science” of design. Importantly, it is not just the art, but both art and science, thus distinguishing the practice of architecture, which requires registration, from preliminary design analysis often undertaken by laypersons or employees of non-architect developers in the early stages of project development.

The legislation also added a new definition for “responsible control,” which “means a degree of control over an operation that is consistent with the scope of a registered architect’s professional knowledge and the application of a registered architect’s professional standard of care.” Responsible control ties into the duties of an architect to oversee the design work the architect stamps, local oversight of a foreign architect, new document retention requirements, and the practice of architecture by an architectural “firm,” which is a business entity like a corporation or limited liability company that can only provide services through an owner or employee who is a registered architect and has responsible control over the services. The responsible control over the services by a registered architect of an architectural firm replaces the previous requirement that two-thirds of the board or owners of the firm be registered architects or engineers.

SB 224 does clarify whether an architect retains personal liability for professional errors even if the architect performed services through an architectural firm — regardless of how that firm is formed, be it a professional corporation, a standard business corporation, or other type of entity. The law now provides that a “shareholder, director, member, officer, employee or agent of an architectural firm may be held personally liable for negligent or wrongful acts or misconduct committed by the shareholder, director, member, officer, employee or agent, or by a person under the direct supervision and control of the shareholder, director, member, officer, employee or agent, while rendering professional service on behalf of the architectural firm to a person receiving the service the same as though the service were being rendered by an individual.”

Another newly defined term is “technical submissions,” which means those documents stamped by a registered architect and submitted to a permitting authority. Not only do such documents require a stamp, but the stamping architect now has an express duty to retain them, as well as any documents that demonstrate responsible control, for 10 years from completion of the project. 

The bill has liberalized the ability of out-of-state or “foreign architects” to offer architectural services in Oregon without first registering or receiving special permission, as long as the offer discloses that the foreign architect is not yet registered and cannot perform the actual services until becoming registered. Also liberalized is the use of the “architect” title itself. Where the prior law purported to outright ban the use of the title “architect” by anyone who was not registered, the new law — recognizing the free speech limitations on banning specific words — simply prohibits assuming or using “a title, form of address or other designation… that indicates … that the individual is an architect or that the individual or business entity engages in the practice of architecture.”

Finally, the law has updated the use of the old medieval term “clerk of the works” to allow an unregistered employee of a registered architect to undertake tasks such as drafting and site observations, as long as the employee is “acting under the registered architect’s instruction, control or supervision” and does not purport to be an actual architect.

There are many nuances to the new law and other facets that have not been considered or may even conflict with prior court decisions. If presented with a question about how the new law may impact your profession or a project, it is always best to consult an attorney experienced in these areas who is up to date on the changes.

This article summarizes aspects of the law and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice for your situation, you should contact an attorney.

Column first appeared in the Oregon Daily Journal of Commerce on March 14, 2025.