Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Board of Architect Examiners

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 02-24-2016
  • Case #: A152929
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock; & Tookey
  • Full Text Opinion

Oregon Board of Architect Examiners erred when it: categorized Twist’s preparation of feasibility studies as the “practice of architecture”, determined that Twist violated ORS 671.020 when it used its logos on its feasibility studies, and determined that Twist violated ORS 671.020 and OAR 806-010-0037(7) when it used the phrase “Licensed in the State of Oregon (Pending).” The Board did not err when it modified the ALJ’s findings of fact, or when it determined that Twist violated the statute by advertising Oregon architectural projects on its website. Reversed and Remanded.

The Oregon Board of Architect Examiners found that Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. violated ORS 671.020 (prohibiting usage of the title "architect" and indications of practice of architecture by unlicensed individuals) and OAR 806-010-0037(7) (permitting only licensed individuals to use the title “Architect”). Twist appealed. The Court determined that both provisions apply only if the architect is found to have held himself out as an Oregon architect or as being engaged in the practice of architecture specifically in Oregon. The Court held that the Board erred in finding that Twist’s production of feasibility studies was the practice of architecture for the purposes of the statute, because the studies were not created in contemplation of obtaining permits and constructing buildings, but rather in order to determine the feasibility of the projects. The Board also erred in determining that Twist’s use of its logos on the feasibility studies violated the statute and rule, because the logo did not indicate that Twist was actually practicing architecture in Oregon. Finally, the Board erred in finding that Twists’ use of the phrase “Licensed in the State of Oregon (Pending)" violated the rule because stating that a license is pending does not indicate that it is imminent. The Court held that the Board did not err in reversing the ALJ's finding of fact that the feasibility studies contained no walls and roofs, as the Court independently found that the feasibility studies did contain walls and roofs. Finally, the Court held that the Board did not err in finding that Twist violated the statute by advertising Oregon architectural projects on its website. Reversed and Remanded.

Advanced Search