Construction Law

Fiduciary duty of an architect

By Werner Sabo

The issue of whether architects owe a fiduciary duty to a client occasionally shows up. The majority of courts seem to come down on the side of no such duty. Two recent cases reflect these differing views. In Carlson v. SALA Architects, 732 N.W.2d 324 (Minn.App., 2007), the owners hired an architectural firm to design a new home. After spending almost $300,000 in architectural fees, the owners were not happy with the designs and terminated the firm. They then sued the architect for breach of contract and professional negligence, seeking the return of the fees. They then amended their claim to add statutory claims related to lack of a professional license by one of the architect's staff. The trial court entered summary judgment for the owners on the license issue, but the appellate court reversed. The architectural firm had assigned a staff member who was not licensed in Minnesota to work on the project, along with a licensed principal in the firm. The owners claimed to be deceived into believing that this person was licensed, and that this was a breach of the architect's fiduciary duty. The court stated that there was no fiduciary duty per se between an architect and the client.

In E-Med, Inc. v. Mainstreet Architects, 2007 WL 1536803 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 26, 2007), the appellate court appeared to adopt the position that an architect owed a fiduciary duty to a client. However, in that case, it was not a breach of fiduciary duty by the architect to urge an owner to develop affordable housing. The owner claimed that the architect should have advised him to develop single family detached residences instead of high density housing and that the architect failed to develop this more profitable option. The jury's verdict in favor of the architect was upheld.

These cases also demonstrate that owners continue to try to expand the architect's supposed duties well beyond any contractual duties and beyond what architects actually do. In effect, owners want architects to guarantee the project, although they are unwilling to actually pay the architect for the work that would be required to implement such a guarantee.

Full post as published by Construction Attorney Blog on June 22, 2007 (boomark / email).