That question touches on a few issues.
First, if you prepare a set of contract documents they are your work product whether you seal them or not. It is generally good practice to only seal documents that are submitted for some sort of approval (planning, building permit, etc.) Any sealed set can generally be submitted for municipal approval – therefore my recommendation to my clients is that they only seal the sets the municipality requires be sealed, and that they submit those sets themselves on behalf of their clients.
That said, the act of placing a seal on the documents is an attestation that the documents reflect the professional judgment of the person who places the seal. Indeed, as was suggested previously – if you seal it, you own it forever thereafter.
Finally this entire question of reviewing and sealing creates a more difficult issue. While the law varies a bit in each state, the prevailing view is that an Architect may only seal documents that he or she personally prepared, or that were prepared under his or her supervision and control as the responsible in charge. The act of performing what is referred to as a "design review" and placing a seal on the reviewed documents is a violation of the licensing laws in most if not all states – unless the person placing the seal personally prepared the documents or supervised and controlled their preparation. By definition that isn't the case in the review and seal context and the review and seal is therefore by definition a violation of the licensing law.
I realize one can argue that a review and seal can become so comprehensive that the documents do in fact become the work product of the person conducting the review and seal. That argument is inconsistent with the express reading of most licensing laws, and in instances where it has been litigated I have seen courts routinely reject that argument (where the law is plain on its face the Court may not interpret it but must apply it as written) – and uphold sanctions (fines, suspensions, etc.) against Architects who do it.
While licensing laws are generally the same they are nuanced and do differ in application. Other than to suggest the "you sealed it you own in" proposition is generally universal, with respect to review and seal the best advice is to find an attorney knowledgeable with respect to the licensing laws in your state, get a responsible legal opinion, and adhere to it.
I think in general you will find the practice is inconsistent with the licensing laws. The law here in Michigan expressly prohibits it. In my experience that is true in most if not all other states as well
------------------------------
Frederick Butters, FAIA, Esq.
Attorney
Frederick F. Butters, PLLC
Southfield Michigan
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-14-2017 19:28
From: Kenneth Miller
Subject: Community Review Board stamping only v.s. Responsible Charge
I have been in practice for about 10 years (primarily custom residential) and have always been careful to refuse stamping projects I was not responsible for or directly involved in designing. Over the past several years, as the building trend has picked up I have been approached multiple times to review and Stamp drawings for Architectural Review Boards ONLY. In my area, S.C., many semi-custom builders (David Weekly, etc.) are building custom homes in the high end communities (+700 K) Most of these communities require an architectural stamp for Design Review. South Carolina does not require an Architect's stamp for permitting as long as the residence has a PE provide a signed structural design.
As an ethical and business related question, if the design is carefully reviewed for compliance with the community guidelines and specifically notes to be for Design Review Only, does that eliminate liability for the plans permitting and future build? I struggle with the responsible charge of the project in contrast to the limited liability of Design Review Only. I believe I can review a project for Design Guideline compliance in a day or two but do not expect to be responsible for code compliance within the purview of my professional responsibility.
While I believe if a community requires an Architect's stamp for Design Review, then the builder should be responsible to engage an Architect from the beginning. This is not happening in my area, especially with Designers not licensed.
Where is the line drawn for anyone else.
Thank you.
------------------------------
K. Miller
------------------------------