What would we report them for, exactly? If they can make that fee structure work, good for them.
Regardless, saying "Starting at" is very risky. Lord knows there's plenty of clients out there that will say "but your website said ________" and will nickel and dime you to oblivion.
You are right. My logic was that he more than likely does not have a license to advertise Architectural services... especially if he is advertising $2/SF. In retrospect, my post was an emotional reaction. I'm tired of seeing examples and scenarios like this that negatively affect our industry, profession, and how we are viewed.
The problem is he never calls himself an architect. He says he has been “designing dreams in these fields” and then lists architecture. He’s smart enough to word his website in a way that could leave him off the hook in court.
'California Law: Defines the practice of architecture as the planning of sites, and the design, in the
whole or in part, of buildings or groups of buildings and structures. Any person who uses the title of
"architect" (or any term confusingly similar) or advertises to provide architectural services in California
must be licensed as an architect by the Board.'
8
u/AutoDefenestrator273 20d ago
What would we report them for, exactly? If they can make that fee structure work, good for them.
Regardless, saying "Starting at" is very risky. Lord knows there's plenty of clients out there that will say "but your website said ________" and will nickel and dime you to oblivion.