TEE A?ITORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

The Eonorable Robert 

Chairman 

T&x&r State Board of 

Architects 

April 26, 1976 

H. Green Opinion No. ,H-914 

Landscape Re: Whether members 

profywionr exempted 

of 

from 

320 Sam Rouaton State Office 

Building 

Aurtin, Telta'e 78701 

the landscape architects 

act may represent that 

they are landscape architects even ,though they 

are not licensed aa such. 

Dear Mr. Green% 

you have requested our opinion regarding whether members 

of profeeeions exempted from article 249c may represent 

themselves as landecape architecta, even though they are not 

licenred arr such. Article 2490 prescribes thq qualifications 

for the practice of landscape. architecture asIdefined therein. 

The statute further provides in pertinent part: 

Sec. 2(a). The provision@ of thin Act 

do not apply to nor affect lawn relating 

to: 

(1) a registered professional 

engine*r, building designer, land 

Surveyor, nurseryman, and architect 

(except la&cape architect), rerpeotively,. . . . 

There are tko possible oonatructions of thir provision. 

Under the broader interpretation , any pe'rson regirtered under 

a licensing law applicable to a profession exempted by section 

2(a)(l) is fully competent to practice lnndecape architecture 

%n all its aspects and may represent hirneelf,to the public 

ae~a qendecape aXchitect,rithout the necFerity,,of regitkration @th and lioen8ihg by the Texati State Board~oi:,Landmcape 

p.3437 
The Honorsble Robert H. Green - page 2 (H-8141 

Architects. Under the more restrictive view, the statute 

means that the persona exempted , while engaged within the 

ordinary and proper scope of their respective professions, 

need not comply with the provisions of article 249c as to 

registration and licensing , even though their activities 

might include some aspect of landscape architecture. 

Although article 249c is ailent with respect to its 

.purpoae, the obvious intent of the Legislature in enacting 

this atatute was to regulate the practice of 1,andatiape 

architecture and to require certain minimum standards of 

every person who desires to practice that profaaeion. In 

~,~e~~~~~;h%~'g~~~~~~, "",",, ';";I 2g';$fg,,; ,ypn 

court stated that 

[t]he statutes regulating the practice 

of architecture are for the purpose of 

protecting the public, just aa are 

statutes regulating' engineers and 

dealers in securities. Id. at 686. - 

In our opinion, protection of the,public is likewish the 

Primary purpose of article ~249F. 

It is a well established rule of statutory construction 

that a statute susceptible to more than one interpretation 

should be construed so as to secure the benefit intended and 

effect the legislative intent. Alobaidi v. State, 433 

S.W.Zd 440, 442 (Tex. Crim. App. --.1968)';-cert. denied, 393 

U.S. 943 (1968). It is ~clear that the purpose of article 

249c can be beat effected by the more restrictive conatruction. If the Legislature seeks thereby to protect the 

public, it can hardly have intended to pennit~.an individual 

whose familiarity with the subject of landscape architecture 

may be only peripheral to'hold himself out to the public as 

competent in all aspects of the profession. Thus, it is our 

opinion that.mambera of professions exempted.from article 

24&z, while.they need not comply with the statute's licensing 

provisions while engaged within the.ordinary ,and proper 

scope of their reapactive professiona, may not:fitpr+ezjt 

tb&naeloea 'aa landacapis arch+tecta unless they &re ll&haed 

as such. 

p. 3430 
. . - 

The Honorable Robert H. Green - page 

SUMMARY 

3 (H-214) . 

Members of professions exempted from 

article 249c, while they need not comply 

with the statute's licensing provisions 

while engaged within the ordinary and 

proper scope of their respective professions, may not represent themselves 

as landscape architects unless they are 

licensed as such. 

Very truly yours, 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3439