### 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 landscapearchitects act may represent that they are landscapearchitects even ,though

they are not licensed aa such.
Dear Mr. Green%
you have requested our opinion regardingwhether **members** of profeeeions exempted from article 249c may represent themselves as landecapearchitecta, even though they are not licenred arrsuch. Article 2490 prescribes thq qualifications for the practice **of** landscape. architectureasIdefined 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 registeredprofessional engine*r, building designer, land Surveyor,nurseryman,and architect (exceptla&cape architect),rerpeotively,.

. . . There are tko possible oonatructionsof thir provision. **Under** the broader interpretation , any pe'rson

regirteredunder a licensing law applicable to a profession exempted by section 2(a)(l) is fully competent to practice lnndecapearchitecture %n all its aspects and may represent hirneelf,to the public ae~a qendecapeaXchitect,rithout the necFerity,,of

regitkration @th **and** lioen8ihgby the Texati **State** Board~oi:,Landmcape

p.3437The 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 respectiveprofessions, need not comply with the provisionsof article 249c as to registrationand licensing , even though their activities might include some aspect of landscapearchitecture. Although article 249c is ailent with respect to its .purpoae,

the obvious intent **of** the Legislaturein enacting this atatutewas to regulate the practice of 1,andatiape architectureand to require certainminimum 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 architectureare for the purpose of protecting the public, just aa are statutes regulating' engineersand dealers in securities. Id. at 686. - In **our** opinion, protectionof the,publicis likewish **the** Primary purpose of article ~249F.
It is a well establishedrule of statutoryconstruction that a statute susceptibleto more than one interpretation should be construed so as to secure the benefit intended and effect the legislative intent. Alobaidiv. 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 effectedby the more restrictiveconatruction. If the Legislature seeks thereby to protect the public, it can hardly have intended to pennit~.an individual whose familiarity

with the subject **of** landscapearchitecture 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.mamberaof professionsexempted.from article 24&z, while.they need not comply with the statute's licensing provisionswhile engaged within the.ordinary ,and proper scope of their reapactiveprofessiona, may not:fitpr+ezjt tb&naeloea 'aa landacapis arch+tectaunless 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 licensingprovisions while engaged within the ordinary and proper scope of their respectiveprofessions,may not represent themselves as landscapearchitectsunless they are licensed as such. Very truly yours,

APPROVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

Opinion Committee jwb

p. 3439