Court Opinion

ID: 9698458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:51:15.79322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:41.143156
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
The issue presented for our consideration by this appeal is whether a regulation which places limitations on the practice of architects who are employed by nonarchitectural firms is valid in light of section 13® of the Architects *213Licensure Law, 68 P.S. § 34.13(j), which expressly permits, without limitation, the practice of architecture by architects who are employed in businesses that are not architectural firms.
Section 13(j) of the Architects Licensure Law provides as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the practice of architecture by an individual as an employee of a person, partnership or corporation which is not an architectural firm, provided such individual holds a certificate to practice architecture in the Commonwealth in conformity with the provisions of this act and the architect’s seal is affixed to all documents prepared by him or under his personal supervision for use in this Commonwealth.
63 P.S. § 34.13(3).
The regulation at issue herein provides in relevant part as follows:
Nothing in this chapter may be construed to prevent the employment of an architect by a business which is not engaged in the practice of architecture ..., if the work performed by the employed architect concerns the modification of or the origination and supervision of the design or the construction of structures, or both, which the employer intends to utilize for its nonarchitectural business purpose____
49 Pa.Code § 9.165.
Mr. Justice Flaherty, writing for the majority of this Court, upholds the validity of the restrictive regulation, stating that it is a “reasonable interpretation” of section 13(j) of the Architects Licensure Law, maj. op. at 1379. The majority makes this determination on the basis of what it perceives as the “public safety” concerns of the Legislature as expressed in the preceding provisions of section 13 regarding specified ownership, control, and supervision requirements pertaining to firms that offer architectural services to the public, and section 18(b), 63 P.S. § 34.18(b), which prohibits businesses from practicing architecture or *214offering to engage in the practice of architecture without complying with section 13.
I disagree. The terms of section 13® are clear and free of ambiguity. Had the Legislature wished to limit the practice of architecture by architects employed by nonarchitectural firms, it could have done so. The Legislature was certainly aware, when the Architects Licensure Law was enacted in 1982, that there were in existence at that time design and engineering firms which offered, as part of a comprehensive package of services to their clients, the architectural services of the architects on their staffs. Recognizing that the “public safety" was adequately protected by the statutory provisions which regulate engineers and engineering firms, 63 P.S. §§ 148-158, the Legislature permitted architects to provide architectural services, without restriction, when employed in firms that do not hold themselves out to the public as “architectural” firms. I do not find any language in the Architects Licensure Law that precludes the brokering of architectural services by nonarchitectural firms.
Accordingly, I would reverse the order of Commonwealth Court upholding the validity of the regulation at issue herein.