Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Oregon Board of Architect Examiners, 361 Or. 507 (2017)

On June 2, 2017, the Oregon Supreme Court issued its decision in Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Oregon Board of Architect Examiners. In the case, Stoll Berne’s Nadia Dahab and Steve Berman represented the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), which appeared as amicus curiae aligned with the Board of Architects. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners—Twist and two of its principals—had engaged in the unlawful “practice of architecture” and represented themselves as architects in violation of Oregon law. In their amicus brief, Dahab and Berman, along with Ron Jacobs of Venable LLP, explained how the profession defines the “practice of architecture” and how the petitioners’ conduct—which included preparing drawing, master plans, and renderings—fell well within the scope of that definition. The Supreme Court, looking to the manner in which the Oregon legislature defined the “practice of architecture,” agreed, noting that whether conduct constitutes the “practice of architecture” does not depend on whether the planned buildings or other structures are, in fact, constructed. The court’s opinion can be found here.