Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Oregon Board of Architect Examiners
361 Or. 507
| Or. | 2017Background
- Twist Architecture (Washington firm) and principals Callison (WA-licensed) and Hansen (unlicensed) prepared master plans for three Oregon shopping-center projects for developer Gramor while not licensed in Oregon.
- Master plans ("schemes") showed building shapes, square footage, locations on site, parking, access, and included a logo reading “Twist Architecture & Design.”
- Twist billed hourly, described services as "architectural" in agreements, and listed Oregon projects on its website; Callison and Hansen’s bios stated “Licensed in the State of Oregon (pending).”
- Oregon Board of Architect Examiners issued an order finding respondents practiced architecture without a license and represented themselves as architects in violation of ORS 671.020(1).
- Court of Appeals reversed in part (found feasibility studies not the practice of architecture and rejected some advertising findings) but affirmed on website advertising; Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
- Supreme Court affirmed the Board: master planning like Twist’s is the practice of architecture and the logo and the “licensed (pending)” website statements violated the statute; constitutional challenges rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preparing master plans constituted the "practice of architecture" under ORS 671.010(6) | Board: master planning involves "planning" and "designing" of buildings and falls within the statute | Twist: plans were preliminary feasibility studies not intended or sufficient for construction, so not "practice of architecture" | Held: Master plans showing size, placement, code conformance and intended for contemplated construction constitute the practice of architecture |
| Whether use of the firm logo containing the word "Architecture" on the plans violated ORS 671.020(1) | Board: logo indicated practice of architecture on those plans | Twist: logo use on feasibility work did not indicate unlawful practice | Held: Using the logo on plans that constituted architectural work violated the statute |
| Whether website biographies stating "Licensed in the State of Oregon (pending)" unlawfully represented individuals as practicing architects in Oregon | Board: such statements, presented with Oregon project claims, tend to indicate they were practicing architecture in Oregon | Callison/Hansen: phrase merely indicates an intent to seek licensure, not present licensure or practice in Oregon | Held: Statements, combined with Oregon project advertising and without an Oregon registration application, tended to indicate they were practicing in Oregon and violated the statute |
| Constitutional challenges (due process and free speech) to applying ORS 671.020(1) | Hansen/others: statute application unconstitutionally interferes with right to earn a living and restricts speech | Board: licensing rationally related to public safety; false or deceptive commercial speech not protected | Held: Challenges rejected; statute rationally related to safety/economic protection and deceptive commercial speech may be regulated |
Key Cases Cited
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993) (textual and contextual statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation framework)
- United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) (false statements may sometimes implicate First Amendment)
- Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959) (licensing and due process scrutiny concerning fitness to practice)
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) (procedural/due process limits on occupational licensing)
- Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979) (states may regulate deceptive commercial speech)