Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
It has become common in contracts specially drafted for clients by their solicitors for there
to be a clause requiring the architect to specify the person who will be the project architect,
and sometimes to specify all the support staff as well. The extent to which such staff may
be changed depends on what the contract says. Most such clauses will say that named staff
cannot be changed without the express permission of the client except in the case of illness,
death, or the member of staff leaving the firm. In those cases and in any other case where
replacement is allowed, the identity of the replacement must be approved by the client. On
the one hand, this amounts to an unacceptable degree of control of a professional firm by
its client. After all, a professional practice should be capable of selecting appropriate staff;
if not, the practice should not have been engaged at all. On the other hand, a client under-
standablydoesnotwanttospendmanyhoursdiscussingthebriefandthedevelopingdesign
and its construction on site with one architect with whom he or she has developed a rapport,
only to find that architect replaced by a different architect without warning.
Therefore, the short answer to the question is to look at what the contract says, but gener-
ally the staff may not be changed without a good reason. To tell the client that the particu-
lar architect is needed for another (the unspoken words are 'more important') project is not
likely to be considered a good reason.
architectsrepresentedtotheclientthataparticulardirectorwhowaswelllikedandregarded
by the client would be involved throughout the duration (about three years) of the project as
team leader. In fact, the CEO knew before the engagement was concluded that the director
concerned had resigned and would be available for no more than one year. Even after the
contract was signed, the CEO waited for several months before informing the client of the
trueposition.Itwasclearthatthedirectorwasthemainreasonwhythearchitectswereawar-
ded the contracts; the judge remarked that they were the most expensive of the architects
who tendered for the project. The court held that the statement made to the client regarding
the director was a fraudulent misrepresentation. However, in the circumstances of the case,
it did not lead to any significant loss.
It is not unusual for a client to be attracted to a practice because of a particular architect,
andthepracticeshouldbequiteclearinitsdealingswiththeclientifthatparticulararchitect
may not be available.
