PEOPLE LAW FORMS INFORMATION CONTACT HOME
Two friends, Phil Smith and Arthur Barnie, want to form a partnership for a construction company that will offer architectural services. Neither man is a registered architect in New Mexico; however, Barnie has been a registered architect in California for the past six years. Although Barnie doesn't meet the criteria necessary to obtain a national certificate from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) he intends to try and become registered in New Mexico.

In the meantime, Smith and Barnie decide to associate with a local, New Mexico registered architect on their first project. This project is an apartment complex that is projected to grow over time. The first phase calls for the construction of one, two-story building that will contain four separate apartment units. Ultimately, there will be three buildings on this lot, with four units in each building.

Smith and Barnie submit the plans for the project for permitting. The plans are approved by the permitting authority, with some modifications that have been made by the reviewer employed by the permitting authority. Subsequently, construction on the project begins as scheduled. During the construction phase the architect that Smith and Barnie have been associating with stops by at the construction site. She notices that there has been some alteration to the original plans, which violate the local code. She points this out to Mr. Smith, who disagrees with her about the alteration and the code violation. The architect leaves the site and does not return again.

A building inspector, after touring the site, writes up Smith and Barnie for a code violation. The client hears of this and sues Smith and Barnie in civil court for breach of contract and requests an award of damages to cover the cost of fixing the code violation and lost time in construction because of the problem. The client wins his case and the violation is corrected. Smith and Barnie are then taken to criminal court by the district attorney and found guilty of felony fraud charges. Through a plea agreement they are allowed to pay a fine and are placed on probation.

Immediately after the resolution of the criminal matter the N.M. Board of Examiners for Architects notifies Barnie that his application for reciprocity is under review. The Board asks Barnie to meet with staff to supply the answers to a few questions, which he does.


4.1 (a)

Which one of the following is most accurate?
The only way to obtain reciprocal registration in New Mexico is by having an NCARB certificate.
As a construction company, Smith and Barnie may not associate with a New Mexico architect if the plans are being submitted for permitting.
Registration standards for New Mexico shall be in accordance with those of NCARB.

4.1 (b)

Intern standards of training are promulgated by the NM Board of Examiners for Architects and are published in the NMBEA Intern Handbook.
True
False

4.2 (a)

Which one of the following is most applicable?
Technically, Smith and Barnie will not be required to have an architect's seal for this project with the three buildings that will be on this lot.
The plan checker modified the plans and was not required to supply any reference to codes or standards. This is an acceptable procedure.
If there are more than four apartments on one lawful lot a seal of either an architect or engineer is required.

4.2 (b)

Even if Smith and Barnie associate with a registered NM architect they cannot place an ad in the Yellow Pages advertising architectural services for their construction company.
True
False

4.3 (a)

Which one of the following is most accurate?
The architect who noticed the code violation is obligated to report it to the local building inspector.
The architect's responsibility ends with informing Smith and Barnie of the code violation.
The architect cannot terminate any services that he/she is bound to by the terms of the contract with the client.

4.3 (b)

After reporting the code violation the architect associating with Smith and Barnie may terminate her services on the project and have no liability to the client as a result of this termination.
True
False

4.4 (a)

Does Barnie have any obligation to report the events that transpired in civil or criminal court to the N.M. Board of Examiners for Architects?
Yes
No

4.4 (b)

If Barnie was a registered architect at the time he was convicted of a felony and the board brought disciplinary action against him and found him in violation of the Architect Act, which of the following would apply.
Check all that apply and press Submit. Re-click to remove an incorrect answer. ]
Conviction of a felony in criminal court would preclude Barnie having any right for an appeal of the board's decision.
A guilty finding by the board could mean that Barnie might be liable for all the costs of the disciplinary proceedings
A guilty finding by the Board could mean that Barnie might be liable for all the costs associated with monitoring compliance with the disciplinary action

4.5 (a)

Barnie may apply to the NM Board of Examiners for Architects under which one of the following:
Under the conditions met by meeting the Broadly Experienced Category as specified by the NM Architectural Act.
By applying through the California Architects Board for reciprocity with the New Mexico Board.
The New Mexico application for the Broadly Experienced Category must first by approved by NCARB.

4.5 (b)

As a registrant Barnie would be required to complete 24 contact hours of continuing education, 16 of which must be in subjects relating to health, safety and welfare. If any of his 24 contact hours are disavowed he will have 90 days in which to complete his continuing education.
True
False
First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address:
Registration Number:
Optional:
AIA Number [If entered, a record of completion will automatically be posted to the University of Oklahoma reporting site]
AIA Member ID:
For informational purposes only:
State [Other than NM]:
Registration Number [Other than NM]: