Ethics in Architecture: Case study interpretation of the Deontological code

This work presents a practical interpretation of the Spanish architectural deontological code through the analysis of several complex case studies, approached from the perspective of a member of a Deontological Commission. It focuses on identifying potential ethical and professional breaches, classifying their severity, and examining the responsibilities of the different agents involved in each situation, considering the overlap between legal, contractual, and ethical duties. Rather than treating the code as a purely theoretical framework, the analysis reflects the type of reasoning used in disciplinary assessment, weighing conduct, intent, and consequences in accordance with principles such as professional integrity, independence, competence, and responsibility towards society

CASE 1:

The PEGASUS Housing Cooperative commissions the experienced Architect A to prepare the project and act as Site Director for the construction of a group of 500 social housing units of 80 m² built area each house, located in an Andalusian city. Once the project has been completed, PEGASUS requests bids from several contractors and ultimately awards the construction contract to the construction company TRUMPY for 13.2 million euros. The entire operation takes place in 2023, at a time when construction costs per built square metre for this type of housing ranged between €340.00 and €380.00. However, TRUMPY’s contract offer amounts to €330.00/m².

For reasons irrelevant to this case, PEGASUS cancels Architect A’s appointment as Site Director before construction begins, and instead appoints Architect B, a young recent graduate from the School of Architecture and nephew of PEGASUS’s President, with whom the corresponding official engagement agreement is signed.

Once construction begins, relying on his authority, Architect B repeatedly introduces modifications to the project on an ongoing and improvised basis. This authority is accompanied by obstinacy: in an intransigent manner, he imposes numerous variations, erasing and redesigning directly on site.

The architect does not justify these variations to PEGASUS; in fact, he does not even inform them, instead following a Policy of “fait accompli” (accomplished facts). Nor does he take the trouble to justify his modifications to the construction company, merely imposing them unilaterally.

Weary of this overbearing attitude, TRUMPY reports the situation to PEGASUS, detailing the disruptions caused by the conduct of Site Director B, which, in its view, have resulted in delays and a significant increase in costs that would naturally be passed on to the cooperative members. The Cooperative then reprimands Architect B, who nevertheless persists in his authoritarian behaviour and continues introducing the modifications he deems appropriate.

When the value of the executed works reaches 3.6 million euros, including the variations introduced by B, PEGASUS decides to terminate his appointment as Site Director, on the grounds that he refuses to change his attitude and continues modifying work units without the consent of the commissioning Cooperative. However, Architect B refuses to accept the termination unless the client pays him the full fees stated in the engagement agreement, alleging loss of profit (loss of earnings). As expected, no agreement is reached; meanwhile, the works continue practically without any site direction until only a few work units remain.

PEGASUS turns to the Architects’ Association, which sides with its member and upholds his claim. As a result, the Cooperative abandons the dispute and decides to pay the fees demanded by the architect, subsequently appointing a third architect as Site Director.

Construction continues with some difficulty, given everything that has occurred. However, when only glazing, painting, and final finishes remain, TRUMPY files for suspension of payments and construction comes to a complete halt. At this point, the construction company submits a final settlement of 14.2 million euros, that is, €355/m² built area instead of the €330 originally offered, an increase of 13.2%. PEGASUS and TRUMPY fail to reach an agreement and legal proceedings are initiated. Meanwhile, the dwellings are not handed over, resulting in the deterioration of some units and the illegal occupation of others.

1. Who do you consider to be responsible for the problem, and what responsibility do they bear in this matter? What responsibility does Architect B bear in the overall problem? (EXPLAIN TYPE OF INFRACTION)

The main agent responsible for the nature of this problem is the President of PEGASUS. As the president of PEGASUS, he bears organisational and contractual responsibility. By appointing his nephew as a Site director, he bypasses merit-based selection as he chooses the architect through personal merit. This also exposes the cooperatives' stakeholders to financial and legal harm.

Architect B is also liable for the failure of this project and endangers this professional responsibility by not following various Clauses of the deontological code:

- General obligation Clause 2.04 “collision of interest and compatibility”: Architect B accepts the appointment to a project where he has a connection of a 3º degree of consanguinity, which raises a conflict of interest, as Architect B could compromise his ability to choose between familial bonds and the interests of the project. This point could be argued as not important to the result of the deontological commission’s review, as in this case, there is no clear situation where the architect's relation has interfered with the project. However, the intransigent nature of Architect B could be because of this familial

bond, knowing he would not be reprimanded by his attitude towards the agents by his uncle.

- General obligation Clause 2.03 “autonomy and independence”: Architect B’s obstinate, intransigent manner and the modifications made on an improvised basis jeopardise the project and are a clear abusive exercise of professional practice. This behaviour could be seen as a mild infraction of the deontological code.

- Considering the specific obligations for the professional practice, in the practice as a professional service Clause 3.05, which explains the “development of services with dedication and honesty”, he was obliged to keep the client and the contractors informed of progress and to respect the contractual timelines. Architect B’s policy of “fait accompli” is a violation of his duty. Additionally, this inadequacy to provide the documentation of these modifications to TRUMPY is a breach of the general obligation Clause 2.06 “relationship with other building agents”. The improper direction of the site allowed for delays and cost overruns that were harmful to the other building agents. This behaviour is a serious infraction as it had jeopardised the project with intent.

On the other hand, the project’s contract is breached by the Constructor (ie, TRUMPY) when they file for suspension of payment, and construction comes to a halt. However, there is evidence that the works were not following proper procedure (e.g., the continuation of the project without a site manager is not only a risk to the contractor but also to the project itself)

The Constructor is possibly at fault for competitive responsibility as it promised to deliver the project through a process lower than the normal contracts (340-380 €/m²). In the Architect's Deontological code, it would relate to Clause 2.09, which could be seen as unjust competition. The final settlement claim of an increase of 13.2% could be seen as a demonstration of a strategic underprice.

2. What solutions do you propose so that the cooperative members may obtain the occupancy licence and make use of the dwellings?

The cooperative members should complete the work with the appointed Architect “C” as a way to formally close out the project. A new contractor should be appointed for the remaining glazing, painting, and final finishes. At the same time, the cooperative should consider legally proceeding against both the Contractor TRUMPY and Architect B.

- The claim against TRUMPY should highlight the disparity of the contracted price (330 €/m²) and the final settlement claim (355€/m²) - the contractor should provide documents and justifications for that price increase, as the variations of the project were done without their consent. Which brings us to the claim against Architect B; these unauthorised modifications caused economic damage to the cooperative; the cost overruns and the delays of works are the fault of Architect B.

With regards to the illegal occupations, they are protected under Spanish law, so the cooperative should seek legal counsel for either the eviction of these aliens or a compromise with them.

In order to have the occupancy license, the project must receive the final works certificate, ensuring that all of the flaws within the units are fixed.

3. Do you believe that the argument of loss of profit is sufficient to justify the payment of the full fees to Architect B? Is any breach of professional ethics observed on the part of the Architects involved? And on the part of the Architects’ Association?

No. The termination of Architect B was caused by the non-compliance with the deontological code. The client is protected against the predatory behaviour of the architect, where Architect B had clearly gone against the interest of the client.

As mentioned in the previous answers, Architect B has broken various ethical barriers: the conflict of interest, the failure to inform of the modifications, the abusive manner of his directions…

The professional association's course of action by siding without any confirmation of an investigation is questionable, as there is a clear breach of the deontological code by part of Architect B. Although they have a duty to protect their members (Clause 5.0.4), they also have a duty to safeguard professional interests (Clause 5.0.4).

CASE 2:

The Rehabilitation Office of a municipality subsidises building retrofitting works in a historic area, provided that certain conditions are met. It received an application for the restoration of the façade of a building whose ground floor is occupied by a commercial property with a usable floor area of 967 m². The commercial company itself promotes rehabilitation in order to update mechanical systems and improve its corporate image.

After submitting the corresponding rehabilitation project to the Office, the civil servant responsible for supervising compliance with current regulations (a technical officer who is not an architect) denies the building permit. According to DB SI (Fire Safety), the dimensions of the access route, the only evacuation route in the event of fire, are insufficient for the evacuation of the entire floor area.

As a result, the owner of the commercial premises negotiates with the owner of the adjacent property, a small shoe shop of 35 m², and purchases it. This allows the incorporation of a secondary exit onto a side street, thereby resolving the problem of evacuation route dimensions. A revised rehabilitation project is then submitted accordingly.

However, the civil servant again rejects the proposal, arguing that although the access dimensions were acceptable for an initial floor area of 987 m², they are not acceptable for a total area of 1,022 m², as this exceeds the 1,000 m² threshold established in the fire safety regulations.

Despite the unfavourable technical report, the Architect Director of the Municipal Rehabilitation Office proposes granting the licence. At the same time, the civil servant formally requests an investigation into his or her superior for an alleged infringement of the applicable regulations. As time passes, the administrative file is eventually closed.

1. Was it correct to cancel the civil servant’s request for an investigation? Why do you think the file was closed?

In my opinion, it was not correct to cancel the civil servant’s request for an investigation. The civil servant raised the issue of non-compliance with DB SI Fire safety regulations. The project had a flaw that should have also been flagged by the controller architect of the commission, and failure to notify would fail to comply with Clause 3.09 “acting under transparency and reliability” of the Deontological code, where the document has to be justified.

It is the duty of an architect, according to Clause 2.09 “Respect of legality and veracity”, to comply with all of the legal precepts and regulations applicable to the works that have been commended, refusing to act under any situation.

Considering the project is the retrofitting of a façade of a building that has a commercial unit, it is possible that corporate as well as the municipality, under administrative pressure, could lead to the suspension of the investigation. The closure of this case without investigation could be formally appealed.

2. It is assumed that the licence was ultimately granted. In the event of a fire, who would be legally responsible?

In the event of fire, there would be various agents responsible for the situation: the project executor, the Architect, director of municipal rehabilitation.

The project executor, Architect A, would be liable for the flaws of the execution project, which is necessary for renovation projects. As previously mentioned, Clause 2.09 “ Respect of legality and veracity” is not respected by the Architect. The granting of the license does not absolve the Architect from the issues within the professional practice.

The Architect director of the Municipal rehabilitation office is liable, as it is the person who has obtained the license for the project's continuation. As the formal technical inspector, he would be responsible for the non-compliance of the project. Their job in the administrative public function would be compromised under Clause 3.09 “Transparent and truthful conduct in the exercise of the public function” and the same Clause as the project executor (Clause 2.09). Consequently, the municipal license given by the municipality holds them responsible, especially considering that one of their own agents, the civil servant, was so adamant against the project's execution.

Under LOE, the Architect is liable for 10 years for structural defects and three years for habitability defects, which a fire would fall into. If the fire were to involve more than structural flaws, like deaths, the process would not only be charged by the administration but would also be a criminal case against the agents involved in this decision.

3. If the Architect does not belong to a Professional Association, can he or she be reported for a deontological breach? What other types of liability could the Architect incur?

The Architect not being registered in the Professional Association should be reported as a deontological breach to the Professional Association where they are registered. Their Professional Association retains the disciplinary authority over their conduct. If the architect belongs to the Spanish Professional Association, they could be judged for breaking the following deontological codes:

- Clause 2.09 “Respect for legality and veracity” as the obligations to comply with applicable regulations are personal to the architectural functions. Given that the license was granted despite clear non-compliance with the DB-SI fire regulations, it would, in my opinion, be constituted as a serious infraction, as the architect was previously warned about the non-compliance and disregarded it, proving intention.

- Clause 2.01 “Professional registration”, an Architect is obliged to be registered in the PA of the territory where the project is executed, and they should not be able to practice without that registration on that project. It is a serious infraction as the architect cannot prove they are an architect without their collegiate number

- Clause 2.07 “Intrusion”, the Architect practising outside of the territorial scope of their registration could be incompatible with the circumstances; this could be considered a mild infraction if the project was not reserved for other professionals.

CASE 3:

Due to a personal friendship, Real Estate Company W commissions Architect A to prepare the building project for a development of 1,000 residential units, including commercial premises. The company already possesses a study of volumes and floor areas prepared by another Architect, Architect B, who had previously attempted (unsuccessfully) to obtain both the project commission and the site supervision.

From Architect B’s study, W is aware that a total built surface area of 95,000 m² appears to be achievable. Independently, Architect A prepares his own volume and floor-area study in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Planning Regulations, obtaining a maximum buildable area of 85,000 m². Architect A informs W of this result.

Real Estate Company W responds that, if the project cannot reach the 95,000 m² threshold, the commission will be withdrawn and transferred to Architect B, as the difference represents an estimated gain of 700,000€ for the company. Under this pressure,

Architect A reinterprets the urban planning regulations in a more “flexible” manner and ultimately produces a project that achieves the 95,000 m² target.

Once the project is submitted to the Municipality, the municipal Architect rejects it and denies the building permit, stating that the proposal exceeds the permitted limits by 25,000 m³ in volume and 10,000 m² in built surface. Overwhelmed, Architect A informs W of the Municipality’s decision, explaining that he had already warned, based on his initial study, that a maximum of only 85,000 m² was permissible under the regulations.

Without further explanation, Real Estate Company W cancels Architect A’s commission and transfers the project to Architect B. Architect B then submits his own proposal to the Municipality, which also includes a total built surface of 95,000 m². On this occasion, however, the chief municipal architect issued a favourable report and granted the building licence.

1. Discuss the possible reasons why Architect A’s project failed to obtain the building permit, while Architect B’s project was approved.

It is plausible that Architect B’s proposal was accepted due to bribery or illicit agreements. Both the second project presented by Architect A and Architect B had a total surface area of 95,000m², which, in the case of Architect A, was rejected for exceeding the permit’s volume limit by 25,000m² and 10,000m² in built area. Unless the chief municipal architect interpreted the projects with different criteria, it doesn’t make sense that the project was accepted unless there was a previous understanding of the municipal criteria. This would be in violation of Clause 1.05, which relates to “unfair competition.”

On the other hand, it is plausible that Architect B may have found a legitimate interpretation of the Urban Planning Regulation where the project would have met the requirements of the project. It could be that the project presented by Architect B had been meticulous and that Architect A’s pressure-driven project had not complied with those regulations, even if it matched the threshold of Architect B’s proposal.

Real estate company W is pressuring Architect A, which is wrong, pressuring, and extorting for different results. Architect A yielded to the pressure of the developer, Clause 2.03 “autonomy and independence”

2. Was the dismissal of Architect A legally justified?

No, Architect A had fulfilled his professional duties by explaining the planning constraints of the project, the legal maximum of 85,000m² of surface area on the Urban planning regulation. Architect A had not neglected the contract obligations (Clause 3.06 “neglect of contractual obligations”). They are actually entitled to claim fees for unfair termination.

3. Did Architects A and B incur any deontological breaches in their conduct toward one another? Who infringed against whom? How would you classify the type of breach?

Yes, Architect A committed a minor infraction as they yielded to the pressure from the real estate company W to produce a project where they directed the agent-client relationship. They did produce their own independent study and did not attempt to interfere with the prior works of Architect B.

Architect B’s conduct raises deontological concerns:

- They originally attempted to obtain the project commission and the site supervision from real estate company W. This falls under Clause 2.05 “concurrence with other architects/professionals”. They didn't respect others' professional functions and interests. By proposing a volumetric study of 95,000m² built area, it was a weapon used to coerce Architect A to change their own project. Also in Clause 2.09 “Respect to legality and veracity”, the project’s inflated volumetric study was inaccurate as it was non-compliant with the regulation, and Architect B should have known.

- Under Clause 2.08 “Temporary or final substitution of a professional work”, when Architect B ultimately accepted the commission, the situation creates an ethical question about how the project had been obtained.

Additionally, if it were proven that the project license was to be obtained by dubious means (eg, bribery) that would also break Clause 1.15 “bribery”, which would lead to a very severe infraction.

4. Could the chief municipal Architect have committed any professional or legal fault? If so, of what type?

Yes. The chief municipal architect approved the project that identifies surface area and volumetric parameters that had previously been rejected under the same regulations. Unless a substantially different urban justification was provided, the decision to approve the project would be difficult to understand, considering it falls under the same Urban Planning regulation.

The chief municipal architect would be in breach of the deontological code under the following clauses:

- If he acted under poor technical judgment, he would be facing a serious infraction:

- Clause 3.09 “True and transparent performance” requires the architect of the municipal administration to conduct explaining the decision to approve the project

- Clause 2.09 “Respect legality and veracity” requires the architect to follow all legal prescriptions, but this project doesn't meet the requirement.

- If the situation where bribery or illicit agreement is proven, he would be facing a very serious infraction:

- Clause 1.15 “Bribery” where an acceptance of any economic benefit or advantage in exchange for a favourable technical decision constitutes a breach of professional integrity, regardless of if its Architect B or their own idea for this arrangement

- Clause 1.05 “Unfair competition” where the approval of a project that was previously rejected under identical Urban Planning parameters gives Architect B an illegitimate advantage over Architect A.

This deontological breach would be in addition to criminal liability, as there would be proof of corruption in a public office.

CASE 4:

An industrial warehouse is constructed in accordance with the Execution Project drafted by Architect Y. Following a heavy snowfall, the roof collapses. The roof structure consists of steel trusses and galvanised metal sheets, with a dead load of approximately 23 kg/m².

The owner commissions a second professional, Architect Z, to prepare an expert opinion in order to determine the possible causes of the collapse. At the same time, Architect Z informs Architect Y of the commission and receives from her all the project documentation required, as well as her full cooperation for any necessary clarification.

As part of the expert assessment, Architect Z analyses the structural calculations. The warehouse is located in Madrid, at a topographical altitude of 660 metres. According to Table 3.7 of DB-SE-AE (Actions in Building), the characteristic snow load for this altitude is 60 kg/m². Architect Y, the author of the project, had adopted a design snow load of 70 kg/m². In addition, she had estimated the permanent roof load (metal structure and cladding) at approximately 25 kg/m², slightly above the actual load indicated above.

After consulting the National Meteorological Service, Architect Z concludes that the collapse was caused by an exceptional snowfall producing a load of approximately 120 kg/m². She verifies that, under these conditions, the structure was subjected to stresses exceeding its resistance, leading to failure and collapse.

However, during the review of the project and the structural calculations, Architect Z also detected certain errors that reduced the overall safety margin of the structure. She chooses not to mention these errors in her expert report,

considering that the structure would have collapsed due to the exceptional snow load even in the absence of those errors. In her view, the omission of these issues does not affect the conclusions regarding the accidental collapse. She further believes that including such errors could obscure the diagnostic clarity of the report for non-specialist readers.

Consequently, Architect Z justifies her decision by invoking the principle of “loyal truth”, seeking to protect a professional colleague without causing harm or prejudice.

1. Was the conduct of Architect Y correct? And that of Architect Z?

In this case, Architect Y followed conservative approaches to the characteristics of permanent dead load (25 kg/m² projected for the project when the limit is 23 kg/m²) and live load (70 kg/m² projected when the recommended is 60 kg/m²)

The exceptional snowfall could be classified as a “Force majeure” as it is an unprecedented weather condition. Architect Y had followed the proper procedure by supplying Architect Z with the information regarding the project execution.

The consequent failure of the structure was found by Architect Z, who was called upon as an expert witness and should have acted with complete independence and impartiality, without regard to any kind of pressure or influence from other members of the jury, and to sustain their decision, explaining the criteria that justified their findings. The general obligation Clause 2.11 “to formulate criticism of the works and professional activities of others” based on objective criteria and verified facts shows how Architect Z should have projected these findings in the space of the trial. Architect Z, in this case, does not follow Clause 4.02. “Preparing reports, expert works, judgements and valuations”, where it is prohibited to act with partiality when elaborating an expert work at any phase of the procedure. Architect Y would still be professionally responsible for those errors regardless of their causal significance in this specific collapse.

Although there is only material loss, these issues that Architect Z finds could be repeated in other projects of Architect Y and could result in life loss. The communication of these issues should be communicated at least to Architect Y and the professional association. As the decision of Architect Z confuses loyalty to a colleague with the “loyal truth” concept.

2. Do you believe that the principle of “loyal truth” was correctly applied in this case?

In my opinion, the concept of “loyal truth” was not fulfilled by Architect Z. The definition of loyal truth states what one genuinely believes to be true based on the evidence available to the project’s decision, without embellishing or distorting in favour of any party.

It means that Architect Z should not be able to omit facts, regardless of their own opinion. The collapse could have or could not have happened, which doesn't omit the errors related to the safety margins - both the professional association, the client and Architect Z are entitled to know that.

3. Have either of the Architects committed a deontological breach? If so, what type of breach would it be, and how should it be classified?

Architect Y committed a minor infraction as they presented a project that had structural errors later identified by Architect Z. This would fall under Clause 3.05, where they didn't develop sufficient technical precision when preparing the project. As there is a clear intention of structural safety by

surpassing some of the structural parameters (dead and live load), it would show that there was no foul intention within the errors.

Architect Z’s case is different. As part of the expert witness's duties, the report has to be done strictly impartially throughout every phase of the procedure (Clause 4.02), and the works of all Architects have to be done with transparency (Clause 3.09). Architect Z possessed proven facts; there was a structural error found unrelated to the project, but it should not have been omitted. When an architect criticises the work of others, they have to be based on objective criteria and proven facts (Clause 2.11).

Having breached three clauses with a clear intention of omission of justice (even though Architect Y’s project did not fail for the error found, it was still an error). These issues, in my opinion, would then be judged as a severe infraction.

4. Who should be responsible for covering the cost of repairing the roof?

If the collapse is proven to be “force majeure", then Architect Y cannot be held liable for the cost of repair. In the case of proven “force majeure", then it would be the liability of the building owner to be responsible for covering the cost of repairing the roof.

However, if the structural error identified by Architect Z were to be found to have contributed to the collapse of the roof, then Architect Y would be liable at least for civil liability. Had the errors been reported, the court would have been informed to assess the causal relevance. The omission of such information could have caused an incorrect legal outcome.

The insurance of Architect Y protects the project for 10 years following the project's completion in case of structural damage.