In Maryland, does an interior designer need an architect's license to redesign the layout of non-loadbearing interior walls in a public building?

Plain-English summary

A member of the Maryland House of Delegates asked the Attorney General in 1990 whether preparing design plans to move non-loadbearing interior walls, walls that are not part of a building's structural support, in a non-residential building open to the public counted as the practice of architecture. The question mattered because Maryland did not license or regulate "interior designers" as a profession, so anyone could call themselves an interior designer regardless of training, and the answer determined whether such projects legally required a licensed architect.

The Attorney General concluded that preparing plans for a significant movement of non-loadbearing walls in a public building does constitute the practice of architecture under the Maryland Architects Act, and therefore must be done by a licensed architect or by someone else acting within one of the Act's specific exceptions (such as certain engineers, landscape architects, real estate brokers, or construction contractors). The opinion reasoned that even though such moves do not necessarily affect a building's core structural integrity, they can affect public safety and welfare in ways within an architect's expertise, such as fire exit access and accessibility, and that Maryland law gave no assurance that someone using the unregulated title "interior designer" had comparable training. The opinion limited its conclusion to significant wall movements, not minor partition shifts unlikely to raise those safety concerns.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990 and interpreted the Maryland Architects Act, then codified at Title 3 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article, as it stood at that time, along with the state of interior design licensing in Maryland and other states as of 1990 (the opinion notes a 1990 Maryland bill to regulate "certified interior designers" had failed). Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the licensing exceptions in BOP §3-103 or Maryland's regulation of interior design generally. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify the current version of the Maryland Architects Act and any interior design licensing law before relying on any specific rule described here.

Common questions

Could an unlicensed interior designer in Maryland redesign the layout of non-loadbearing walls in an office building in 1990?
Not if the wall movement was significant, according to this opinion. The Attorney General concluded that such design work fell within the practice of architecture and required a licensed architect or someone acting within a specific statutory exception, regardless of the designer's actual training or experience.

Why did the opinion distinguish between "cosmetic" and "structural" changes when non-loadbearing walls are not structural?
The opinion found that Maryland case law had generally treated only structural changes as requiring an architect, but concluded that moving non-loadbearing walls did not fit neatly into either category. It reasoned that such moves could still affect public safety, such as fire exit access, so a significant movement required an architect even though the walls themselves were not load-bearing.

Did this 1990 opinion say Maryland regulated the title "interior designer"?
No. The opinion noted that Maryland had no licensing or regulation of interior design as a profession, so the title carried no guarantee of training or competency, unlike the roughly eight other states and the District of Columbia the opinion listed as having some form of interior design licensing at the time.

Background and statutory framework

The Maryland Architects Act, Title 3 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article, defined "practice architecture" broadly to include any service or creative work regarding an addition to, alteration of, or construction of a building, or an integral part of a building, that requires education, training, and experience in architecture, including architectural design, consultation, coordination of engineering and other consultants, evaluation, investigation, and planning. BOP §3-302(a) generally required an individual to be licensed by the State Board of Architects before practicing architecture, and practicing without a license was a misdemeanor. BOP §3-103 set out the only exceptions: personal-use construction not intended for public use, certain services incidental to licensed engineering or landscape architecture practice, real estate broker property appraisal or site selection, and construction contractor administration of construction contracts. Interior designers fell within none of these exceptions.

The opinion traced how courts elsewhere had distinguished cosmetic changes to a building's interior appearance, not the practice of architecture under Perry v. Dudley and Marshall-Schule Associates v. Goldman, from structural changes, which were the practice of architecture under Snodgrass v. Immler and Geer v. Bennett. Since moving non-loadbearing walls did not clearly fall into either category, the opinion looked to the Architects Act's stated purpose in BOP §3-102, to safeguard life, health, public safety, and property by regulating the practice of architecture, and concluded that a significant wall movement could implicate those same safety concerns (fire exit access, accessibility for people with disabilities, and even the threshold question of whether a wall was truly non-loadbearing), placing it within an architect's expertise. The opinion contrasted this with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals' decision in Gerry Potter's Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Cohen, which had found that a contractor's free, incidental layout drawings for fixture placement, color scheme, and materials in a store conversion did not amount to the practice of architecture.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• BOP §3-101(g), defining "practice architecture" to include design work on a building or integral part of a building requiring architectural education, training, and experience
• BOP §3-101(g)(1), the specific provision covering "alteration of ... an integral part of a building"
• BOP §3-302(a), requiring State Board of Architects licensure to practice architecture
• BOP §§3-601 and 3-605, making unlicensed practice of architecture a misdemeanor
• BOP §3-103, exempting certain personal-use construction and services by engineers, landscape architects, real estate brokers, and construction contractors from the licensure requirement
• BOP §3-102, the Architects Act's statement of purpose to safeguard life, health, public safety, and property
• Ala. Code, §34-15A, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §5538, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20-377, Fla. Stat. Ann. §481.201 et seq., La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §37:44, N.M. Stat. Ann. §61-24C, N.Y. Educ. Law §161, Va. Code Ann. §54.1-400 et seq., and D.C. Code Ann. §2-3401 et seq., the other jurisdictions' interior design licensing statutes the opinion surveyed

Cases:

• Perry v. Dudley, 145 Ga. App. 728, 244 S.E.2d 580, 581 (1978), and Marshall-Schule Associates v. Goldman, 523 N.Y.S.2d 16, 17-18 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1987), holding cosmetic interior design changes are not the practice of architecture
• Snodgrass v. Immler, 232 Md. 416, 421, 194 A.2d 103 (1963), and Geer v. Bennett, 237 So. 2d 311, 316 (Fla. 1970), holding structural design changes are the practice of architecture
• Gerry Potter's Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Cohen, 46 Md. App. 131, 416 A.2d 283 (1980), finding a contractor's incidental fixture-placement layout drawings for a store conversion were not the practice of architecture

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1990/Volume75_1990.pdf (this opinion appears at printed pages 70-75 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Preparation of Design Plan for Significant Movement of Non-Loadbearing Walls is Practice of Architecture

December 10, 1990

The Honorable Dana Lee Dembrow
Maryland House of Delegates

 You have requested our opinion on whether the preparation of design plans for the movement of interior partitions that are not part of the building's structure ("non-loadbearing walls") constitutes the practice of architecture under the Maryland Architects Act.

 For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the preparation of design plans involving any significant movement of non-loadbearing walls constitutes the practice of architecture. Accordingly, such plans must be prepared by either a licensed architect or a person acting within the scope of a statutory exception to the licensing requirement.

I

Background

 You have inquired whether the preparation of certain design plans by individuals engaged in the occupation of "interior design" constitutes the unauthorized practice of architecture. Your inquiry specifically encompasses the preparation of plans for the movement of non-loadbearing interior walls in non-residential buildings intended for public use and assembly (for example, government buildings, offices, and stores or other commercial establishments).

 In Maryland, "interior design" is not a statutorily recognized and defined profession.1 As a result the title "interior designer" may be used by individuals with widely divergent training and experience.

 Some practitioners of "interior design" have degrees in interior design from accredited institutions of higher learning. These individuals often belong to professional organizations and many have passed an examination administered by the National Council For Interior Design Qualification. California State University Real Estate and Land Use Institute, A Study to Determine the Need to License Interior Designers 8-9 (1990) ("California Study").

 Other individuals, also operating under the rubric of "interior designer," have no formal education or training in the field of interior design. They belong to no professional organizations and have taken no competency examination, and their practical experience is limited to advising clients with respect to the purchase of items like furniture, draperies, carpet and accent pieces. California Study at 12.

 Thus, under present Maryland law, the use of the title "interior designer" by an individual constitutes no verification of expertise, or even minimal competency, with respect to interior design skills. An individual who acts as an "interior designer" within the State of Maryland is subject to exactly the same restrictions on the practice of architecture as those imposed on any other person.2

II

Regulation of Architecture

 The practice of architecture in Maryland is governed by Title 3 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article ("BOP" Article), the Maryland Architects Act. BOP §3-101(g) defines the term "practice architecture" as follows:

      (g)(1) "Practice architecture" means to provide any service or creative work:

           (i) in regard to an addition to, alteration of, or construction of a building or an integral part of a building; and

           (ii) that requires education, training, and experience in architecture.

      (2) "Practice architecture" includes:

           (i) architectural design and preparation of related documents;

           (ii) consultation;

           (iii) coordination of services that civil, electrical, mechanical, or structural engineers or any other consultants provide;

           (iv) evaluation;

           (v) investigation; and

           (vi) planning.

BOP §3-302(a) provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this title, an individual shall be licensed by the [State] Board [of Architects] before the individual may practice architecture in the State." A person who practices architecture without a license is guilty of a misdemeanor. BOP §§3-601 and 3-605.

 Thus, the statute establishes the general prohibition on the practice of architecture by an individual who is not licensed by the State Board of Architects. The only exceptions to the general requirement of licensure by the Board are found at BOP §3-103, which exempts from licensure design services with respect to certain types of residential construction and certain services provided by engineers, landscape architects, real estate brokers, and construction contractors.3 Interior designers are not exempt.

 Non-residential design services by interior designers do not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to licensure. Therefore, we next consider whether the specific services in question, preparing design plans for the movement of non-loadbearing interior walls within a building intended for public use, constitute the practice of architecture, and, hence, may be performed only by a licensed architect.

 The cases draw a distinction between cosmetic and structural changes. On the one hand, preparing design plans for "cosmetic changes in the internal appearance of an existing structure" is not the practice of architecture. Perry v. Dudley, 145 Ga. App. 728, 244 S.E.2d 580, 581 (1978). See also Marshall-Schule Associates v. Goldman, 523 N.Y.S.2d 16, 17-18 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1987). On the other hand, preparing design plans to effect structural changes to a building is the practice of architecture. Snodgrass v. Immler, 232 Md. 416, 421, 194 A.2d 103 (1963). See also Geer v. Bennett, 237 So. 2d 311, 316 (Fla. 1970).

 The movement of non-loadbearing interior walls does not fit neatly into either the category of "cosmetic" or "structural" change to a building. Nonetheless, we conclude that, at least where the movement is significant, the General Assembly intended an architect to draw the plans.

 The Architects Act does not specifically address the issue of movement of non-loadbearing interior walls. Nor does Maryland case law.4 The statute does require the services of an architect, however, for the "alteration of ... an integral part of a building ...," when services in connection with the alteration require "education, training, and experience in architecture." BOP §3-101(g)(1).

 Although design plans for the movement of non-loadbearing walls would not ordinarily affect the fundamental structural integrity of a building, they might well affect aspects of public safety and welfare. Indeed, even the initial determination of whether a wall is, in fact, non-loadbearing may impact upon public safety. The placement of interior walls within a structure such as an office building may have a considerable impact on fire safety, by making access to fire exits and escapes harder. Other public welfare concerns, for instance, access by persons with disabilities, might also be affected. All of these matters are within the expertise of architects; absent State regulation of the practice of interior design, we cannot conclude that an interior designer has comparable expertise. See Part I above.

 Our view of the statute is guided by the statement of legislative intent set forth in BOP §3-102: "The purposes of this title are to safeguard life, health, public safety, and property and to promote the public welfare by regulating persons who practice architecture in the State." In view of these purposes, we conclude that where design plans call for the significant movement of non-loadbearing walls and therefore could have a potential impact on public safety or welfare, the preparation of these design plans constitute the practice of architecture.5 They must be prepared by a licensed architect or a person acting within the scope of one of the statutory exceptions to the licensing requirement.

                                              J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                              Attorney General

                                              Joel Jacobson
                                              Assistant Attorney General

                                              Jack Schwartz
                                              Chief Counsel
                                                Opinions & Advice

1
The following states have enacted some form of licensing for interior designers: Alabama (Ala. Code, §34-15A), California (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §5538), Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20-377), Florida (Fla. Stat. Ann. §481.201 et seq.), Louisiana (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §37:44), New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. §61-24C), New York (N.Y. Educ. Law §161), Virginia (Va. Code Ann. §54.1-400 et seq.), and the District of Columbia (D.C. Code Ann. §2-3401 et seq.). Although these states differ in the permitted scope of design activity by interior designers, all have established an examination system, and all have established education or experience requirements or both.
In the 1990 Session of the Maryland General Assembly, Senate Bill 660 would have regulated the use of the title "certified interior designers" as well as certain aspects of the practice of certified interior designers. The bill failed.

2
This opinion concerns only the issue of whether certain design services constitute the practice of architecture. The actual implementation of the design plans may, depending upon the nature of the work and applicable statutes and ordinances, require the services of certain licensed persons such as electricians or plumbers.

3
BOP §3-103 provides as follows:

      (a) This title does not require a person to employ a licensed architect in connection with any alteration, construction, design, or repair of a building or other structure that:
           (1) is for personal use; and
           (2) is not intended for any use, including assembly, employment or occupancy, by the public.
      (b) This title does not limit the right of:
           (1) an individual to perform architectural services that are incidental to practicing engineering and are not in conflict with the basic definition of practicing architecture, if the individual is licensed or otherwise authorized under Title 14 of this article to practice engineering;
           (2) an individual to perform architectural services that are incidental to practicing landscape architecture and are not in conflict with the basic definition of practicing architecture, if the individual is licensed or otherwise authorized under Title 9 of this article to practice landscape architecture;
           (3) a real estate broker, associate real estate broker, or real estate salesperson to appraise property or to choose sites; or
           (4) a construction contractor to administer construction contracts.

4
In Gerry Potter's Store Fixtures, Inc. v. Cohen, 46 Md. App. 131, 416 A.2d 283 (1980), the Court of Special Appeals found that Potter, a contractor retained to remodel and convert a clothing store into a yogurt shop, did not engage in the practice of architecture. The court found that Potter had prepared, free of charge, and incidental to his work as a contractor, "certain lay-out drawings." The decision identifies specifically only the placement of fixtures, color scheme, and type of materials as the subject of Potter's drawings. 46 Md. App. at 134.
One out-of-state trial court decision holds that the "re-arrangement of doors and closets" is the practice of architecture. See Marshall-Schule Associates v. Goldman, 523 N.Y.S.2d at 18.

5
We refer to "significant movement" because we do not see how the underlying public welfare concerns of the statute are implicated by minor shifts in partitions that could not affect safety or other related issues. Those who review or approve plans ought to be able to determine whether the movement is so insignificant as to fall outside the general requirement for an architect's approval.