Three Members Censured for Violating AIA Code of Ethics

Summary: AIA members Christopher R. Haupt, AIA; Csaba S. Balazs, AIA; and Ann Kimball Balazs, AIA, have been censured by the National Ethics Council for violating Rule 4.201 and Rule 5.201 of the Institute’s 1997 Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The Council also censured Mr. Haupt for violating Rule 5.202 of the Code of Ethics.

Rule 4.201 states:
Members shall not make misleading, deceptive, or false statements or claims about their professional qualifications, experience, or performance and shall accurately state the scope and nature of their responsibilities in connection with work for which they are claiming credit.

Rule 5.201 (renumbered 5.301 in the 2004 Code of Ethics) states:
Members shall recognize and respect the professional contributions of their employees, employers, professional colleagues, and business associates.

Rule 5.202 (renumbered 5.302 in the 2004 Code of Ethics) states:
Members leaving a firm shall not, without the permission of their employer or partner, take designs, drawings, data, reports, notes, or other materials relating to the firm’s work, whether or not performed by the Member.

Mr. Haupt had worked for the complainant’s firm for 11 years before leaving to join another firm as vice president and managing principal of one of the firm’s offices. Both Mr. Balazs and Ms. Balazs are also officers and managers of Mr. Haupt’s new firm, which hired a marketing consultant to publicize Mr. Haupt’s presence. The marketing consultant prepared a tri-fold announcement with information provided by Mr. Haupt. The announcement stated that Mr. Haupt’s portfolio includes six named projects, all of which are projects of the complainant’s firm. The announcement did not mention the complainant’s firm and provided no indication that the complainant’s firm was responsible for the six projects. Mr. Balazs and Ms. Balazs were each aware of the content of the announcement and reviewed and approved it prior to the time that it was mailed to prospective clients of their firm, including some clients of the complainant’s firm.

Upon leaving the complainant’s firm, Mr. Haupt had obtained copies of project photographs that had been commissioned by that firm. The complainant’s firm did not give him permission to use its project photographs. Mr. Haupt’s new firm created promotional material that highlighted his experience by displaying nine projects of the complainant’s firm. The material contained photographs and text describing each project and, in smaller type than the text describing the project, identified each project as that of the complainant’s firm and described Mr. Haupt’s role on the project. All of the photographs of the nine projects were photographs that had been commissioned by the complainant’s firm and were used without that firm’s permission.

The National Ethics Council ruled that the credit claimed by Mr. Haupt in the tri-fold announcement violated Rule 4.201. The council ruled that Mr. Balazs and Ms. Balazs violated Rule 4.201 in connection with the announcement because they were responsible for its review, approval, and distribution. The council also concluded that Mr. Haupt, Mr. Balazs, and Ms. Balazs had each violated Rule 5.201 (now 5.301) by failing to provide appropriate credit to the complainant’s firm in the tri-fold announcement and other promotional materials. In addition, the council ruled that Mr. Haupt violated Rule 5.202 (now 5.302) because he took “other materials,” namely photographs, without the knowledge or permission of the complainant’s firm.

The council imposed the penalty of censure on Mr. Haupt, Mr. Balazs, and Ms. Balazs. The council’s decision was appealed to the AIA’s Executive Committee, as permitted by the Institute’s Bylaws and Rules of the Board. The Executive Committee approved the council’s decision and the penalty imposed.