By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.




In his first letter (AJ 08.02.07), Maurice McCarthy accused CABE panel members of harming the credibility of the ARB by using the acronym as an affix to their names. Now, in his second letter (AJ 15.03.07), he refers to a legal ruling from 1860 which constrains statutory bodies in what they are expressly empowered to do.

McCarthy does this to argue against a point made in my letter (AJ 01.03.07) - that neither the ARB nor anyone else has the right to tell registered architects how to announce their registration as long as they do not misrepresent their status. He makes no attempt to explain how this legal ruling supports his argument.

Indeed it would appear that the legal ruling supports my position by defining ARB's constraints.

I note that McCarthy freely uses the acronym ARB in the text of his letters but refuses to accept that it could be used as an affix to indicate registration. One assumes that he would not object to the use of the words 'registered by ARB' as an affix. If so, does he really believe that we would be harming the credibility of the ARB by leaving out the words 'registered by', and that in some way the 1860 ruling established this?

Furthermore, he suggests that I risk being involved in an expensive lawsuit for using the ARB affix in the USA. Perhaps he would like to identify one such previous case in the USA, as I'm sure my expat ARB-'affixed' colleagues would be interested to hear about it.

Peter Arnold, Colorado, USA

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters