Legally Green — Legal and Practice Issues of LEED (AIA'08)

This morning began (for me) with a 7:00 (early!) session called "Legally Green: Legal and Practice Issues of LEED," presented by Betsy del Monte and William Quatman. The room had a capacity approaching 400, and got close to filling up. Betsy's presentation was, for the most part, understandably basic. The big majority of the audience, by show of hands, had not worked on a LEED certified project, or a LEED certifiable project, and were not LEED APs. They were there for continuing education. More on that shortly. Betsy's take on legislation and owner requirements for buildings to be LEED certifiable, but not certified, falls just a bit short. She noted that the cost difference between a certifiable project and a certified one is marginal at best... and that when somebody says that they saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by not pursuing actual certification, it means that they almost certainly did not build a certifiable building. According to Betsy, USGBC fees are the smallest amount of the increased costs of a certifiable building. Bill's part of the presentation addressed the potential legal concerns facing architects that are working in the greenstream. There was quite a bit made of the fact that the AIA's policies, contracts, and code of ethics all demand — not just support — sustainability and environmental proactivity by its members. (He admitted that the bar is sometimes pretty low, however.) He presented research showing that 83% of designers feel that they have a responsibility to present green options to their clients — but that only 17% actually do it. Does this constitute negligence? — "conduct below the professional standard of care"? If green is a requirement of practice, and you don't do it, are you negligent? He asked if having LEED APs on staff raises the bar. Does it represent expertise? Does citing performance standards and LEED AP credentials in your marketing imply a warranty that can create potential liability? With green building increasingly being required by legislation, new liabilities arise. "Strict Liability" means that if legislated requirements aren't met, a jury isn't needed to convict you (as opposed to "Negligence Per Se.") If a statute requiring LEED certifiability isn't achieved, you're guilty. No trial needed. He noted that a CD can be requested from the AIA Trust that contains all the information he covered. Now, about the continuing education thing: It's a requisite part of AIA membership, and AIA members get continuing education credits for attending these sessions. It's a good thing when a professional organization demands that its members stay abreast of their field. But I was disappointed to see all but about 40 people stampede for the door when Q&A started. It begged the unasked question: Were they only here for the continuing ed credits? To put in their minimum requirement? The people who stayed were deeply engaged — leaning forward in their seats, taking notes, participating. They are the future, and they give me hope.