You didn’t spend years earning a degree, grinding through the ARE, and building a portfolio just to have your career threatened by a complaint you may not even fully understand yet. But that’s exactly where a lot of Illinois architects find themselves when the IDFPR comes calling about a design defect allegation.
Maybe a property owner is blaming you for water damage. Maybe a contractor is pointing the finger your way after a building inspection went sideways. Or maybe you got a letter from an IDFPR investigator—polite, routine-sounding—asking for project documents and a written response.
That letter is not routine. And how you respond to it can determine whether this complaint gets closed quietly or turns into a full-blown disciplinary proceeding that puts your architecture license at risk.
At 1818, we defend professionals facing IDFPR investigations. Our founding principal, Jordan Matyas, is a former IDFPR supervisor. He’s been on the other side of this process. That perspective shapes everything about how we handle these cases.
Where Design Defect Complaints Come From
The IDFPR’s enforcement process starts when the agency receives a complaint. For architects, complaints can come from property owners, building occupants, general contractors, code enforcement officials, other design professionals, or government agencies that spot problems during inspections. Sometimes a lawsuit over a construction dispute triggers a parallel IDFPR complaint.
Not every construction problem is an architect’s fault, and not every complaint has merit. But IDFPR doesn’t make that determination upfront. Once a complaint is received, if the agency decides it has jurisdiction and enough information to look into it, it assigns an investigator. That investigator reaches out to you, asks for your project files, and requests your side of the story.
This is the inflection point. What you say and what you hand over in that initial exchange can either move the case toward a dismissal or give the agency ammunition to escalate it.
Do Not Talk to IDFPR Without a Lawyer
I know that sounds dramatic, and I know the instinct is to cooperate. You’re a professional. You have nothing to hide. You want to explain your design decisions and clear your name.
But IDFPR investigators are not neutral parties having a friendly conversation. They are building a file. Every document you provide, every word in your written response, becomes part of an investigative record that could follow you to an informal conference, a formal hearing, or worse. We’ve seen licensees hurt their own cases—badly—by oversharing, by being imprecise, or by casually admitting to things that had more legal significance than they realized.
An experienced IDFPR defense attorney can help you craft a response that’s cooperative without being careless. In many cases, a well-prepared initial submission is enough to get the complaint dismissed before it ever gets past the investigation stage. That’s the best possible outcome, and it happens more often than people think when the response is done right.
If you’re not sure where to start, we’ve written a practical guide on how to hire an attorney for IDFPR issues that covers what to look for and what red flags to watch out for.
What the Law Says About Architect Conduct
The Illinois Architecture Practice Act, 225 ILCS 305 , and its administrative rules under 68 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1150, set out the standards for professional conduct and the grounds for discipline. Architects are expected to practice competently, within their area of qualification, and in accordance with applicable building codes and standards.
When IDFPR investigates a design defect, the central question is whether you met the standard of care—whether your work reflected the level of skill and judgment that a reasonably competent architect would have exercised under the same circumstances.
That’s not the same thing as asking whether the building had a problem. Buildings develop problems for all kinds of reasons. Material failures. Contractor shortcuts. Unforeseen soil conditions. Client-directed changes that deviated from your original design. Decades of deferred maintenance by an owner who is now looking for someone to blame.
The standard of care analysis is about whether your design work was reasonable given what you knew—or should have known—at the time you did the work. That distinction is where good defense work makes the difference.
How the Disciplinary Process Unfolds
IDFPR’s process has several stages, and understanding where you are in the timeline matters because your defense strategy should shift at each step.
Investigation. The investigator collects documents—drawings, specifications, contracts, correspondence, permit applications, inspection reports—and may talk to other parties involved in the project. For architects, the investigator also presents the case to the Architecture Licensing Board’s complaint review subcommittee, which weighs in on whether the evidence warrants further action.
If the investigation doesn’t produce sufficient evidence of a licensing violation, the complaint gets closed. This is where you want to resolve it. A strong initial response that directly addresses the investigator’s concerns and provides supporting documentation can end the process here.
Informal conference. If the case isn’t dismissed at investigation, IDFPR may schedule what they call an “informal” conference. The name is misleading. This is a sit-down with IDFPR enforcement staff where they present their concerns and explore whether a negotiated resolution—like a consent order—is possible. Consent orders can include conditions like continuing education, supervision requirements, or practice restrictions. They’re not ideal, but they’re often preferable to a hearing. An attorney who knows how IDFPR negotiates can make a significant difference in what terms you’re offered.
Formal hearing. If no agreement is reached, IDFPR files a formal complaint and the case goes before a Hearing Officer or Administrative Law Judge. Think of this as a trial without a jury. Both sides present evidence and testimony, and the Hearing Officer issues findings and recommendations to the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation.
Discipline. If the Director finds a violation, the range of outcomes includes reprimand, censure, probation, suspension, fines, or license revocation. The severity depends on the nature of the defect, whether anyone was harmed, your disciplinary history, and how you’ve handled the process. Revocation is relatively rare for a first offense, but it’s not impossible—particularly in cases involving serious safety failures or plan stamping.
Appeal. You have 35 days after a final order to appeal to Circuit Court under the Illinois Administrative Review Law. The court reviews IDFPR’s record to determine whether the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This isn’t a do-over—you don’t get to introduce new evidence or reargue the case. Having an attorney involved from day one makes the appeal much stronger because the record you’re appealing was built under their guidance.
The Kinds of Defects That Get Architects in Trouble
Some patterns show up again and again in IDFPR cases involving architects.
Structural issues—undersized members, inadequate load calculations, missing lateral bracing—are taken the most seriously because they implicate life safety. Water intrusion problems—poor flashing details, inadequate drainage, or envelope failures—generate a huge volume of complaints, partly because the damage is visible and expensive and partly because property owners assume the architect must be at fault.
Code violations are straightforward from IDFPR’s perspective. If a design didn’t comply with the applicable building code and that non-compliance led to a safety concern or a failed inspection, the agency has clear grounds to investigate. These cases often turn on whether the architect was aware of the relevant code requirements and whether the non-compliance was a design error or a field deviation.
Plan stamping—signing and sealing technical submissions that were not prepared under your direct supervision—is treated as a serious offense under Illinois law. The administrative rules require that an architect only seal work prepared under their responsible control. If a defect is traced to work you sealed but didn’t supervise, the consequences can be severe even if the underlying defect is minor.
Why Jordan’s IDFPR Background Matters
Most law firms that handle professional license defense learn the IDFPR process from the outside. Jordan Matyas learned it from the inside.
Before founding 1818, Jordan served as a supervisor at IDFPR. He understands how investigators build their cases, what the agency looks for in a licensee’s response, how the informal conference process works, and what factors influence the severity of discipline recommendations. That’s not something you can learn from a textbook or pick up from handling a few cases.
When we take on an architect’s defense, we use that knowledge to anticipate what IDFPR will focus on and to position our client’s response accordingly. Sometimes that means getting the case dismissed at investigation. Sometimes it means negotiating a reasonable consent order that lets you keep working. And when a case needs to go to hearing, it means building a record that gives you the strongest possible position on appeal.
Your architecture license represents years of work and the foundation of your livelihood. We take that seriously.
If IDFPR Has Contacted You, Move Quickly
The window for making the best possible impression on an IDFPR investigator is narrow. Once you’ve submitted a response—or worse, once you’ve talked to an investigator without counsel—it’s much harder to walk things back.
If you’ve received a letter, a call, or a formal notice from IDFPR about a design defect complaint, get an attorney involved before you respond. That one decision can change the trajectory of the entire case.
Contact 1818 for a free consultation. We’ll review the complaint, assess where things stand, and help you put together a response that protects your license.
