Why Some Interior Designers Can’t Own Architecture Firms

LIKE

0

LEAVE COMMENT 0

8 min read

Most interior designers don’t spend too much time thinking about firm ownership laws. Why would they? If you start a business, build a client base, hire employees, and expand your services, ownership seems like something you decide with your attorney, accountant, and business partners.

In many cases, that’s true. An interior designer can open an interior design firm, grow it, and operate it successfully without ever encountering a legal obstacle related to ownership. If you want to add architecture as a service line, however, you might have some issues.

Depending on the state, your ability to own part of a firm, become a principal, or expand into architectural services might be shaped by laws you’ve never heard of. Some of these restrictions stem from architecture licensing requirements. Others are tied to professional corporation rules, ownership requirements, or firm registration laws. As a result, two firms that appear nearly identical from the outside might operate under very different legal frameworks.

For years, organizations such as the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) have argued that many of these laws no longer reflect the realities of modern interior design practice. Others maintain that ownership restrictions are an important part of protecting public health, safety, and welfare when architectural services are involved.

Whatever your position, the debate raises an interesting question: Should qualified interior designers have the same opportunities to own, lead, and grow multidisciplinary design firms as other design professionals?

Most Designers Assume Ownership Is a Business Decision

Imagine building a successful interior design firm over the course of twenty years. You’ve developed a strong reputation, assembled a talented team, and established relationships with contractors, consultants, and vendors. Business is thriving. Eventually, you decide to expand your services, bring in new partners, or add architecture to your offerings. Most designers assume those decisions are theirs to make.

After all, ownership feels like a business decision. If you meet the financial requirements, find the right partners, and comply with standard business regulations, why wouldn’t you be able to structure your company however you choose?

The answer, according to ASID, is that ownership and advancement opportunities are not always treated equally across design professions.

The Reality Can Be More Complicated

Most interior designers never encounter these restrictions because they operate firms that provide interior design services only. They only encounter this issue when their firm begins expanding into architecture, engineering, or other licensed professional services.

ASID argues that state laws vary significantly in how they treat interior designers in these situations. In some states, an interior designer may face restrictions on ownership stakes in firms that offer architectural services. In others, advancement opportunities within multidisciplinary firms might be limited in ways many designers would never expect.

Designers who haven’t ever investigated the legal side of firm ownership might be shocked by these restrictions. Most people assume that expanding a business is primarily a financial and operational decision. In some states, however, professional licensing laws can influence who owns the firm, who leads the firm, and how that firm is allowed to grow.

Why Do These Restrictions Exist?

If you’ve never looked into architecture licensing laws before, some of these restrictions can seem completely arbitrary. Why should ownership matter at all? Why should it matter whether an interior designer becomes a principal in a firm? Why should anyone care who owns what percentage of a business? The answer is that architecture has traditionally been regulated differently than many other professions.

In some states, firms offering architectural services must satisfy specific ownership, management, and licensing requirements. According to Wolters Kluwer’s overview of architecture firm licensing laws, some states require designated architects who assume responsibility for architectural work performed by the firm. Others impose requirements related to ownership, leadership positions, or business structure.

Most designers never encounter these rules because they aren’t offering architectural services. The restrictions only become relevant when a firm’s growth overlaps with architecture.

The Original Goal Was Accountability

Most of these laws were not originally written to limit interior designers. They were created around the idea that licensed professionals should maintain responsibility for work that affects public health, safety, and welfare. This makes complete sense. If a profession requires licensure, testing, continuing education, and legal accountability, regulators often want licensed professionals involved in leadership and oversight roles. Whether that framework still reflects the realities of modern interior design practice is more of an issue.

The Problem Is That Interior Design Has Changed

The assumptions behind many of these laws developed at a time when interior design was widely perceived very differently than it is today. While furnishings and finishes remain part of the profession, many designers now manage complex renovations, produce construction documents, coordinate consultants, and navigate building codes on a daily basis.

Designers and associations like ASID now argue that laws written decades ago don’t always reflect the scope of work many qualified interior designers perform today.

Why Designers Are Challenging These Laws

One of the more interesting aspects of this debate is that it doesn’t focus entirely on who’s doing the work in question. Instead, it’s at least in part about where the work is being performed and who employs the person performing it. Joan Kaufman, principal of Interior Planning & Design in Illinois, described exactly this situation when speaking with Business of Home about ASID’s efforts to expand practice rights.

Now, that might seem counterintuitive to you. If a professional is qualified to perform certain work while employed by one firm, it seems strange that the legal framework surrounding that same work changes once they operate independently. Supporters of expanded ownership and practice rights often point to examples like Kaufman’s. They argue that the profession has evolved significantly, but many of the laws governing ownership and advancement opportunities have not kept pace.

Supporters Say the Profession Has Earned Greater Recognition

The debate surrounding ownership rights is often tied to a larger conversation about how interior design is perceived as a profession. Many designers feel the public still associates interior design primarily with furnishings, finishes, and aesthetics. Interior design now incorporates architecture in limited ways; we have to understand, interpret, and consider much of what licensed architects do. While decorating and furniture selections are still important parts of the profession, they represent only a portion of the work many commercial and technical designers perform every day.

This is the distinction that advocates of expanded ownership and advancement opportunities center their argument around. If interior designers are being educated, tested, and trusted to perform increasingly sophisticated work, they argue those responsibilities should be reflected in the legal framework governing the profession.

Education Is Part of that Argument

Again, much of that argument centers on education, experience, and professional qualifications. Many states recognize NCIDQ certification as a benchmark for competency in commercial interior design practice. Candidates must satisfy education and experience requirements before completing a multi-part examination covering topics such as codes, accessibility, building systems, and life-safety considerations.

Supporters of expanded ownership and practice rights frequently point to these requirements when arguing that qualified interior designers are capable of assuming greater responsibility within multidisciplinary firms.

Fuel your creative fire & be a part of a supportive community that values how you love to live.

subscribe to our newsletter

_{*please check your Spam folder for the latest DesignDash Magazine issue immediately after subscription}

Subscribe

But What About Architects?

While advocates frame this issue as one of professional recognition and economic opportunity, others view it through a different lens. Architects and regulators who support existing restrictions often emphasize accountability, licensure, and public safety. From that perspective, ownership requirements are part of a broader system designed to ensure that licensed professionals remain responsible for work that affects the built environment.

Importantly, most interior designers pushing for expanded rights are not asking to perform structural engineering or assume responsibility for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.

Instead, much of the debate focuses on commercial interiors, nonstructural work, permitting authority, and leadership opportunities within firms that already employ highly qualified interior designers. That distinction is one reason these discussions continue to generate disagreement even among professionals who work closely together every day.

Still, ASID Calls It a Glass Ceiling Because Ownership Restrictions Can Affect Advancement

Leadership opportunities might be stunted by these restrictions, argue ASID and other advocates. According to ASID, some state laws don’t just affect whether an interior designer can own part of a multidisciplinary firm but also whether that designer is eligible to hold leadership positions within the organization.

Designers who spend years helping build a successful firm might truly be hurt by these restrictions. Most professionals assume promotions are based on experience, contributions, leadership ability, and business performance. In some states, however, professional licensing requirements might influence who can ultimately occupy certain leadership roles.

As firms grow, questions about ownership and advancement intertwine. Succession planning, partner tracks, mergers, acquisitions, and long-term growth strategies can all raise legal questions that many designers didn’t consider when they first entered the profession.

The Issue Could Affect Women Disproportionately

Supporters of reform often point out that interior design remains a predominantly female profession, while architecture has historically been male-dominated. As a result, some advocates argue that ownership and advancement restrictions can have consequences beyond firm structure alone.

ASID’s position is that restrictions on ownership and advancement opportunities can limit economic mobility for interior designers and create barriers that don’t exist for other design professionals.

Whether one agrees with that characterization or not, it highlights how strongly many advocates feel about the issue. For them, this debate about firm structure or corporate ownership as well as professional recognition, economic opportunity, and the ability to advance within the profession without encountering barriers that they believe no longer reflect modern practice.

Advocates Say the Law Is Playing Catch-Up

Supporters of reform frequently argue that the profession has already evolved and that the law simply hasn’t kept pace. Many point to the increasing technical responsibilities assumed by interior designers, particularly those working in commercial environments. They argue that qualified designers have been performing this type of work for decades and that legal frameworks should reflect that reality.

That perspective helps explain why ownership restrictions remain such a persistent topic within the profession. This issue is part of a broader effort to align public perception, professional recognition, and legal authority with the work many interior designers are already performing every day.

What This Means for Design Firm Owners

Most interior designers will never encounter these issues. If your firm provides interior design services exclusively, ownership restrictions related to architecture might never affect your business at all. But if you’re a firm owner who wants to expand into architecture, bring on partners, pursue succession plans, merge with another practice, or join a multidisciplinary firm, you might need to weigh these legal and licensing considerations.

The specifics vary considerably from state to state. Some jurisdictions impose few restrictions. Others maintain ownership, management, or licensing requirements that can influence how a firm is structured and who is eligible to lead it. 

Whether you agree with ASID’s position or not, the organization has succeeded in drawing attention to an important question: Who gets to own, lead, and expand a design firm? As interior design continues to evolve, questions surrounding ownership, leadership, licensure, and professional recognition are unlikely to fade away. If anything, they’ll become more relevant as designers increasingly pursue work that overlaps with architecture, construction, code compliance, and other traditionally regulated areas of practice.

Written by the DesignDash Editorial Team
Our contributors include experienced designers, firm owners, design writers, and other industry professionals. If you’re interested in submitting your work or collaborating, please reach out to our Editor-in-Chief at editor@designdash.com.