It’s All About the Money: Learning from Barristers

Part 1 of 3: “It’s All About the Money”

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase Two (GTI P2) Report highlights an issue that has afflicted the UK architectural profession for years. A clear inference from the Inquiry is that inadequate fees contributed to under-resourced teams, rushed designs, and poor oversight – factors that can have catastrophic consequences on building safety. The Report’s findings suggest that the architectural profession, through its regulatory and professional bodies, may have inadvertently set itself up for failure. To understand how this happened, we should look at a key period in history: the abandonment of fee scales and how architectural regulation diverged from other professional fields, notably the legal sector.

The Abandonment of Fee Scales: A Regulatory Misstep

In the early 1980s, the UK government issued guidance discouraging professional bodies from setting mandatory fee scales, citing concerns over anti-competitive practices. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), in response, set about dismantling its structured approach to fees. [i]

At the time, the Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK) was the Regulator, a body replaced in 1997 by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) under the Architects Act 1997.

ARCUK’s primary role was registration and regulation, not fee-setting or advocacy. It did not directly dictate RIBA’s fee policies or dismantle the scales. However, ARCUK was criticised for being ineffective and failing to advocate for the profession.

The RIBA intended to align with market principles but did not replace its fee scales with any structured guidelines, leaving architects with a lack of clarity on fee-setting. The result was a race to the bottom.

Architects, especially those running small, medium enterprise (SME) practices, began underbidding to secure work, a practice that has had long-term, damaging effects on the profession. Projects are often underpriced, leading to situations where architects cannot allocate the necessary time or resources to meet safety standards and project requirements adequately.

Meanwhile, other professional sectors, such as the legal profession, interpreted the government’s advice differently. Barristers and legal regulatory bodies didn’t abandon the concept of value altogether. Instead, they focused on creating frameworks that ensured transparency, fairness, and a high standard of service. The regulatory bodies for legal professionals understood that maintaining quality in their work was essential for public trust and safety, and they developed systems that allowed for flexible yet robust fee structures that reflected the complexity of their cases.

The Barrister Model: Value, Standards and Fees

The regulatory bodies overseeing barristers, such as the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the barristers’ version of the ARB, adopted a more nuanced approach to fees. While they complied with anti-competitive legislation by not imposing fixed fee scales, they still placed an emphasis on the value of professional work and the standards expected. Barristers must justify their fees based on the complexity and demands of a case, ensuring that their charges are transparent and proportionate to the value of the services provided.

The regulatory framework for legal professionals stresses the importance of adequate remuneration for maintaining professional standards and public trust. There is an understanding that barristers, like all professionals, must be compensated fairly for their expertise and the high-stakes nature of their work. This approach has ensured that legal professionals can focus on providing quality service without the pressures of unrealistic fees.

How The Architectural Profession Got It Wrong: History of the RIBA Fee Scale

The RIBA fee scale in its day was once a cornerstone of the architectural profession

The RIBA had a long-standing tradition of publishing fee scales to guide architects and clients on appropriate remuneration for architectural services. These fee scales were widely used in the UK construction industry for much of the 20th century but became a contentious issue in the context of competition law and market liberalisation in the 1980s.

The first RIBA fee scale appeared in the mid-19th century as part of efforts to standardise the profession and ensure fair remuneration for architects’ services. The fee scale established a percentage-based system, where architects charged a percentage of the total construction cost, depending on the type and scope of the project. For instance, more complex projects like hospitals or theatres would have higher percentage fees compared to simpler projects.

The RIBA fee scales became a central reference for the architectural profession, especially during the Cold War period. They were seen as a way to ensure architects were fairly compensated for their expertise while maintaining a level playing field among practices.

Impact of Fee Scale Withdrawal

The withdrawal of fee scales prompted a move towards fees determined by the complexity, scope, and value architects would bring to a project. However, this shift made it increasingly difficult for architects and clients to negotiate fair fees, particularly for complex projects. Many architects began competing on price, leading to underbidding, undervaluing of architectural services, and compromising quality.

Projects experience increased complexity during the design process, making it difficult to anticipate fees accurately at the outset. Additionally, poorly defined scopes of work at the beginning of projects often lead to underestimates of the outputs and resources needed to fulfil contractual obligations. Compounding these issues is the profession’s struggle to articulate the value architects bring, a problem linked to cultural, structural, and market-driven factors.

Architects face barriers such as an overemphasis on creativity at the expense of business communication, undervaluing critical soft skills, (managing stakeholders, navigating regulatory complexities and ensuring project cohesion) and the lack of a unified framework to guide pricing and service expectations.

There is immense pressure to compete on price, while architects’ multifaceted roles – as designers, coordinators, project managers, and mediators – are often misunderstood. Public awareness of the architect’s contributions remains poor, and architects are increasingly engaged late in the client design procurement process, limiting their influence. These factors collectively contribute to an ongoing erosion of professional standards and declining status.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has defined value robustly, offering barristers a framework for transparent and consistent fee structures. A BSB-style framework for architects could have provided a clear structure to align outputs with fees, offering consistency and clarity for both architects and their clients.

The RIBA’s dismantling of fee scales without implementing a robust framework to ensure fair and adequate compensation in its place has led to a culture where underbidding has become the norm. The GTI P2 Report highlights how this financial inadequacy compromised safety. Architects working on complex, high-risk projects like Grenfell Tower are under immense pressure to deliver within limited budgets, often sacrificing oversight and compliance in the process.

This financial strain has also had a profound impact on the working conditions of architects, especially young professionals. It is not uncommon for architecture graduates and early-career architects to be paid only the UK’s National Minimum Wage – salaries more suited to manual labour or entry-level retail jobs than to highly skilled professionals responsible for public safety. The profession has normalised unpaid overtime, with architects working long hours beyond what is compensated. These conditions have created a workforce that is often overworked, undervalued, underpaid, and unable to give projects the time and attention they require.

Lessons from the Barrister’s Model: What can the architectural profession learn from how barristers regulate fees and standards?

Fees Should Reflect the Regulated and High-Risk Responsibilities of Architects

The UK architectural profession can draw valuable lessons from the barristers’ regulatory approach. The BSB provides a model for balancing fee-setting with maintaining high professional standards. Barristers charge fees that reflect the complexity and high-stakes of their work, ensuring they can deliver quality services while maintaining public trust. Adopting similar principles for architects would not only ensure fair remuneration but also uphold safety and quality, addressing the issues highlighted in the Grenfell Inquiry.

Emphasising Value Over Cost

Architects must move beyond a cost-driven mindset to one that prioritises value, which might include:

• design excellence,
• regulatory compliance,
• project management and coordination,
• cost management,
• risk management,
• documentation/document management,
• communication strategy,
• contract administration,
• change management,
• post-occupancy evaluation,
• sustainability expertise/climate adaption,
• mediation,
• stakeholder relationship management,
• client relationship management.

Like barristers, fee structures should account for the complexity, risk, and responsibilities inherent in architectural work. By positioning fees as reflective of the value architects bring, rather than a cost overhead, architects can safeguard their capacity to deliver excellence.

Raising Public Awareness of Architectural Value

A cultural shift begins with education. A public awareness campaign can illuminate the critical role architects play in ensuring safe, compliant, and well-designed buildings. Highlighting real-life examples, such as post-Grenfell reforms, would demonstrate the dangers of undervaluing architectural expertise. By championing the connection between adequate fees and public safety, the profession can gain greater respect and trust from clients and the wider public.

Promoting Transparency and Justification

Transparent fee structures are a cornerstone of trust. Architects should provide detailed breakdowns of their fees, clearly outlining allocations for safety oversight, compliance checks, and project stages. This transparency would help clients appreciate the necessity of adequate fees and reduce the tendency to underbid, which undermines project quality. By encouraging an open dialogue about costs, architects can strengthen their professional relationships and encourage fair compensation.

Developing Regulatory Guidance on Fair Fees

Regulators and professional bodies like the ARB and RIBA could create guidelines that help architects set fees aligned with their professional and ethical obligations. While avoiding fixed fee scales to comply with anti-competitive laws, these frameworks would ensure quality service and safety are not compromised. Such guidance would support architects in charging appropriately for their expertise, protecting the profession from financial strain.

Reinforcing Professional Standards

Fee structures must reflect the importance of high-quality, safety-compliant designs. Architects should have the financial means to fulfil their duties effectively, ensuring that public safety is never jeopardised. Linking fees to professional and ethical responsibilities would empower architects to deliver exceptional outcomes and bolster the profession’s reputation.

A Path Forward

Reforming the fee culture in architecture is not just about fair compensation – it’s about ensuring all architects have the appropriate time and resources to deliver on public safety, quality, and professional integrity. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has drawn attention to the devastating consequences of a profession stretched too thin. By learning from the legal sector’s approach to value and standards, architects can begin to rebuild trust, ensure safety, and elevate the status of the profession. It’s time for the architectural community to demand better, both for themselves and for the public they serve.

[i] https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/architects-and-setting-fees?