A spat between two architecture firms over who came up with the renovation plans for the iconic John Marshall Hotel was settled this week, just before the case was set to go to trial.
Atlanta-based Rule Joy Trammell + Rubio agreed to pay Richmond’s Commonwealth Architects an undisclosed sum and acknowledged in a statement that Commonwealth significantly contributed to the project.
Per the settlement, Commonwealth can use images of the designs in its marketing materials.
Rule Joy will continue working on the project for the developers, Dominion Realty Partners. Rule Joy had previously designed some of Dominion’s projects, including Vistas on the James.
“Commonwealth feels vindicated,” said Sadiq Gill, a lawyer with Vandeventer Black who represented Commonwealth.
“They feel as though the genesis throughout the design and what is being done was Commonwealth’s plan, and they are relieved to be done with litigation and to move on.”
Gill would not disclose the size of the financial settlement, saying only that it was significant.
Commonwealth sued Rule Joy more than a year ago and requested $2.5 million, claiming that Rule Joy copied its historic rehab designs. (You can read the original RBS story here.)
The project to convert the building into apartments had a handful of false starts over the years, but it is now underway.
Rule Joy did not return several calls seeking comment.
Gill said that the final settlement was arranged by Judge Henry Hudson, who recommended that the parties come up with a settlement outside of a trial.
Aaron Kremer is the BizSense editor. Please send news tips to [email protected].
A spat between two architecture firms over who came up with the renovation plans for the iconic John Marshall Hotel was settled this week, just before the case was set to go to trial.
Atlanta-based Rule Joy Trammell + Rubio agreed to pay Richmond’s Commonwealth Architects an undisclosed sum and acknowledged in a statement that Commonwealth significantly contributed to the project.
Per the settlement, Commonwealth can use images of the designs in its marketing materials.
Rule Joy will continue working on the project for the developers, Dominion Realty Partners. Rule Joy had previously designed some of Dominion’s projects, including Vistas on the James.
“Commonwealth feels vindicated,” said Sadiq Gill, a lawyer with Vandeventer Black who represented Commonwealth.
“They feel as though the genesis throughout the design and what is being done was Commonwealth’s plan, and they are relieved to be done with litigation and to move on.”
Gill would not disclose the size of the financial settlement, saying only that it was significant.
Commonwealth sued Rule Joy more than a year ago and requested $2.5 million, claiming that Rule Joy copied its historic rehab designs. (You can read the original RBS story here.)
The project to convert the building into apartments had a handful of false starts over the years, but it is now underway.
Rule Joy did not return several calls seeking comment.
Gill said that the final settlement was arranged by Judge Henry Hudson, who recommended that the parties come up with a settlement outside of a trial.
Aaron Kremer is the BizSense editor. Please send news tips to [email protected].
Some irrefutable facts: RuleJoyTrammell+Rubio, LLC is the only Architect. for the Work being constructed by Choate Copnstruction Company. The Work being constructed is 100% the design of RJT+R, was 100% created by RJT+R and its consultants, and is not the design of Commonwealth Architects. I am the sole individual Architect of Record for the Work being constructed. RJT+R acknowledges, and always has acknowledeged, that the John Marshall Residences Project being constructed is the Restoration, Renovation, and Adaptive Reuse of a building designed in 1928 by Marcellus Wright, Architect, not a building designed by Commonwealth Architects or RuleJoyTrammell+Rubio, LLC. RJT+R holds… Read more »
Try spell check next time. Sounds like sour grapes from a man sent back to Atlanta with his tail lopped off by a federal judge. Henry Hudson does not seem overly tolerant of Atlantans who cause trouble in the Commonwealth (read: Mike Vick)
Joe: I beg to differ. As an employee for a millwork company that did take-offs on both RJT+R plans and Commonwealth plans, I can say the plans were virtually identical. The odds of 2 millwork packages on a job like this being identical are 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000. Your comments sound like sore loserville. You seem so sore you could not even spell correctly or run spell check. Judge Hudson seems to have that affect on Atlantans who come to Virginia and mess up. Say hello to Mike Vick the next time you see him.
I am an architectural grad student and have been following this case with great interest. It is one of the first of its kind. I am sorry it was not tried to see the end result. It did establish that adaptive re-use plans are subject to copyright protection. It also provides a case study in bad decision making by the Atlanta firm. I have no idea whether they copied or paraphrased. I did spend some time pouring over the court record as I did a paper on the case for my IP class. The firm made a significant error when… Read more »
Last thought on this fascinating and tangled web: According to court documents RJTR had little experience on these types of projects. Commonwealth argued that experience and the speed in which RJTR performed unfamiliar work was proof of copying. My limited knowledge of the rehab/renovation of a 90 year old building would support Commonwealth’s assertion. Which again makes it a shame that all these discrepancies cannot be rinsed clean under the hot water of capable cross examination…
Aren’t the developers entitled to joint intellectual property of the plans that THEY paid for? How can an architect say that they came up with the plans if the building was already built. Didn’t they “copy” the plans from the original architects? Just because you price out the “same” amount of material for a job doesn’t mean that you copied some ones plans. The building is already there. The building is the same square footage. Didn’t Commonwealth supply the developers with the FTP file? If they “owned” the plans then why did they release them to the developer if they… Read more »
M.W.: In response to your inquiry I can offer the following information. The Commonwealth Architects plans were produced pursuant to 2 contracts each which vested ownership of the intellectual property with Commonwealth. Upon payment for the work, the developer owners had a limited license to use the documents. Problems is: the developer never paid and the license was terminated. When that license terminated, the developer had no right to circulate or send out copies of the Commonwealth instruments of service (drawings). As well you are mistaken that the plans are simply plans of an old building. The plans are an… Read more »
To all who commented on my comments. There is obviously a lot of incorrect information floating around Richmond some of it due, in my opinion, to numerous intentional misrepresentations to the Court by Commonwelath. First, despite any misspellings (yes, I was in a hurry and no, I am not a typist) everything I wrote before is accurate and irrefutable. If you think about what the plaintiff’s attorney was quoted as saying, it’s interesting he used the word “vindicated”. I would stay a more accurate characterization is Commonwealth was “stymied” and RJT+R was “vindicated”. 1) Mr. Gillis, no, RJT+R is still… Read more »
Dear Mr. Trammell: I appreciate your frustration the fact that the legal system is costly and cumbersome. As you have alluded, I too suspect that Commonwealth’s suit against RJTR was, in part, to leverage payment by the developer–but that does not change whether copyright law was in fact violated . I certainly wish nothing but the best for you and your firm, Mr. Trammell. I have looked through your website and you guys have done some impressive work. I have looked at this case with absolute intellectual honesty and as a neutral and certainly recognize the efficiencies that your firm… Read more »
One more thought: As I explained earlier, I am an architectural graduate student. I have done one relatively small paper on this case for an IP class. I have spoken with my graduate studiies program coordinator about writing a more extensive piece on this case and the one decided in upstate NewYork this past spring. My point being, I have at great personal cost made copies of certain Court documents. If either Mr. Mills or Mr. Trammell would permit their counsel to copy records, I am sure I could obtain what I need for a much more reasonable rate then… Read more »
Mr. Spencer: I appreciate your interest in this case, however you still have important facts wrong and your understanding of copyright law needs some help. Unfortunately, not everything in a brief is true which doesn’t seem right to me and if known by the court should be subject to sanctions by the court. And, if you read as much case law as I have, you will find that the appeals court often comes to the opposite opinion that the district court comes to. I would be happy to discuss the case with you by phone rather than continue to trade… Read more »
Mr. Trammell: I tried calling you but was told you were out. I will not make the same insinuations about your knowledge of copyright law as you have done of mine. I will tell you that I find it odd that you refer me to the T-Peg decision which in a much more simple case favors the Commonwealth Architects’ position. I also believe that you are incorrect in citing the virtual identity standard. The appropriate test is substantial similarity. In my opinion, your work is substantially similar to Commonwealth’s work without sufficient explanation or justification. You gloss over the pertinent… Read more »
Congratulations on being the Architect of Record, Mr. Trammell. You do realize that most of the starchitects who fill the glossy pages of architecture magazines are not the architect of record, yet they are still featured because they contributed greatly to the design. And those who are not the architect of record, yet contributed to the design deserve credit (and payment) for what they have contributed.
Architect of Record just means that your license and liability insurance is on the line for the project. Congrats!
David Maker: I am very familiar with starchitects. There is no strachitect involved in the JM project being built. There is only one individual architect, me, and one architectural firm, RJT+R, which can legally take credit for any original design work now being built as part of the restoration, renovation, and adaptive reuse of the JM Hotel. That is fact, not opinion. However, as I have stated before, for the most part, the creative old and new work is by Marcellus Wright Architects, not Commonwealth Architrects or RJT+R. Unlike CA, RJT+R honors the legacy of Marcellus Wright, Architects, and does… Read more »