Janet Coral Campbell, $500 Fine, License C-18808

1. Home
2. Enforcement
3. Enforcement Actions
4. C

Enforcement Actions – C

Using the first letter of the individual’s last name, select the letter group below that corresponds. This will display enforcement actions for the corresponding letter group.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Each page of the Enforcement Actions section is divided into subsections for citations, administrative actions, and convictions. You should check each subsection to see if an enforcement action has been taken against the individual you are seeking.

-

Citations

Janet Coral Campbell

San Francisco — The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to Janet Coral Campbell, architect license number C–18808, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Conditions; Certifications; Audit; False or Misleading Information; Disciplinary Action; Coursework Regarding Disability Access Requirements and Zero Net Carbon Design; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Campbell certified false or misleading information on their 2025 License Renewal Application. Campbell paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on November 8, 2025.

Larry Lee Cannon

Larkspur —The Board issued a two–count
administrative citation that included a $2,000 fine to Larry Lee Cannon, architect license number
C–5648, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section (BPC)
5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action alleged that while
Respondent’s license was expired, Cannon
executed an agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide "architectural" consulting
services for evaluation of development proposals
within the Town of Los Gatos and subsequently prepared a Peer Review Report for the Town of Los Gatos
for a project located in Los Gatos,
California. Cannon’s company letterhead on the cover of the Peer Review Report contained the
word "Architecture" as a description
of the services he provides. Cannon’s license expired on July 31, 2011 and was not renewed until
December 27, 2013. Cannon paid the civil
penalty, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on September 8, 2014.

Gustave Carlson

Berkeley —The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $4,000 administrative fine to
Gustave Carlson, an unlicensed individual, dba Gustave Carlson Design, for alleged violations of
Business and Professions Code section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections
134(a) and (b). The action alleged that Carlson was misrepresenting himself as an architect through
his online presence and advertising.

Carlson's Houzz, LinkedIn, and Instagram profiles were categorized under "Architects,"
referred to his business as an architecture firm, described his projects as "architectural,"
and offered "architectural design."

The Board found at least 18 separate articles written about interviews with Carlson, all of which
referred to him as an "Architect" or described his services as "Architecture" and
"Architectural." Several of these interviews were published on well–known magazine and
newspaper websites such as ElleDecor.com, Sunset.com, and SFChronicle.com. On or about March 17, 2022,
the magazine Elle Décor made an Instagram post about Carlson for their article interviewing him,
referring to Carlson as "Architect Gustave Carlson." Carlson made multiple posts to his
Instagram account about this article, all using the hashtag #architecture.

Carlson's website, Houzz, LinkedIn, and Instagram profiles, and 18 interview articles, wherein
Carlson is referred to as an "architect" and described his services as
"Architecture" and "Architectural," are devices that might indicate to the public
that Carlson is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of architecture in California. He
also used the terms "architecture" and "architectural" in his company's
description of services without an architect who was in management control of the services that were
offered and provided by the business entity and either the owner, a part–owner, an officer, or an
employee of the business entity. Such conduct constitutes violations of Business and Professions Code
section 5536(a) and California Code of Regulations, title 16, sections 134(a) and (b). Carlson paid
the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on March 23, 2023.

James Carr

Brookline, MA — The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $500
administrative fine to James D. Carr, architect license number C–27233, for an
alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License
Renewal Process; Conditions; Certifications; Audit; False or Misleading
Information; Disciplinary Action; Coursework Regarding Disability Access
Requirements and Zero Net Carbon Design; Submission of Letter to Legislature).
The action alleged that Carr certified false or misleading information on their
2023 License Renewal Application. Carr paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The
citation became final on August 29, 2025.

Matthew Carter

Reseda —The Board issued a two–count citation that included a $3,000 administrative fine to
Matthew Carter, an unlicensed person, for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code section
5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect; Misdemeanor).

On or about July 9, 2019, Carter, doing business as Carter Estate Investments LLC, executed a
"Commercial Design Contract" with Mr. N.V. to prepare architectural plans to submit to the
City of Los Angeles for approval of a commercial project located on South Centinela Avenue in Los
Angeles, California; for a fixed fee of $6,129.75. Carter was paid for his services but failed to
receive permit approval. The project was not exempt from licensing requirements under Business and
Professions Code sections 5537 and 5538, as a non–bearing wall was to be removed, and a new structural
steel beam installed.

Carter also represented himself as a licensed architect by using an email signature line with the
title of "Architect." His personal LinkedIn profile offered architecture services and
stated, "My career as an architect…." and "at 31 years old I started my own
Architectural Design and Real Estate Development company." Under Experience it stated, "I am
an Architect by trade with 7+ years of working experience in the field. I am still working as an
Architect." Carter's company Yelp profile, doing business under CEI Designz, was also categorized
under "Architects."

Carter's practice of architecture without a license constituted one violation of Business and
Professions Code section 5536(a). His email signature line, contract, and online profiles wherein
Carter described his services as "Architecture" and "Architects," are devices that
might indicate to the public that he is an architect or qualified to engage in the practice of
architecture in California and constituted an additional violation of Business and Professions Code
section 5536(a). The citation became final on April 29, 2023.

Lawrence James Chalk

Oak View —The Board issued a two–count citation that
included a $2,000
administrative fine to Lawrence James Chalk, architect license number C–21565, for alleged violations
of BPC section 5584 (Willful Misconduct) and
CCR, title 16, section 160(b)(2) (Willful Misconduct; Failure to Respond to Board Investigation). The
action alleged that Chalk received a total
of $500 from his client as a down payment for architectural and engineering services and failed to
either provide the client with the
architectural and engineering services for which he was paid or refund the prepaid fees for those
services to the client. Chalk also failed to
respond to the Board’s requests for information regarding an investigation within 30 days. Chalk
paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The
citation became final on June 7, 2019.

Nachhattar Chandi

Indio —The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $1,000 administrative fine to
Nachhattar Chandi, dba Chandi Group USA, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violation of Business
and Professions Code section 5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The
action alleged that Chandi had changes made to an architect's plans for a commercial project in Jurupa
Valley, California, without the consent or knowledge of the architect and then used the architect's
stamp to submit the plans for permits. Chandi paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The citation
became final on December 21, 2020.

Meng Lee Chin

Los Angeles —The Board issued a three–count citation
that included a $6,000 administrative
fine to Meng Lee Chin, an unlicensed individual, for alleged violations of BPC 5536(a) (Practice
Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect). The action
alleged that Chin has a website, "Mengdynasty.com," which advertises "Your One Stop for
Architecture & Landscape Design." The website
contains a page entitled "Creative Designs" and lists Meng Design International
""Architecture | Interior | Landscape." Another website for
Chin located at "mengdesignintl.wix.com/la " advertises Interior | Architecture |
Landscape." The website states that Chin is an "Interior
Architectect/(sic) Designer, " and contains pages which offer "Architectural Design"
and "Interior Architecture Design Services." Chin is a
member of "The Artist Conglomerate" located on the Internet at
meetup.com/TheArtistConglomerate. The listing under the heading "Introduction"
states " Meng Dynasty " "Architecture Interior | Landscape…" The
citation became final on January 21, 2015.

Jefferson J. Choi

Irvine —The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $300 administrative fine to
Jefferson J. Choi, architect license number C–31631, for alleged violations of Business and
Professions Code (BPC) section 5536.4(a). The Board received a complaint on or about April 17, 2020,
from an architectural firm alleging that Choi had used the firm's plans to design a shopping center in
Long Beach without the consent of the firm or the licensed architect who prepared them.

Choi had obtained the plans from his client after the original architect had withdrawn for lack of
payment, and made minor changes to them without first obtaining permission from the previous
architect. Choi's use of another architect's instruments of service without obtaining the consent of
the architect in a written contract, written agreement, or written license specifically authorizing
that use is a violation of BPC section 5536.4(a). Choi paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The
citation became final on December 3, 2021.

Brian Michael Crilly

Sacramento —The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $1000 administrative fine to Brian
Michael Crilly, architect license number C–32975, for an alleged violation of Business and Professions
Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Conditions; Certifications; Audit; False or
Misleading Information; Disciplinary Action; Coursework Regarding Disability Access Requirements and
Zero Net Carbon Design; Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Crilly certified
false or misleading information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. Crilly paid the fine,
satisfying the citation. The citation became final on May 6, 2025.

Cameron Crockett

Long Beach —The Board issued a one–count citation
that included a $1,000 administrative
fine to Cameron Crockett, architect license number C–31503, for alleged violations of BPC
5536.22(a)(1), (3) and (4) (Written Contract). The action alleged that
Crockett executed an AIA Standard Form of Agreement with his client to provide extensive interior and
exterior remodel of a residence located in Rossmoor,
California. The agreement did not include a description of services to be provided by the architect to
the client, the license number of the architect, and a
description of the procedure that the architect and the client would use to accommodate additional
services. The agreement also included the incorrect first name
and address of the client and the project site. Crockett paid the fine, satisfying the citation. The
citation became final on November 25, 2014.

Robert York Crockett

Beverly Hills —The Board issued a one–count citation
that included a $1,000 administrative
fine to Robert York Crockett, architect license number C–19399, for an alleged violation of BPC
5536(a) (Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect).
The action alleged that while Crockett’s license was expired, he executed an "AIA Document
B155 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect for
a Small Project." The Agreement contained the words "Architect" and
"Architectural" and Crockett was listed as the "Architect." He
also signed his name on the signature line under the heading, "Architect." Crockett paid the
fine, satisfying the citation. The citation became final on
July 28, 2016.

Philip Cudaback

San Diego —The Board issued a one–count citation, including an administrative fine in the amount of
$900 to Philip Cudaback, architect license number C–25598, for an alleged violation of Business and
Professions Code (BPC) 5536.22(a).

Cudaback was hired to design a one–bedroom addition to a home in San Diego. His client reported late
responses, poor communication, and an uncorrected typo in the plans. The Board did not find a
violation of professional misconduct for these allegations, but it did find that Cudaback failed to
utilize a written contract containing the terms required by BPC 5536.22. Cudaback relied instead on an
email outlining only the service price.

Cudaback's failure to include all the required elements in his written contract for professional
services contributed to the communication issues and misunderstanding between him and his client and
constituted a violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536.22(a). The citation became final
on September 3, 2023.

Lindsey Dale Currey

Los Angeles —The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $500 administrative fine to
Lindsey Dale Currey, architect license number C–38338, for an alleged violation of Business and
Professions Code section 5600.05(a)(1) (License Renewal Process; Conditions; Certifications; Audit;
False or Misleading Information; Disciplinary Action; Coursework Regarding Zero Net Carbon Design;
Submission of Letter to Legislature). The action alleged that Currey certified false or misleading
information on their 2023 License Renewal Application. The citation became final on March 24, 2025.

Anthony G. Cutri

San Diego —The Board issued a one–count citation that included a $3,000 administrative fine to
Anthony G. Cutri, architect license number C–11116, for an alleged violation of Business and
Professions Code (BPC) section 5536.22(a).

In November 2013, Cutri agreed to design a $600,000 single–story residence, casita, and garage for a
plot of land his cousin and her husband (Clients) were going to buy in the city of Santee. Cutri told
them no contract was necessary because they were “famiglia.” By July 19, 2014, the Clients
had paid the agreed upon total price of $35,000.

On or about April 27, 2015, Cutri surprised his Clients with a “proposal” to take over
additional services, including entitlements, grading plan, plan check/building permits and
construction administration. The Clients had believed that many of these services were included in
their original agreement, but there was no initial written contract establishing the original scope or
the method for accommodating additional services. The additional fees resulted in a total of $40,175
that the Clients paid to Cutri.

Cutri took until April 2018 to finish the plans. He initially told his Clients that there
“wasn’t a lot involved” in the plan check process and that he would “cover
it.” In fact, the plans were rejected by the city’s plan review service. Cutri then
delayed the project further by denying responsibility for the corrections. Finally in late 2018, the
plans were approved, but when the Clients sent them out for bids, the construction estimates all came
back at well over $1,000,000. They never pulled the permits and eventually had to sell their land.

Cutri’s failure to execute a written contract prior to providing professional services
constituted a violation of Business and Professions Code section 5536.22(a), and caused tremendous
confusion surrounding the project details including: the cost and scope of architectural services, the
estimated construction costs, the timeline for completion, responsibility for coordinating with
consultants, plan check corrections, and other aspects of the project, such as Title 24, structural
calculations, entitlements, grading plans, construction administration, printing and submission to the
city of Santee.

In addition to the architectural fees, none of which was returned, there was significant financial
injury to the Clients, in that they were left with a fully graded pad of land that they could not
afford to build on and were forced to sell. Both Clients are senior citizens, and one is disabled,
facts of which Cutri was aware. Cutri entered into a stipulated settlement with the Board which became
effective on February 16, 2022.

Cutri paid the fine, satisfying the citation.

---

Disciplinary Actions

Gordon Wayne Calhoon

Encino —Effective July 24, 1999, Gordon Wayne
Calhoon’s architect
license number C–11576 was revoked after the Board adopted a Stipulation in Settlement ordering
revocation. An Accusation was filed against Mr.
Calhoon for violations of Business and Professions Code sections 5583 (Fraud in the Practice of
Architecture), 5584 (Negligence or Willful
Misconduct) and 5586 (Public Agency; Disciplinary Action). Mr. Calhoon was hired as an architect and
contractor to demolish and rebuild residences
that were damaged by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Board action was taken based on evidence that Mr.
Calhoon falsely represented that, as an
architect, he could act as a contractor. After getting the projects, Mr. Calhoon acted as a contractor
(without being appropriately licensed) and
failed to adequately supervise the construction, resulting in a material injury to both homeowners. He
used an unlicensed contractor to supervise
construction, and approved work which he knew did not comply with relevant building codes. The
Contractors State License Board issued a citation
to Mr. Calhoon based on evidence that he provided contracting services prior to being issued a
license.

Tien Hsi Chu

Pasadena —Effective November 14, 2016, Tien Hsi
Chu’s architect
license number C–15558, was revoked. Chu was also ordered to reimburse the Board $4,005 for its
enforcement costs. The action came after a
Proposed Decision was adopted by the Board.

An Accusation was filed against Chu for alleged violations of Business and Professions Code sections
(BPC) 490 (Conviction of a Crime), 498
(License Secured by Fraud, Deceit, or Knowing Misrepresentation), 5577 (Conviction of Certain Crimes),
and 5579 (Fraud in Obtaining License). The
Accusation alleged that on or about August 25, 2014, after pleading nolo contendere, Chu was convicted
of one misdemeanor count of violating Penal
Code section 472 (counterfeit seal) in the criminal proceeding entitled The People of the State of
California v. Tien Hsi Chu (Super. Ct.
Los Angeles County, 2014, No. 4AH01921). The Court placed Chu on 36 months probation, and ordered him
to complete 25 hours of community service.
The circumstances underlying the conviction are that on and between 2004 through 2013, Chu had a
business relationship with E.G.L., a licensed
civil engineer. E.G.L. provided consulting services for Chu on his projects with the express condition
that E.G.L. would not stamp or sign on any
drawings or calculations. Without E.G.L.’s knowledge or authorization, Chu obtained a civil
engineer’s seal using E.G.L.’s name
and civil engineer license number C56706. Further, without E.G.L.’s approval or knowledge, Chu
used the counterfeit engineer seal on
structural drawings, plans, and specifications, and submitted the counterfeit engineer stamped
documents to municipal building departments for
reviews and approvals. Within the seal impression on all documents that Chu used the counterfeit seal,
Chu made a forgery of E.G.L.’s
initials. In addition, Chu obtained the renewal of his architect license by fraud or misrepresentation
when represented and certified under
penalty of perjury on his 2015 License Renewal Application that he had not been convicted of a crime
during the preceding renewal period when in
fact, on or about August 25, 2014, Chu sustained a criminal conviction.

Ethan Wilson Cliffton

Santa Rosa —Effective July 6, 2020, Ethan Wilson Cliffton's architect license number C–11466 was
revoked. The action came after a Default Decision was issued by the Board.

An Accusation filed against Cliffton alleged six causes for discipline for violations of: (1) Business
and Professions Code (BPC) section 5585 and California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, section
160(a)(2) (Incompetency); (2) BPC sections 5536.4(b), 5578, and 5584 (Willful Misconduct, Failure to
Release Instruments of Service); (3) BPC sections 5584 and 5585 (Willful Misconduct and Recklessness);
(4) BPC section 5584 (Willful Misconduct); (5) BPC sections 5536.22(a)(3) and (4) and 5578 (Failure to
Comply with Contract Requirements); and (6) BPC section 5584 and CCR, title 16, section 160(b)(2)
(Willful Misconduct, Failure to Respond to Request for Evidence).

The Accusation alleged that on or about April 15, 2015, Cliffton executed a contract to design a new
residence to replace his clients' existing home in Redwood City, California. The contract did not
contain Cliffton's architect license number or a description of the procedure to accommodate
additional services.

Cliffton initially told his clients that construction drawings would be completed by May 2015;
however, after several delays and revised completion dates, Cliffton indicated that his final drawings
would be submitted to the building department on September 22, 2015. Based on this anticipated
submission date, Cliffton then recommended that the clients demolish their existing home in
preparation for the construction of their new home. Acting on his advice, the clients demolished their
home in September 2015. For over three years, the clients then rented another home awaiting completion
of construction.

On or about January 14, 2016, Cliffton suggested the clients obtain a partial permit for foundation
and slab construction, but they were unable to do some because Cliffton had not finished the
construction drawings. The clients had paid all of Cliffton's invoices to that date, approximately
$52,000, but never received completed construction drawings from him and had to engage another
architect to complete the project.

Cliffton then refused to release his drawings to the new architect unless the clients paid him an
additional $35,000. He later increased this amount to $65,000. Additionally, Cliffton told the
clients' structural and mechanical engineers and Title 24 consultant, who were under contract with the
clients, to cease work and destroy all their documents.

On July 1, 2016, the Board requested a written response to the allegations and supporting documents
from Cliffton. In response, he provided only a brief statement, copies of his correspondence to the
Better Business Bureau, and the clients' draft lawsuit against him.

The Board's Default Decision and Order was issued on June 5, 2020, and became effective on July 6,
2020.

---

Convictions

There are no convictions to display.