While a 'promise' is never a good idea, taking that position to its extreme is naive in the face of the required contract and certification language imposed by many government, quasi-government, and institutional clients.
The issue takes a potentially dangerous turn when government funding for projects are either contingent upon LEED certification, or awarded competitively when the applicant agency represents that they will 'go LEED' and get additional scoring points for doing so in the funding competition. In such cases the standard Architect Certifications to the client, lenders, etc. represent that we understand their criteria and will comply with such. I've seen some 'close calls', but not one where the project ultimately failed to achieve their LEED cert. - but that day will come for somebody - and it's not going to be pretty.
Bottom line is that there is risk involved in everything, but Architects have long assumed a disproportional 'risk vs reward' mindset in the never-ending quest to win the award, serve the client, and assume the best-case scenario from the outset. Other interest-groups have louder voices at the table, and I don't see the AIA making much of a difference on this subject. It's fine if you can use the AIA document, but that means walking away from huge segments of work that will never use them - at least not in their model form.
-------------------------------------------
Stephen Schoch AIA, LEED-AP
Collingswood NJ
-------------------------------------------