Title Block Initials

The title block for some of our clients includes a box for "Lead" or "Lead Engineer."  In some instances, the Lead or Lead Engineer is not the same as the Engineer of Record (the one stamping the drawings).  The EOR is in responsible charge of the drawings, of course, but the Lead is the person who is handling the project as a whole, including administrative stuff, schedule, budget, etc.--this does not even have to be an engineer, it can be an architect or designer.  In this scenario, we put the project lead's initials in the "Lead" box, and the EOR stamps the drawing as usual.  However, a fellow engineer believes that the EOR's initials should always be in the "Lead" box.  Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Thanks in advance.

Lead/LE is nothing more than an internal title.  There is no obligation for an EOR/PE to sign as a "lead" unless stipulated so in the company's procedures.  I work in the nuclear arena and routinely process documents with a litany of similar variants - Lead Engineer, Responsible Engineer, Project Engineer, etc.  They all mean the same thing, and the only time the EOR has to sign as any of those roles is when stipulated by our Code/QA requirements (e.g. "Certifying Engineer" roles per ASME Section III).

Sounds like this is an internal issue and not one that has any affect on the actual plans. The company should look at why this is box is on the plans. Is it there just to give credit to another person,  or so that anyone in house looking at the plans can easily determine who the lead person/project manager is. If the latter, defaulting this box to EOR will defeat the purpose. 

We typically used this box so that if contractors/clients had questions they would know who to call for questions. It is always difficult to get a response from the EOR in a timely fashion. It was up to the Project Manager to answer the easy questions and to bubble up changes or clarification to the EOR and to coordinate the work.