Is the Jersey example of limited liability partnerships (LLPs) the answer? Every long march must start with the first step; I regard the Jersey LLPs as no more than that.

It is difficult to imagine the major professional institutions of the City of London being based in Jersey.

Our home is in the City and that is where we will remain.

What we need are changes in UK law.

My preferred choice would be incorporation, following other major commercial institutions.

Incorporation might, however, have significant adverse tax consequences.

Whilst incorporation is what we should strive for, it is probably unrealistic in the short term.A change in UK law to allow LLPs is the next best route and the one most likely to be provided in the near future.

In this respect we are all indebted -- not only to the States of Jersey government for implementing LLPs, thus giving us leverage with our own law-makers, but also to the major accountancy firms, which have lead the fight.

The Conservative party regards this as a significant issue and is prepared to tackle the problem.

Whether the Labour party sees it the same way is not as clear.

The issue of incorporation or a new law of LLP addresses, to an extent, the problem of partners being personally liable for the debts of their entire business.

It does not, however, address the problems of uncertainty or proportional loss.

Partnerships involved in major commercial transactions should be allowed to limit their liability by contract and it would be helpful, in order to provide certainty, for the law-makers to make it clear that the Unfair Contract Terms Act would not apply to any such contractual limitation.

It also seems unfair that an adviser who fails in his professional obligation but whose failure may only be one of a number of reasons for loss (indeed, only a minor reason for the loss) can end up facing an en tirely disproportionate percentage of the damages suffered.

The Law Commission decided that it would not be right to change the law on joint and several liability.

It argued that, where one had an 'innocent' plaintiff suing a number of advisers, all of whom had failed in one way or another in their professional obligations, it would be wrong for that plaintiff to recover less than full damages merely because some of the advisers were not financially strong enough to meet the obligations.

It saw no reason to change the law which allows the plaintiff to recover all the damages from the adviser and leave it for the adviser to seek to recover a fair and proper proportion of the damage from the other defendants.

I believe that that view is one-sided.

Professional advisers do not choose their co-advisers.

If the 'innocent' plaintiff chooses to receive advice from advisers with insufficient resources to meet their obligations, then why should their co-advisers suffer? A UK law on LLPs would be a significant step forward.

Professional partnerships in the City should be able to incorporate in a tax and national insurance regime that is not crippling.

They should be able to limit their liability on a contractual basis like anyone else and the law on joint and several liability should be re-examined.

Government should be pressed on all these issues although, as with all marches, we will have to take one step at a time.