Auditors, as a whole, are unable to obtain the levels of professional indemnity insurance cover which they require.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW), recognising the fundamental inequity of the risk/ reward relationship in auditing seeks three reforms: tax liberalisation for directors' and officers' insurance; disapplication of the principle of joint and several liability in respect of audit; and lifting the embargo on companies agreeing limits on auditors' liability.If something goes wrong with published accounts, the principle of joint and several liability, regardless of directors' primary responsibility for them, usually results in auditors alone meeting claims for loss.Auditors also face a legal anomaly whereby, unlike their client companies' dealings with their own customers, they cannot agree terms of liability under contracts for services.

This should be removed giving auditors the contractual freedom of others and to protect them from claims out of all proportion to their responsibility or fees.

There should, however, be safeguards: a minimum limit; shareholders' advance agreement to any limit, disclosed in the annual report; and any limit should be disapplied if auditors are dishonest.While some have suggested that incorporation would solve these problems, none of the arguments depends on the legal structure of firms.

The reforms, consistent with the proposals of the Likierman report, would correct anomalies and bring the skewed economics of auditing back into balance.Graham Ward.During the current indemnity year, the Solicitors Indemnity Fund expects to be notified of approximately 15,000 claims or circumstances, half of which will result in paymen ts totalling more than £200 million being made by the fund.

The SIF is not complacent about its own task of containing the cost of dealing with reported claims, but it is impossible to foresee any significant reduction in the overall cost being achieved unless the number of claims made is reduced.For some years, SIF has preached the message that the majority of claims arise not from ignorance of the law or because complex issues are involved, but rather from missing the simple and the obvious.

In struggling to achieve high standards of service to clients, time is a key factor, and central to the task of providing the proper service and thus avoiding a claim is the institution of well thought through systems both in respect of office procedures and the management of staff.Many firms are already committed to a process of improvement and change as a result of the institution of practice management standards, and the drive towards attaining BS5750 accreditation or a legal aid franchise.

The SIF will monitor carefully the impact of such initiatives, whilst remaining conscious that many firms may undertake a more informal internal review in achieving improvements.Whatever means are adopted by a firm in thinking through the standards which should be set and the attainment of such goals, the focus should be on establishing a framework of good organisation, both personal and office-wide within which the main causes of claims can be eliminated and both the firm and the client can be satisfied with a job well done.Elizabeth Mullins.Liability is a critical issue for most professions at present.

Surveyors, solicitors and accountants find strong parallels in the pressures they face on liability.

All three professions serve commerce and industry but also retain a role in advising individuals.

The symptoms of the crisis include: escalating PII premiums; higher uninsured excesses; claims exceeding the indemnity limit taken out by the firm; clients ready to threaten or instigate litigation, often provoked by large corporate losses incurred during the recession as a consequence of activity during the boom; employed professionals who feel vulnerable to action against them by principals in their practices or other employers; problems over run-off cover, especially for those leaving firms who have ceased to trade; and a sense that the competent within the profession pay for the sins of the incompetent.Professionals and others increasingly question the contemporary validity of past decisions to make PII cover mandatory for principals in private practice.

Within the framework of compulsion different professions have handled the provisions of insurance by or for their members in very different ways.

No solution has proved satisfying, each option having brought different problems and pressures.Recent experience on negligence claims underlines disquiet about the confrontational and expensive approach to litigation.

Surveyors' experience suggests that up to 40% of spending on claims covers the costs of the handling process.

Many professionals feel aggrieved over claims being settled expensively and without their knowledge, control or approval.There are no solutions, only avenues towards improvements.

Tighter regimes of practice management probably offer more respite than anything else.

Combined action, to convince government of the case for revisiting the application of liability, is necessary.

The current application of professional liability is far removed from the original principle of straightforward protection for both client and adviser wh en the adviser makes an honest misjudgment.Michael Pattison.Doctors and dentists are perhaps unique amongst the professions in their exposure to litigation.A patient who chooses to complain about or make a claim against a doctor may still expect that doctor to continue to provide him or her with a full level of medical care and the doctor may be obliged to do so.Many doctors find this hard to accept, yet realise that to refuse to continue to provide care may result in further complaints or claims.In addition, the General Medical Council often 'waits in the wings' to inflict further 'punishment' on a doctor who has had to face the trauma of appearing in court on a criminal charge, being found guilty, serving his or her sentence and then trying to return to his or her profession.The medical and dental professions have therefore a double or even triple jeopardy situation with which to cope.Gone are the days when patients accepted care from the NHS and were grateful for it.

Now every part of the process is queried and much more time has to be spent with patients explaining the reasons for particular tests or the necessity for treatment.

This is perhaps as it should be but it often reduces the time available actively to deal with the physical and mental problems of the patients.

Failure to give an explanation may, in itself, be the subject of litigation.Dr Ian Simpson.