If the only issues to become basis for a claim or action were true negligence - the only thing an architect is liable for, as gauged by the prevalent standard of care in its region of practice - a less defensive attitude toward limits of liability might be justified. The problem is that an architect can be sued for almost anything alleged to be below the standard of practice, and the issue will likely be settled out of court because attorneys know that the outcome of a court trial is uncertain and the process expensive. Better all the way round to get all parties in the consulting team to belly up to the bar and chip in something. This is done without a final ruling on "guilt", which is not admitted to in a settlement. Hence, an architect may be alleged to have performed below the standard of care - assuming that it can be established - but have actually performed per contract, and still be out of pocket in a settlement. Hence, always get a contractual limitation on liability. Architects are not gods, so don't take responsibility beyond your capablity to handle a project gone sideways. Walk away from small projects if the facts of life cannot be explained to a resistant prospective client. The relationship is in that case already off to a bad start, and if the motivation is financial desperation, you may be only jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Believe it.
-------------------------------------------
Gary Collins AIA
Principal
Gary R. Collins, AIA
Jacksonville OR
-------------------------------------------