Shrinking fees, shifting scopes and adversarial procurement models are leaving architects increasingly exposed to legal risk, warns law firm Lander & Rogers. 

 

Charles Thornley, a partner at the firm and head of its Construction and Engineering practice, told ArchifySpec that architects are under mounting legal pressure as project complexity grows and design-and-construct contracts blur lines of responsibility. 

 

“In disputes, responsibility often falls back on the design team—especially where documentation is unclear or services fall outside formal agreements,” said Thornley, who has advised on infrastructure projects including Sydney Metro and WestConnex. 

 

“By the time a dispute lands, the damage is usually done. It’s rarely about one big mistake—it’s a series of small oversights that snowball. Vague documentation, informal decisions, poor record-keeping — that’s the recipe for litigation.” 

 

Across Australia, clients and insurers are demanding tighter documentation and clearer accountability, but fees are shrinking and scopes are shifting—leaving architects exposed, particularly when work strays from clearly defined services. 

 

Litigation often lands back with the design team, even when others are involved, making strategic risk management and meticulous record-keeping essential. 

 

“Once you’ve got a claim, you’re in a world of pain going forward,” Thornley said. 

 

“We’re currently dealing with a $300 million claim where engineers are digging through personal laptops because records weren’t centralised and key decisions were made by text or late-night calls. A simple clarification email could have avoided it all.” 

 

“Many architects rely on insurance as a safety net—but once a claim is made, the disruption can last years. If there’s ever a reason to tighten your processes up front, this is it.” 

 

The push to innovate with smarter, greener materials is also raising legal stakes for architects. As the fallout from the 2017 Grenfell fire showed, early adopters of new products—often architects—can find themselves in the legal firing line when materials fail or don’t perform as expected. 

 

“Architects are exposed because they’re very often the first of the consultants to nominate the use of a particular innovative product,” Thornley said. 

 

“The cladding crisis demonstrated the inherent risk of new materials. They’re often lighter, cheaper, faster — and that’s exactly where the exposure starts for architects.” 

 

In New South Wales, a non-delegable statutory duty of care now applies to everyone in the building industry, meaning architects can no longer shift responsibility onto specialists. Regardless of who is involved, the ultimate liability falls squarely on the architect. 

 

Lander & Rogers partner Elizabeth Brookes, a seasoned construction lawyer and outgoing NSW President of NAWIC, has advised on some of Australia’s most complex disputes, including WestConnex and Cross River Rail. 

 

A trusted advisor to insurers, engineers and consultants, Brookes said many pressure points arise when architects and engineers “just want to get the job done” — and forget the contract. 

 

“They step in to solve problems but skip crucial steps like issuing notices,” Brookes said.
“Builders, by contrast, are often across every contractual detail — and know how to keep consultants siloed. The fewer conversations between disciplines, the fewer complications for the builder.” 

 

In today’s litigious construction landscape — where cladding fallout, combustible products and contractual disputes routinely make headlines — specification writing has become far more than a technical exercise. It’s now one of the most critical risk management tools at an architect’s disposal—but only when applied with precision and followed through in practice. 

 

Digital tools like Revit and ArchiCAD have become integral to architectural workflows, particularly in 3D modelling and coordination. But when it comes to schedules and specifications, many practices are still left to create their own manual workflows, with limited tech support or industry-standard frameworks. 

 

“Loose specifying opens the door to liability,” Brookes warned, particularly when dealing with emerging or untested materials where failure may only surface years after handover. 

 

Brookes pointed to real-world examples where minor ambiguities in specification language led to major legal consequences. 

 

“You can have the best specification in the world—highly detailed, airtight—but if nobody follows through on it, then what’s the point?” 

 

“Technology is here to stay,” Brookes said. “But if there’s an error in your decentralised approach to specification, it can scale across an entire project. You need systems that reduce risk, not amplify it.” 

 

“If a general specification isn’t cleared out properly before layering in the project-specific one, it can create contradictions — and serious legal exposure.” 

 

“The real risk, Thornley said, isn’t the technology itself—but the lack, until now, of standardisation in how it’s used to support specification practices.” 

 

“There’s always some risk in new tech, as Elizabeth said, but if the industry gets used to using one format or program, it becomes far more intuitive — everyone knows where to look, how to interpret it,” Thornley said. 

 

“The danger is having 25 different platforms across 25 projects — that’s when things go wrong. Architects rely on standardised tools for 3D modelling and clash detection; the same consistency should apply to specifications.”