I recall reading in Time last year that the average doctor made $128,000 per year, which is also about the amount that puts one in the top 5% of income earners in the US.
Most golf architects do carry "errors and omissions" insurance, which covers the same on any plans and specs that lead to damages on the part of the owner. I don't know what architects who don't do plans are covered for exactly!
Architects do get sued from time to time for safety, drainage and cart path issues, where persons or property are damaged. I see the trend of golf architects reducing their scope of services - farming out or avoiding altogether cart path design, environmental design, irrigation and pump stations, and even drainage, although most of us will do golf course drainage, but stay away from anything that could in any way conceivably affect the drainage for houses or roads.
Heck, architects are even reluctant to spec out greens mix, as that is the biggest area of lawsuits. Any time a new green dies, it could be poor mix, weather, a "terrorist attack" - ie vandals - or superintendent error. A USGA rep. once told me that the greens section kept track of dying greens informally across the country. Before the USGA spec green, they failed at about 1% of a regions courses per year, and after USGA spec greens became common - about 1% a year. So the mix part may not be that big a factor, although thats what lawsuits usually focus on.
The case Jeff McDowell mentions is interesting. At the Quarry at Giant's Ridge, we had a slope stability situation, and I was tempted to leave it alone, or engineer a solution myself, but we recommended the Owner retain an engineer for the design. We spent about $160,000 to "remediate" a 1.8-1 slope back to a 2:1 slope. Not much improvement, and the engineers contract stated that they didn't guarantee it anyway, they estimated it reduced the probability of slope failure a substantial percentage, and it did meet some state spec for mineland stability.....So, I don't know if the Owner Jeff mentioned did much more than take a calculated chance that doing nothing would work out, and lost the gamble.
Certainly the engineering firm he works for is only doing the best they can, but how can they be responsible for soil? They can only provide a reasonable level of care in design, but even soil borings every 100 feet could miss a vein of unstable soil that may still collapse.
Should architects be sued because someone doesn't like the course? Most contracts specifically call for the architect to run preliminary designs and budgets by the Owner FOR HIS APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE. Naturally, there are changes and evolution, but technically, the architect is only presenting options and ideas for the owner's approval.
Naturally, we all like it when the owner gives us carte blanche to implement our ideas, but rarely do they leave and come back at the end with absolutely no idea what the product will be like - "Hey, surprise me" is not something I've had a client say. Hopefully, the client has researched things enough to know they like your basic style. If they don't, well, shame on them.
The ideas of "community standards" being applied to design is interesting. On the surface, we all love golf because every course is different. So, what if I gave an Owner a different course than what was around, and he sued me because it wasn't like the others. What if it was too difficult, or easy? Who would decide and how could anyone determine that the owner was damaged by the aesthetics or playability of the design? Certainly, such standards would limit creativity, and we may have never seen the likes of Pete Dye.