The aim of the article is to draw attention to the inadequacy between the scope of responsibility with which the applicable regulations bind the profession of an architect as a profession of public trust, and the actual level of decision-making independence of an architect acting as a designer within the meaning of construction law. The discrepancy between the axiological assumptions underlying the adopted normative solutions and practice is – in the opinion of the author of the article, who has been advising design offices and developers at all stages of the investment and construction process – large enough to ask questions about the future of the architect’s profession in its current formula. This is because the means of protection available to architects against liability “at random”, i.e. against liability for events on which they did not or could not have a sufficient influence, are too often, too weak, excessively cost-intensive in relation to the remuneration for the performance of the project, burdened with too many evidentiary difficulties (not taking into account the specifics of the design process) or disproportionate to the scale and amount of the claims made.