專門職業過去向以其負擔無限責任豎立專業形象，然英美等大型訴訟的發生反使得專業人士成了求償的「深口袋」，這正是英美有限責任合夥制度產生的濫觴。 英美的有限責任合夥立法初衷，係為律師、會計師等專業人士承擔無限責任尋求解套的途徑，而面對我國專門職業者如律師、會計師等，亦遭遇大案，面臨無限責任沈重負擔之際，本論文嘗試從英美法制，尤其是以美國法制為著眼點，尋求制度引進的可行性。事實上令專業負有限責任，在美國尚可組成專業公司或有限責任企業，然此兩種制度除了稅制考量外，也較偏向公司經營管理，甚至因為可以公開招募而容易觸動聯邦證券交易法的干預，也因此，有限責任合夥延續舊有合夥法律關係的組織特性，廣受傳統上以合夥成立的專業組織所青睞。 以美國有限責任合夥法制而言，其本質為合夥，因此其優勢為保有合夥諸多彈性自由的管理規則，賦予合夥人廣大的協議空間，另一方面使合夥人僅負有限責任，免除無限責任的負累，然反面觀之，其最爭議者在於債權人保護的疑慮，美國於2001年爆發恩隆弊案，涉案的安達信會計師事務所正是於伊利諾州註冊登記為有限責任合夥，有限責任合夥在恩隆案中於是受到前所未有的考驗，事實上在美國各州，也透過保險、獨立基金的設置甚至揭開面紗法則適用不同程度保障債權人。 相較之下，英國的有限責任合夥法制，則以公司法為其內涵，因此有限責任合夥法受到更多的管理與限制，除了內部管理沿襲合夥的規定外，在事務執行及破產清算等，均需依循公司法規的管制，在債權人保護上英國法則直接在其有限責任合夥法規定成員擔保及資產取回的機制。 本文認為在立法走向上，得借鏡美國法制，另立新法，使有限責任合夥維持其合夥本質，並賦予法人格，且加強債權人保護之配套措施，期能提供專業組織架構的另一選擇。 / Professionals such as accountants and lawyers used to keep its reputation by taking unlimited liability. However, such unlimited liability makes these professionals to be deep pockets, as the result of the frequent lawsuits in recent years. Due to this reason, adopting limited liability partnership (LLP) seems to be the solution. LLP is a form of doing business, combining the feature of a limited corporation and the flexibility of a general partnership. LLP in United Kingdom and United States all granted the privilege of limited liability to the innocent partners, also keeping their personal assets apart from the creditors’ claim. LLP is available to all types of business in UK; however, in some US states, the LLP is only available to specific licensed professionals. Because of the character of the limited liability, protecting the interest of the creditors would be the most significant problem. To solve this dilemma, US adopt several methods such as using the insurance, doctrine of piercing the veil and creating the asset segregation to balance the interest between the professionals and the creditors. In UK, the company law and insolvency law all tried to cover LLP, in order to keep the LLP’s assets as a guarantee to creditors; such laws also request to disclose important business information of prospective risks to the public. Besides, both UK and US laws require the word “LLP” must be specified in the name of any LLP organizations. In 2001, the Enron scandal was a shock to the world. Arthur Andersen, a well known LLP accounting firm which provides dishonest service for Enron, has triggered the debate of whether LLP is still appropriate. Therefore, my study is going to analyze the pros and cons of LLP in the following chapter. Because of the unlimited liability is the only choice for professionals in Taiwan, we are going to learn from the UK and US laws. As for my conclusion, it is necessary enact an LLP Act to provide an alternative to the professionals.