Mr. Mundheim: Well, I guess the question to Jim is, is the measure of punishment, which is the loss that investors have in the marketplace, too heavy a punishment?

In other words, one way to look at is to say, Sure, we ought to be punished, but it ought to be related to making us behave properly.

Mr. Copeland: And, it ought to be proportionate to our involvement. I mean, the change that Mel's suggesting would go back to the — now you're five percent culpable in a situation, and you're responsible for a hundred percent of the losses. And that's — I mean, it's basically an insurance policy that nobody else would write, I don't think.

As far as the — you know, Mel might be surprised to hear me say that I really think that litigation does play a positive role with respect to auditor performance. But, I think that the significance of that is to a point now where it becomes counter-productive. Mel says it's difficult to sue accounting firms. That's a little hard to square with his earlier comment about whether there were going to be four or five firms, Big Five firms. That now, if that's even being called into question, whether or not a Big Five firm can be taken down effectively by one engagement, it's a little hard to argue, I think, that there's not enough access to the courts in order to take care of auditor malfeasance.

Some countries have limits based on a multiple of the fees involved in engagement as a method for capping liability. I don't know about that.

My biggest concern is that if something happens to Andersen as a result of litigation exposure, and that scares all of the talent out of the profession. They watch one — one of my partners watched a partner from Andersen having to sell his house and suddenly, you know, they wonder whether or not they want to continue in this profession. I think those are the challenging things on the litigation side.