IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v45y2005i1p145-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of audit report disclosure on auditor litigation risk

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Mong
  • Peter Roebuck

Abstract

Internationally, the escalating number of cases levelled against auditors and the costs of defending such actions has led to the auditing profession calling for measures to reduce their liability burden. Relatively few measures have been taken by the auditing profession by way of adapting the disclosure contained in the audit report to mitigate their litigation risk. This study examines whether the issuance of an audit opinion with a going concern related ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph or work practices disclosure has any effect on potential litigants' likelihood of pursuing litigation against the auditor. An analysis of 69 responses from advanced law students and 18 practitioners working in corporate liquidation demonstrate that a modified (but not qualified) audit report effectively acts as a ‘red flag’ and reduces potential litigants' propensity to initiate litigation. However, work practices disclosure did not significantly alter potential litigants' inclination to recommend litigation. Despite this finding, respondents (particularly liquidators) indicated that work practices disclosure was an important factor in their litigation decision. These results suggest that further investigation into how to effectively disclose the work done on audit and assurance engagements is needed. This has implications for standard setters and the auditing profession, especially considering recent changes in the disclosure contained in audit and assurance reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Mong & Peter Roebuck, 2005. "Effect of audit report disclosure on auditor litigation risk," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 45(1), pages 145-169, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:45:y:2005:i:1:p:145-169
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-629x.2004.00124.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629x.2004.00124.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-629x.2004.00124.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ali A. Al-Thuneibat & Basheer Ahmad Khamees & Nedal A. Al-Fayoumi, 2008. "The effect of qualified auditors' opinions on share prices: evidence from Jordan," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(1), pages 84-101, January.
    2. Nico Dewaelheyns & Cynthia Van Hulle, 2010. "Bankruptcy reform: evidence from a survey among judges and receivers," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(14), pages 1367-1371.
    3. Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher & Yuyu Zhang, 2016. "Trends in Auditor Reporting in Australia: A Synthesis and Opportunities for Research," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 26(3), pages 226-242, September.
    4. Viktoriya Fabiianska, 2018. "Forms to Express an Independent Auditor's Opinion according to the Results of Compulsory and Initiative Audit in Ukraine," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 102-110, June.
    5. Andrés Guiral & Waymond Rodgers & Emiliano Ruiz & José Gonzalo, 2010. "Ethical Dilemmas in Auditing: Dishonesty or Unintentional Bias?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 151-166, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:45:y:2005:i:1:p:145-169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.