IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/aelcon/v2y2012i1n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who's to Judge? Understanding Issues of Auditor Independence Versus Judicial Independence

Author

Listed:
  • Kleinman Gary

    (Montclair State University, New Jersey)

  • Anandarajan Asokan

    (New Jersey Institute of Technology)

  • Palmon Dan

    (Rutgers Business School, New Jersey)

Abstract

We explore differences in the roles of auditors and judges in the United States, emphasizing the issue of independence for each group. We examine factors that influence the independence of US judges and auditors. We use examples to highlight the potential impact of various factors on each profession and explore how they are affected by differences in the nature of their responsibilities. Based on these examples, we find generalized lessons that are applicable to each profession and explore further questions that should be asked. While much research has been done on factors that could potentially influence auditor independence, no research to date has examined lessons that auditors can learn from the judicial profession with respect to independence in the United States setting, and vice versa. This paper is a contemplation of the different threats that exist to independence and the difficulty in achieving it in two differently structured fields where its attainment was important for achieving societal ends associated with the professional roles. We hope through this discussion and presentation to broaden the perspective of both professions (judges, auditors) by furthering their understanding of the independence dilemmas facing occupants of the other’s role.

Suggested Citation

  • Kleinman Gary & Anandarajan Asokan & Palmon Dan, 2012. "Who's to Judge? Understanding Issues of Auditor Independence Versus Judicial Independence," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:2:y:2012:i:1:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/2152-2820.1042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/2152-2820.1042
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/2152-2820.1042?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Kleinman & David Hossain, 2009. "Issue Networks, Value Structures and the Formulation of Accounting Standards: An Exercise in Theory Building," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 5-26, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gary Kleinman & Pamela Strickland & Asokan Anandarajan, 2016. "The Accounting Court: Some Speculations on Why Not?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 845-871, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gary Kleinman & Pamela Strickland & Asokan Anandarajan, 2016. "The Accounting Court: Some Speculations on Why Not?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 845-871, July.

    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:bpj:aelcon:v:2:y:2012:i:1:n:4. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.