IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v104y2023ics0361368222000666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research

Author

Listed:
  • Goodson, Brian M.
  • Grenier, Jonathan H.
  • Maksymov, Eldar

Abstract

Prior research suggests that drivers of audit litigation periodically change, requiring continuing research to understand them. Yet, our understanding of the factors influencing the judgments of audit litigation attorneys—who resolve most audit disputes via settlement—remains limited, primarily due to the limited availability of these attorneys for experimental research. We seek to remedy this impediment by examining judgments of audit litigation attorneys, law professors, and law students to assess whether law students—an accessible pool of participants with technical legal knowledge—can proxy for audit litigation attorneys in some settings. Our results suggest that law students can reasonably proxy for audit litigation attorneys in decision settings more reliant on the application of technical legal knowledge primarily acquired in law school, relative to the application of strategic legal knowledge primarily acquired through legal experience. We validate a theoretical model and provide guidance on when law students should and should not be used as proxies. Our findings open fruitful avenues for future research of important audit litigation topics that have not been sufficiently examined, likely due to researchers’ lack of access to audit litigation attorneys.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:104:y:2023:i:c:s0361368222000666
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2022.101399
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368222000666
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101399?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. Ege, Matthew & Knechel, W. Robert & Lamoreaux, Phillip T. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2020. "A multi-method analysis of the PCAOB’s relationship with the audit profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Samsonova-Taddei, Anna & Humphrey, Christopher, 2015. "Risk and the construction of a European audit policy agenda: The case of auditor liability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 55-72.
    3. Elliott, W.B. & Hodge, F. & Kennedy, J.J. & Pronk, M., 2007. "Are MBA students a good proxy for nonprofessional investors?," Other publications TiSEM 20271f1d-d385-4122-a175-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Pentland, Brian T., 1993. "Getting comfortable with the numbers: Auditing and the micro-production of macro-order," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(7-8), pages 605-620.
    5. Lindsay M. Johnson & Marsha B. Keune & Jennifer Winchel, 2019. "U.S. Auditors' Perceptions of the PCAOB Inspection Process: A Behavioral Examination†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1540-1574, September.
    6. Susan D. Krische, 2019. "Investment Experience, Financial Literacy, and Investment‐Related Judgments†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1634-1668, September.
    7. Daoust, Laurence & Malsch, Bertrand, 2019. "How ex-auditors remember their past: The transformation of audit experience into cultural memory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Palmrose, Zv, 1991. "Trials Of Legal Disputes Involving Independent Auditors - Some Empirical-Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29, pages 149-185.
    9. Margaret H. Christ & Scott A. Emett & Scott L. Summers & David A. Wood, 2021. "Prepare for takeoff: improving asset measurement and audit quality with drone-enabled inventory audit procedures," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1323-1343, December.
    10. Brown, Timothy & Majors, Tracie M. & Peecher, Mark E., 2020. "Evidence on how different interventions affect juror assessment of auditor legal culpability and responsibility for damages after auditor failure to detect fraud," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    11. Clive Lennox & Bing Li, 2020. "When Are Audit Firms Sued for Financial Reporting Failures and What Are the Lawsuit Outcomes?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1370-1399, September.
    12. Libby, Robert & Bloomfield, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2002. "Experimental research in financial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 775-810, November.
    13. Gietzmann, M. B. & Quick, R., 1998. "Capping auditor liability: The German experience," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 81-103, January.
    14. Napier, Christopher J., 1998. "Intersections of law and accountancy: Unlimited auditor liability in the United Kingdom," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 105-128, January.
    15. Dain C. Donelson, 2013. "The Potential for Catastrophic Auditor Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 333-380.
    16. Power, Michael, 1998. "Auditor liability in context," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 77-79, January.
    17. Power, Michael K., 2003. "Auditing and the production of legitimacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 379-394, May.
    18. Henderson, William D., 2014. "From Big Law to Lean Law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(S), pages 5-16.
    19. Mark E. Peecher & M. David Piercey, 2008. "Judging Audit Quality in Light of Adverse Outcomes: Evidence of Outcome Bias and Reverse Outcome Bias," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 243-274, March.
    20. Kimberly D. Westermann & Jeffrey Cohen & Greg Trompeter, 2019. "PCAOB Inspections: Public Accounting Firms on “Trial”," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 694-731, June.
    21. Eldar Maksymov & Jeffrey Pickerd & D. Jordan Lowe & Mark E. Peecher & Andrew Reffett & Dain C. Donelson, 2020. "The Settlement Norm in Audit Legal Disputes: Insights from Prominent Attorneys$," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1400-1443, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Friedrich, Christian & Quick, Reiner, 2024. "Do non-audit service failures impair auditor reputation? An analysis of KPMG advisory service scandals in Germany," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    2. Christine Gimbar & Molly Mercer, 2021. "Do Auditors Accurately Predict Litigation and Reputation Consequences of Inaccurate Accounting Estimates?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 276-301, March.
    3. Beau, Pauline & Jerman, Lambert, 2022. "Bonding forged in “auditing hell”: The emotional qualities of Big Four auditors," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Brown, Timothy & Majors, Tracie M. & Peecher, Mark E., 2020. "Evidence on how different interventions affect juror assessment of auditor legal culpability and responsibility for damages after auditor failure to detect fraud," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Kohler, Hervé & Pochet, Christine & Gendron, Yves, 2021. "Networks of interpretation: An ethnography of the quest for IFRS consistency in a global accounting firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Malcolm Anderson, 1999. "Accounting History Publications 1998," Accounting History Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 375-384.
    7. Prabashi Dharmasiri & Soon-Yeow Phang & Ashna Prasad & John Webster, 2022. "Consequences of Ethical and Audit Violations: Evidence from the PCAOB Settled Disciplinary Orders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 179-203, August.
    8. Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Jeff Everett & Constance Friesen & Dean Neu & Abu Shiraz Rahaman, 2018. "We Have Never Been Secular: Religious Identities, Duties, and Ethics in Audit Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 1121-1142, December.
    10. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    11. Matthew Bamber & Santhosh Abraham, 2020. "On the “Realities” of Investor‐Manager Interactivity: Baudrillard, Hyperreality, and Management Q&A Sessions†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 1290-1325, June.
    12. Samsonova-Taddei, Anna & Humphrey, Christopher, 2015. "Risk and the construction of a European audit policy agenda: The case of auditor liability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 55-72.
    13. Christensen, Brant & Lei, Lijun (Gillian) & Shu, Sydney Qing & Thomas, Wayne, 2023. "Does audit regulation improve the underlying information used by managers? Evidence from PCAOB inspection access and management forecast accuracy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    14. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    15. Namrata Malhotra & Timothy Morris, 2009. "Heterogeneity in Professional Service Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(6), pages 895-922, September.
    16. Benoît Pigé, 2000. "Audit quality and Corporate governance : an analysis of French audit regulations [Qualité de l'audit et gouvernement d'entreprise : le rôle et les limites de la concurrence sur le marché de l'audit," Post-Print halshs-03425760, HAL.
    17. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    18. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.
    19. Chy, Mahfuz & De Franco, Gus & Su, Barbara, 2021. "The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    20. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:104:y:2023:i:c:s0361368222000666. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.