IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v32y2015i1p336-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Accounting Standard Precision, Auditor Task Expertise, and Judgment Frameworks on Audit Firm Litigation Exposure

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan H. Grenier
  • Bradley Pomeroy
  • Matthew T. Stern

Abstract

Recent research suggests that adopting imprecise accounting standards elevates audit firm litigation exposure and could undermine auditor objectivity if audit firms respond by herding to industry norms. This paper reports the results of two experiments that demonstrate how audit firms can effectively mitigate the elevated litigation exposure without herding to industry norms by staffing engagements with recognized technical experts, using judgment frameworks and automated decision aids, and providing persuasive evidence of adherence to auditing standards. We find that judgment frameworks are particularly well†suited for defending judgments under imprecise standards, and represent a cost†effective alternative to using technical experts. However, our results also indicate that judgment frameworks may provide a safe harbor for relatively low†quality judgments when those frameworks are used under precise standards. We discuss implications for audit firms, courts, and regulators that currently conduct or evaluate audits within and across jurisdictions where the precision of accounting standards varies considerably.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan H. Grenier & Bradley Pomeroy & Matthew T. Stern, 2015. "The Effects of Accounting Standard Precision, Auditor Task Expertise, and Judgment Frameworks on Audit Firm Litigation Exposure," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 336-357, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:32:y:2015:i:1:p:336-357
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12092
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12092?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. William D. Brink & Jonathan H. Grenier & Jonathan S. Pyzoha & Andrew Reffett, 2019. "The Effects of Clawbacks on Auditors’ Propensity to Propose Restatements and Risk Assessments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 313-332, August.
    2. Paolo Candio, 2023. "On the role of cost-effectiveness in accounting," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(2 Suppl.), pages 215-225.
    3. Ana Isabel Morais & Inês Pinto, 2023. "Does the Level of Enforcement Shape the Complexity in Accounting Standards?," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Yanming Cao & Zhongwei Zhao & Ning Wang & Liming Zhao, 2022. "Sustainable Development of Audit Market: Benefits of Audit Price Deregulation in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-15, August.
    5. Backof, Ann G. & Bamber, E. Michael & Carpenter, Tina D., 2016. "Do auditor judgment frameworks help in constraining aggressive reporting? Evidence under more precise and less precise accounting standards," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-11.
    6. 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).
    7. Matringe, Nadia & Power, Michael, 2024. "Memories lost: a history of accounting records as forms of projection," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120410, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Joseph A. Johnson & Patrick R. Martin & Bryan Stikeleather & Donald Young, 2022. "Investigating the Interactive Effects of Prosocial Actions, Construal, and Moral Identity on the Extent of Employee Reporting Dishonesty," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 721-743, December.

    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:wly:coacre:v:32:y:2015:i:1:p:336-357. 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://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.