IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gro/rugsom/98c42.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Litigation and audit quality; two experimental studies

Author

Listed:
  • Dijk, M. van

    (Groningen University)

Abstract

This study examines the effect of litigation risk on auditors' willingness to yield to management pressure and to omit audit steps of the audit program in case of budget pressure. The results show that litigation risk has a significant impact on audit quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Dijk, M. van, 1998. "Litigation and audit quality; two experimental studies," Research Report 98C42, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    • Handle: RePEc:gro:rugsom:98c42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/174868227
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mcdaniel, Ls, 1990. "The Effects Of Time Pressure And Audit Program Structure On Audit Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 267-285.
    2. Carcello, Jv & Palmrose, Zv, 1994. "Auditor Litigation And Modified Reporting On Bankrupt Clients," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 1-30.
    3. Lys, T & Watts, Rl, 1994. "Lawsuits Against Auditors," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 65-93.
    4. Kinney, William Jr. & McDaniel, Linda S., 1989. "Characteristics of firms correcting previously reported quarterly earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 71-93, February.
    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. repec:dgr:rugsom:98c42 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles, Josep Ma, 2015. "Audit firm tenure and independence: A comprehensive investigation of audit qualifications in Spain," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-93.
    3. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2014. "Accounting misstatements following lawsuits against auditors," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 58-75.
    4. Zoe†Vonna Palmrose & Susan Scholz, 2004. "The Circumstances and Legal Consequences of Non†GAAP Reporting: Evidence from Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 139-180, March.
    5. Karla M. Johnstone & Jean C. Bedard, 2004. "Audit Firm Portfolio Management Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 659-690, September.
    6. Richard Chung & Michael Firth & Jeong-Bon Kim, 2003. "Auditor conservatism and reported earnings," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 19-32.
    7. Daniel Aobdia & Luminita Enache & Anup Srivastava, 2021. "Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 715-754, February.
    8. Tom Van Caneghem, 2004. "The impact of audit quality on earnings rounding-up behaviour: some UK evidence," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 771-786.
    9. Jiang, Wei & Rupley, Kathleen Hertz & Wu, Jia, 2010. "Internal control deficiencies and the issuance of going concern opinions," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 40-46.
    10. DeFond, Mark L. & Subramanyam, K. R., 1998. "Auditor changes and discretionary accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 35-67, February.
    11. Fangjun Wang & Luying Xu & Fei Guo & Junrui Zhang, 2020. "Loan Guarantees, Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Audit Fees: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 293-309, October.
    12. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2010. "Auditor Conservatism, Abnormal Accruals, and Going Concern Opinions," Discussion Papers 2010-64, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    13. 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.
    14. Dennis M. O'Reilly & Robert A. Leitch & Brad Tuttle, 2006. "An Experimental Test of the Interaction of the Insurance and Information†Signaling Hypotheses in Auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 267-289, March.
    15. Jere R. Francis & Jagan Krishnan, 1999. "Accounting Accruals and Auditor Reporting Conservatism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 135-165, March.
    16. Wang, Yusiyu, 2019. "Regulation, protest, and spatial economics," Other publications TiSEM 809d31ac-b5a7-4e6c-b2eb-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Curtis Hall & J. Scott Judd & Jayanthi Sunder, 2023. "Auditor conservatism, audit quality, and real consequences for clients," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 689-725, June.
    18. Demirkan, Sebahattin & Fuerman, Ross D., 2014. "Auditor litigation: Evidence that revenue restatements are determinative," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 164-174.
    19. Sarah C. Rice & David P. Weber, 2012. "How Effective Is Internal Control Reporting under SOX 404? Determinants of the (Non‐)Disclosure of Existing Material Weaknesses," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 811-843, June.
    20. Clive S. Lennox & Asad Kausar, 2017. "Estimation risk and auditor conservatism," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 185-216, March.
    21. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.

    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:gro:rugsom:98c42. 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: Hanneke Tamling (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugnl.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.