An experimental investigation of the efficacy of lawyers' letters

Auditing

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 79-93

  Krogstad, Jack L ^a   Taylor, Mark H ^a   Stock, Maribeth J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Audit evidence; Contingent liabilities; Lawyers' letters; Likelihood

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038891774     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2002.21.1.79     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Amer, T., K. Hackenbrack, and M. Nelson. 1994. Between-auditor differences in the interpretation of probability phrases. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 126-136.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1976. Inquiry of Client's Lawyer Concerning Litigation, Claims, and Assessments. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 12. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 2000. Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. Arens, A., and J. Loebbecke. 2000. Auditing: An Integrated Approach. Eighth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Behn, B. K., and K. Pany. 1995. Limitations of lawyers' letters. Journal of Accountancy (February): 61-67.
6. Benson, B. 1977. Lawyers' responses to audit inquiries - A continuing controversy. Journal of Accountancy (July): 72-78.
7. Board of Governors of the American Bar Association (ABA). 1975. Statement of Policy Regarding Lawyers' Responses to Auditors' Requests for Information. Chicago, IL: ABA.
8. Causey, D. Y., Jr., and S. A Causey. 1991. Duties and Liabilities of Public Accountants. Mississippi State, MI: Accountant's Press.
9. Cloyd, B. C., J. R. Fredrickson, and J. W. Hill. 1996a. Motivating factors in lawsuits against independent auditors: Experimental evidence on the importance of causality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (15): 185-218.
10. _, _____, and ____. 1996b. The effects of legal cost allocation rules and audit firms' reputations for settling on non-meritorious suits against auditors. Working paper, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
11. Crystal, N. M. 1996. Professional Responsibility: Problems of Practice and the Profession. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company.
12. Fesler, R. D., and J. L. Hagler. 1989. Litigation disclosures under SFAS No. 5: A study of actual cases. Accounting Horizons (March): 10-20.
13. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1975. Accounting for Contingencies. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5. New York, NY: FASB.
14. _. 1976. Reasonable Estimation of the Amount of a Loss. FASB Interpretation No. 14. New York, NY: FASB.
15. Harrison, K. E., and T. C. Pearson. 1989. Communications between auditors and lawyers for the identification and evaluation of litigation, claims, and assessments. Accounting Horizons (June): 76-84.
16. _ and L. A. Tomassini. 1989. Judging the probability of a contingent loss: An empirical study. Contemporary Accounting Research (5): 642-648.
17. Jiambalvo, J., and N. Wilner. 1985. Auditor evaluation of contingent claims. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 1-11.
18. Lasward, F., and Y. T. Mak. 1997. Interpretations of probability expressions by New Zealand standard setters. Accounting Horizons (December): 16-23.
19. Loewenstein, G., S. Issacharoff, C. Camerer, and L. Babcock. 1993. Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. The Journal of Legal Studies (January): 135-159.
20. Mangrum, R. C. 2000. Mangrum on Nebraska evidence. Unpublished monograph, Creighton University School of Law.
21. Morgan, T. D., and R. D. Rotunda. 1999. Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and Other Selected Standards Including California, New York, and Washington D.C. Rules of Professional Responsibility. New York, NY: Foundation Press.
22. Quinlivan, S. M. 1991. Understanding lawyers' responses to auditors' inquines. Journal of Accountancy (November): 127-133.
23. Reimers, J. L. 1992. Additional evidence on the need for disclosure reform. Accounting Horizons (March): 36-41.
24. Schepanski, A., R. Tubbs, and R. Grimlund. 1992. Issues of concern regarding within-and between-subjects designs in behavioral accounting research. Journal of Accounting Literature (11): 121-150.
25. Segal, M. A. 1997. Accountants and the lawyer-client privilege. Journal of Accountancy (April): 53-56.