Effects of an Attorney's Line of Argument on Accountants' Expert Witness Testimony

Accounting Review

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 221-245

  Ricchiute, David N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditor liability; Expert witness testimony; Line of argument

Indexed keywords

EID: 1342284077     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2004.79.1.221     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1992. Definitions and Standards. Statement on Standards for Consulting Services (SSCS) No. 1. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. _. 2001. Litigation support as a consulting niche, Journal of Accountancy 192 (August): 37.
3. _. 2002a. Professional Standards. Volume 1. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. _. 2002b. Professional Standards. Volume II. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Bajaj, M., S. C. Mazumbar, and A. Sarin. 2000. Securities class action settlements: An empirical analysis. Working paper, University of California, Berkeley and Santa Clara University.
6. Battenfeld of America Holding Co., v. Baird, Kurtz & Dobson. 1999. WL 232915 (D. Kan. Feb. 5).
7. Boiney, L. G., J. Kennedy, and P. Nye. 1997. Instrumental bias in motivated reasoning: More when more is needed. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72 (1): 1-24.
8. Buckless, F. A., and R. L. Peace. 1993. The influence of the source of professional standards on juror decision making. The Accounting Review 68 (1): 164-175.
9. Carlson, K. A., and J. E. Russo. 2001. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1 (2): 91-103.
10. Causey, D. Y. Jr. 2001. Duties and Liabilities of Public Accountants. 7th edition. Starkville, MI: Accountant's Press.
11. Champagne, A. 1992. Expert witnesses in the courts: An empirical examination. Judicature 78: 5-8.
12. Cloyd, C. B., and B. C. Spilker. 1999. The influence of client preferences on tax professionals' search for judicial precedents, subsequent judgments, and recommendations. The Accounting Review 74 (3): 99-322.
13. Crain, M., D. Goldwasser, and E. Harry. 1994. Expert witnesses - In jeopardy? Journal of Accountancy 180 (December): 42-48.
14. Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals. 1993. 509 U.S. 579.
15. Fife, P. D. 1998. Court rules on importance of GAAP and GAAS. Journal of Accountancy 185 (6: June): 24.
16. Guthrie, C., J. J. Rachlinski, and A. J. Wistrich. 2001. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review 86 (4): 777-830.
17. Hackenbrack, K., and M. W. Nelson. 1996. Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review 71 (1): 43-59
18. In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation. 1998. No. 98-8258-CV, 1998 WL 1990884 (S.D. Fia. Dec. 4).
19. In re Waste Management Securities Litigation. 1997. No. 97 C 7709, 1999 WL 967012 (N.D. 111. Oct. 18)
20. Kadous, K. 2000. The effects of audit quality and consequence severity on juror evaluations of auditor responsibility for plaintiff losses. The Accounting Review 75 (3): 327-341.
21. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. 1999. 526 U.S. 137.
22. Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480-498.
23. Lerner, J., and P. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125 (2): 255-275.
24. Lowe, D. J., P. M. J. Reckers, and S. M. Whitecotton. 2002. The effects of decision-aid use and reliability on jurors' evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 185-202.
25. Martin, D. N., V. M. Juneja, T. S. Foster, and F. C. Dunbar. 1996. Recent Trends IV: What Explains Filings and Settlements in Shareholder Class Actions? White Plains, NY: National Economic Research Associates.
26. Meloy, M. G. 2000. Mood-driven distortion of product information. Journal of Consumer Research 27: 345-359.
27. Murphy, J. P. 2000. Expert witnesses at trial: What are the ethics? Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 14: 217-239.
28. National Medical Transportation Network v. Deloitte & Touche. 1998. 98 D.A.R. 2850.
29. Ponemon, L. A. 1995. The objectivity of accountants' litigation support judgments. The Accounting Review 70 (3): 467-488.
30. Reilly, R. F. 1999. Implications of recent Daubert-related decisions on valuation expert testimony. American Bankers Institute Journal 18 (1): 25-32.
31. Reinard, J. 1988. The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after 50 years of research. Human Communication Research 15: 3-59.
32. Ricchiute, D. N. 1992. Working paper order effects and auditors' going-concern decisions. The Accounting Review 67 (1): 46-58.
33. Richardsonklavehn, A., and R. A. Bjork. 1988. Measures of memory. Annual Review of Psychology 39: 475-543.
34. Richey, C. R. 1994. Proposals to eliminate the prejudicial effect of the use of the word "expert" under the Federal Rules of Evidence in civil and criminal jury trials. Federal Rules Decisions 154: 537-545.
35. Russo, J. E., V. H. Medvic, and M. G. Meloy. 1996. The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66 (1): 102-110.
36. _, M. G. Meloy, and V. H. Medvic. 1998. Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research 35: 438-452.
37. _, _, and T. J. Wilks. 2000. Predecisional distortion of information by auditors and salespersons. Management Science 46 (1): 13-27.
38. Sanitioso, R., Z. Kunda, and G. T. Fong. 1990. Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (2): 229-241.
39. _, and _. 1991. Ducking the collection of costly evidence: Motivated use of statistical ' heuristics. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4 (6): 161-178.
40. Smith, J. F., and T. Kida. 1990. Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin 109 (3): 472-489.
41. Tan, H. T. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (1): 113-135.
42. U.S. Congress. 2002. Federal Rules of Evidence. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
43. U:S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services. 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act. H.R. 3763. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
44. Vigilante, M. J. 2000. Screening expert testimony after Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. Journal of Law and Policy 8: 543-592.
45. Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 51-71.
46. Yeazell, S. C. 2000. Civil Procedure. 5th edition. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.