Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule

1
Stephen E. Blythe
Stephen E. Blythe
1 Abu Dhabi University

Send Message

To: Author

GJMBR Volume 13 Issue D4

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

NW48V

Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule Banner
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu

The objectives of this article are to: (1) define the audit interference rule (hereinafter “A.I.R.”) and describe its purpose; (2) summarize the historical case law pertinent to the A.I.R.; (3) delineate the U.S. states that recognize the A.I.R. from those that do not; (4) explain how the A.I.R. is impacted by the existence of a state’s comparative negligence statute; and (5) tell how recent developments in case law are affecting the A.I.R. The purpose of the A.I.R. is to limit the scope of an auditor’s contributory negligence defense in a negligence lawsuit filed by a client. The A.I.R. provides that the client’s negligence is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract and to report the truth. New York was the first state to recognize the A.I.R.

44 Cites in Articles

References

  1. Stull V,Ragsdale Unknown Title.
  2. (1981). Unknown Title.
  3. (2007). Reilly, Mary Margaret, (born 22 May 1953), Partner, Deloitte (formerly Deloitte & Touche) LLP, 1987–2013.
  4. (1996). Unknown Title.
  5. Halla Nursery,V Baumann-Furrie,& Co (1990). Unknown Title.
  6. (1220). Arbitration and Award. In General. Court Determines Questions of Coverage and Liability despite Arbitration Clause in Standard Uninsured Motorist Provision. Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).
  7. Hawkins (1959). Non-audit liability of accountants.
  8. Menzel (1983). CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PATIENT AS DEFENSE TO CHARGE OF MALPRACTICE..
  9. Note The Peculiar Treatment of Contributory Negligence in Accountants' Liability Cases.
  10. N (1990). Legal Cases.
  11. (2003). Unknown Title.
  12. (1985). Unknown Title.
  13. Louise Hall (1956). New Threat to Washington Landmark.
  14. Mayer Hoffman,Mccann (2010). Unknown Title.
  15. Comeau Rupp (1992). U.
  16. (2015). Comerica.
  17. C (1930). Unknown Title.
  18. (1220). Arbitration and Award. In General. Court Determines Questions of Coverage and Liability despite Arbitration Clause in Standard Uninsured Motorist Provision. Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964).
  19. Unknown Title.
  20. E Ark (1992). Unknown Title.
  21. Fullmer V,Wohlfeiler,Beck (1990). Unknown Title.
  22. Logan Greenstein,V Co,Burgess,Marketing (1987). Quarterly progress report, April--June 1976.
  23. Trust Co (2012). Whineray, Sir Wilson (James), (10 July 1935–22 Oct. 2012), Chairman, National Bank of New Zealand Ltd, 1998–2004 (Director, 1993–2004).
  24. Hall,Co (2003). Materials index.
  25. (1989). Unknown Title.
  26. Halla Nursery,V Baumann-Furrie,& Co (1990). Unknown Title.
  27. Jack Greenberg (1999). Unknown Title.
  28. Jenia Iontcheva (2001). Sovereignty on Our Terms: In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 120 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D. D. C. 2000).
  29. S (2009). Lectureabstracts Antwerpen 2009.
  30. (2001). IN RE: DELTA INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPMENT, LLC Case No. 12-01160-NPO (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2019).
  31. Jewelcor Jewelers,& Distrib (1988). Unknown Title.
  32. Lincoln Grain Unknown Title.
  33. (1984). Unknown Title.
  34. (1939). Unknown Title.
  35. Pnc Bank,Inc Kentucky (2011). PNC Inc - Printed Circuit Board Manufacturer.
  36. W Pa (1994). Unknown Title.
  37. Schein Ernst,Young Unknown Title.
  38. Shapiro V Unknown Title.
  39. S (1974). Unknown Title.
  40. & Stroud V. Arthur Andersen,Co (2001). Unknown Title.
  41. Stull V,Ragsdale Unknown Title.
  42. (1981). Appendix D..
  43. (2020). Erratum.
  44. Hannah Calkins (1987). State Beat: Texas Psychological Association fights to keep state psychology board independent.

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

Stephen E. Blythe. 2013. \u201cLimiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule\u201d. Global Journal of Management and Business Research - D: Accounting & Auditing GJMBR-D Volume 13 (GJMBR Volume 13 Issue D4): .

Download Citation

Issue Cover
GJMBR Volume 13 Issue D4
Pg. 39- 47
Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJMBR

Print ISSN 0975-5853

e-ISSN 2249-4588

Classification
Not Found
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

August 6, 2013

Language

English

Experiance in AR

The methods for personal identification and authentication are no exception.

Read in 3D

The methods for personal identification and authentication are no exception.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 4754
Total Downloads: 2402
2026 Trends
Research Identity (RIN)
Related Research

Published Article

The objectives of this article are to: (1) define the audit interference rule (hereinafter “A.I.R.”) and describe its purpose; (2) summarize the historical case law pertinent to the A.I.R.; (3) delineate the U.S. states that recognize the A.I.R. from those that do not; (4) explain how the A.I.R. is impacted by the existence of a state’s comparative negligence statute; and (5) tell how recent developments in case law are affecting the A.I.R. The purpose of the A.I.R. is to limit the scope of an auditor’s contributory negligence defense in a negligence lawsuit filed by a client. The A.I.R. provides that the client’s negligence is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract and to report the truth. New York was the first state to recognize the A.I.R.

The objectives of this article are to: (1) define the audit interference rule (hereinafter “A.I.R.”) and describe its purpose; (2) summarize the historical case law pertinent to the A.I.R.; (3) delineate the U.S. states that recognize the A.I.R. from those that do not; (4) explain how the A.I.R. is impacted by the existence of a state’s comparative negligence statute; and (5) tell how recent developments in case law are affecting the A.I.R. The purpose of the A.I.R. is to limit the scope of an auditor’s contributory negligence defense in a negligence lawsuit filed by a client. The A.I.R. provides that the client’s negligence is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract and to report the truth. New York was the first state to recognize the A.I.R.

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]
×

This Page is Under Development

We are currently updating this article page for a better experience.

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

Quote and Order Details

Contact Person

Invoice Address

Notes or Comments

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Limiting Auditors Defenses in Negligence Lawsuits: Recent Developments in the Audit Interference Rule

Stephen E. Blythe
Stephen E. Blythe Abu Dhabi University

Research Journals