Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 169 Download : 60

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: This study explores the legal risks auditors face, focusing on the interplay between stakeholder expectations, evolving regulatory frameworks, and behavioral implications. It examines how these factors influence auditor liability, independence, and professional decision-making, offering insights into mitigating legal risks and improving audit quality.


Research Design and Methodology: Using a qualitative approach, this study employs a systematic literature review (SLR) to analyze prior research on auditor liability, stakeholder expectations, and regulatory dynamics. The study synthesizes findings from academic journals, regulatory reports, and professional standards to develop a multidimensional framework for understanding auditor legal risks.


Findings and Discussion: The findings reveal that misaligned stakeholder expectations significantly increase litigation risks for auditors, as many stakeholders view audit opinions as guarantees rather than reasonable assurance. Regulatory frameworks, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and International Standards on Auditing, amplify auditors’ legal exposure due to varying compliance demands across jurisdictions. Additionally, behavioral implications, including increased auditor conservatism, are key consequences of litigation fears, which may compromise audit quality. This study also highlights the role of audit committees and professional training in mitigating these risks.


Implications: The research provides practical and managerial insights, emphasizing the need for enhanced training programs to address stakeholder expectations and litigation risks. It advocates for stronger independent oversight through audit committees and refining audit standards to clarify the scope of audit opinions. These findings offer valuable contributions to academia and practice, supporting efforts to reduce legal risks while maintaining audit integrity.

Keywords

Auditor liability Stakeholder Expectations Regulatory Frameworks Professional Skepticism Audit Quality

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Widiarti, P. A. (2025). Legal Risks Faced by Auditors: Liability for Errors in Audit Opinions. Advances in Managerial Auditing Research, 3(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.60079/amar.v3i1.456
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ayogu, M. (2023). Fostering Transparency and Accountability Enhancing Statutory Audits in Nigeria. Journal of Business and Economic Options, 6(1 SE-Articles), 37–44. http://resdojournals.com/index.php/jbeo/article/view/232
  2. Azzali, S., & Mazza, T. (2020). Effects of financial restatements on top management team dismissal. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 20(3), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2019-0191
  3. Backof, A. G., Bowlin, K., & Goodson, B. M. (2022). The importance of clarification of auditors’ responsibilities under the new audit reporting standards. Contemporary Accounting Research, 39(4), 2284–2304. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12802
  4. Bennett, G. B., & Hatfield, R. C. (2013). The effect of the social mismatch between staff auditors and client management on the collection of audit evidence. The Accounting Review, 88(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50286
  5. Best, J. (2005). The limits of transparency: Ambiguity and the history of international finance. Cornell University Press.
  6. Bradbury, M. E., & Scott, T. (2022). Auditor’s responses to changes in risk. International Journal of Auditing, 26(4), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12288
  7. Campa, D., Quagli, A., & Ramassa, P. (2025). The roles and interplay of enforcers and auditors in the context of accounting fraud: a review of the accounting literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 47(5), 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-07-2023-0134
  8. Cannon, N. H., & Bedard, J. C. (2017). Auditing challenging fair value measurements: Evidence from the field. The Accounting Review, 92(4), 81–114.
  9. Chy, M., & Hope, O.-K. (2021). Real effects of auditor conservatism. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(2), 730–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-020-09568-3
  10. Collings, S. (2011). Interpretation and application of international standards on auditing. John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Deepal, A. G., & Jayamaha, A. (2022). Audit expectation gap: a comprehensive literature review. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 7(3), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-10-2021-0202
  12. Dwyer, K.-A. M., Brennan, N. M., & Kirwan, C. E. (2024). Disclosure of auditor risk assessments in expanded audit reports. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 25(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-07-2022-0181
  13. Elshandidy, T., Eldaly, M. K., & Abdel‐Kader, M. (2021). Independent oversight of the auditing profession: A review of the literature. International Journal of Auditing, 25(2), 373–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12224
  14. Gao, P., & Zhang, G. (2019). Auditing standards, professional judgment, and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 94(6), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52389
  15. Gunz, S., & Thorne, L. (2019). Thematic Symposium: Accounting Ethics and Regulation: SOX 15 Years Later. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3845-y
  16. Harber, M., & Willows, G. D. (2022). The commercialist identity of mid-tier firm auditors: a precarious balancing of priorities. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(8), 1803–1829. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2021-5208
  17. Hussin, N., Md Salleh, M. F., Ahmad, A., & Rahmat, M. M. (2023). The association between audit firm attributes and key audit matters readability. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 8(4), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-10-2022-0317
  18. Jedidi, I., & Humphrey, C. (2024). Auditing standards and the persistence of the audit expectations gap: Evidencing the absence of French ‘exceptionalism.’ International Journal of Auditing, August 2020, 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12351
  19. Jejeniwa, T. O., Mhlongo, N. Z., & Jejeniwa, T. O. (2024). The role of ethical practices in accounting: A review of corporate governance and compliance trends. Finance & Accounting Research Journal, 6(4), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.51594/farj.v6i4.1070
  20. Kassem, R., & Turksen, U. (2021). Role of Public Auditors in Fraud Detection: A Critical Review. In S. Grima & E. Boztepe (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Public Sector Accounting and Auditing (Vol. 105, pp. 33–56). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1569-375920200000105004
  21. Kumari, J. S., & Ajward, R. (2023). Whether the audit expectation-performance gap is expanding amid changes in audit landscape? New evidence from an emerging economy. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 8(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-12-2021-0267
  22. Lessambo, F. I. (2018). Auditor Legal Liability BT - Auditing, Assurance Services, and Forensics: A Comprehensive Approach (F. I. Lessambo (ed.); pp. 411–445). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90521-1_24
  23. Li, L., Monroe, G. S., & Coulton, J. (2024). Managerial litigation risk and auditor choice. International Journal of Auditing, 28(1), 142–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12322
  24. Liu, Y., Chen, J. Z., Chi, W., & Long, X. (2023). Auditors’ legal liability and client firms’ comparability: evidence from China. Managerial Auditing Journal, 38(5), 685–709. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2022-3566
  25. McNellis, C. J., Sweeney, J. T., & Dalton, K. C. (2021). The Impact of Requiring Audit Documentation on Judgments of Audit Quality and Auditor Responsibility. In K. E. Karim, T. Fogarty, R. Rutledge, R. Pinsker, J. Hasseldine, C. Bailey, & T. Pitre (Eds.), Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (Vol. 24, pp. 87–116). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-148820200000024004
  26. Olojede, P., Erin, O., Asiriuwa, O., & Usman, M. (2020). Audit expectation gap: an empirical analysis. Future Business Journal, 6(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00016-x
  27. Pratoomsuwan, T., & Yolrabil, O. (2020). Key audit matter and auditor liability: evidence from auditor evaluators in Thailand. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-2019-0147
  28. Quick, R. (2020). The audit expectation gap: A review of the academic literature. Maandblad Voor Accountancy En Bedrijfseconomie, 94(1/2), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.5117/mab.94.47895
  29. Rahman, M. J., Zhu, H., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Auditor choice and audit fees through the lens of agency theory: evidence from Chinese family firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 13(4), 1248–1276. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2023-0027
  30. Salehi, M., & Arianpoor, A. (2022). The consequences of the auditor’s choice in group companies and expectations gap. Management Research Review, 45(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2020-0755
  31. Sirois, L.-P., Bédard, J., & Bera, P. (2018). The informational value of key audit matters in the auditor’s report: Evidence from an eye-tracking study. Accounting Horizons, 32(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52047
  32. Velte, P. (2023). The impact of external auditors on firms’ financial restatements: a review of archival studies and implications for future research. Management Review Quarterly, 73(3), 959–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00264-x
  33. Velte, P., & Issa, J. (2019). The impact of key audit matter (KAM) disclosure in audit reports on stakeholders’ reactions: A literature review. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(3), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(3).2019.26
  34. Vincent, N. E., & Wilkins, A. M. (2020). Challenges when auditing cryptocurrencies. Current Issues in Auditing, 14(1), A46–A58. https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-52675
  35. Yousefi Nejad, M., Sarwar Khan, A., & Othman, J. (2024). A panel data analysis of the effect of audit quality on financial statement fraud. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 9(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-04-2023-0112