SAS58, one of the Expectation Gap auditing standards, changed the wording of the standard unqualified auditors report. The changes mandated by SAS58 do not reflect changes in the underlying auditing process or in the auditors responsibility for the audited financial statements. An experiment was conducted to determine whether these changes in the auditors report would affect jurors assessments of liability in an audit failure suit. No difference was found between liability assessments based on old and new forms of the report, suggesting that the changes mandated by SAS58 have no decision usefulness to report users.

One of the major concerns of the auditing profession is its increasing exposure to litigation, particularly with parties not historically considered to have privity under contract law. A major reason for the increase in lawsuits against accounting firms is that they are often the only survivors in a multiparty action when a company fails. In an attempt to reduce the disparity between the perceptions of the profession and the public as to the responsibilities of an independent auditor, the AICPA issued SAS58, one of the Expectation Gap auditing standards. SAS58 changed the wording of the standard unqualified auditors report, but did not alter the underlying audit process or the auditors responsibility for the audited financial statements. Previous research suggests that jurors assessments of liability in audit failure suits have not been affected by SAS58. However, this research was based on a join and several liability model, and did not address the possibility that SAS58, in conjunction with tort reform legislation, may modify jurors perceptions of auditor liability. The present study was designed to explore that interaction.