An Analysis of Potential Legal Liability Incurred Through Audit Expert Systems

Abstract

The introduction of expert systems technology into the audit environment has opened a new avenue of auditor legal liability. This paper examines the potential impact expert systems will have on auditor liability. The presentation of this new avenue of auditors' legal liability explores both the potential for litigation under failure of auditor/expert system collaboration to yield prudent decisions and the failure to use an available expert system. The risks evolving from failure to use an available expert system include the possibility that the system could be used against the auditor in the courtroom. While case law will ultimately determine the bounds of this liability, this paper acquaints the reader with the important legal issues involved and the varied outcomes that could emerge. It should also be noted that while the specific example presented in this paper relates to the audit profession, the legal concepts are of equivalent concern to other professions enduring broad implementation of expert systems.

The impact of political pressure on novice decision makers: are auditors qualified to make going concern judgements?

“…Similarly, their approach is quite different from auditors assessing going concern decisions. Whereas an auditor has a strong likelihood of never having a client receive a going concern opinion (Sutton et al, 1995), insolvency professionals deal exclusively with organizations of questionable going concern status.This high level of experience and responsibility should facilitate a higher level of expertise in dealing with such companies. Leech et al (1998Leech et al ( , 1999 and Collier et al (1999) report an extended study of insolvency practitioners and a corresponding computational model of their decisionmaking patterns.…”

Impact of intelligent decision aids on expert and novice decision‐makers’ judgments

“…Several researchers have questioned why such systems have not had better success (e.g., Duchessi and O'Keefe, 1992;Bouwman, 1996). The lack of desired success has been associated with nonacceptance of the technology, identification of inappropriate problem domains, a general lack of perceived benefits, effort minimisation by users, or potential legal liability risks (Abdolmohammadi, 1999;Duchessi and O'Keefe, 1992;Sutton et al , 1995;Todd and Benbasat, 1999). Bouwman (1996) notes, however, that these reasons are simply symptomatic of problems and further investigation is needed to identify the underlying causes of such problems and the factors that lead to implementation success or failure.…”

Advances in Rule-Based Process Mining: Applications for Enterprise Risk Management and Auditing

“…This section discusses the opportunities for strategic advantages that can be obtained with rule-based compliance checking approaches for process mining over more traditional auditing and risk management techniques. In addition to the fact that the auditors credibility is generally higher when they use new technologies [59], we distinguish three opportunities: high issue detection effectiveness (pursuing absolute assurance), obtaining persuasive evidence and achieving complete auditor independence. These advantages all contribute to a more efficient and effective control environment.…”