Cover: Panel Two: Sarbanes-Oxley Accounting Issues

Panel Two: Sarbanes-Oxley Accounting Issues

Cataclysmic Liability Risk Among Big Four Auditors

Published 2006

by Eric Talley

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.5 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Since Arthur Andersen’s implosion in 2002, policymakers have been encouraged with ever increasing urgency to insulate the auditing industry from legal liability. Advocates of such insulation cite many arguments, but the gravamen of their case is that the profession faces such significant risk of cataclysmic liability that its long term viability is imperiled. In this Essay, I explore the nature of these claims as a legal, theoretical, and empirical matter. Legally, it is clear that authority exists (within both state and federal law) to impose liability on auditing firms for financial fraud, and courts have been doing so sporadically for years. Theoretically, it is certainly conceivable that, under certain conditions, cataclysmic liability risk could lead to widespread industry breakdown, excessive centralization, and the absence of third-party insurance. Whether such conditions exist empirically, however, is a somewhat more opaque question. On one hand, the pattern of liability exposure during the last decade does not appear to be the type that would, at least on first blush, imperil the entire profession. On the other hand, if one predicts historical liability exposure patterns into the future, the risk of another firm exiting due to liability concerns appears to be more than trivial. Whether this risk is large enough to justify liability limitations or other significant legal reforms, however, turns on a number of factors that have thus far gone unexamined by either advocates or opponents, including the presence of market mechanisms of deterrence, the effectiveness of current regulation, the likely welfare effects of further contraction of the industry, and the likelihood of new entry after a contraction.

Reprinted with permission from Columbia Law Review, Vol. 106, No. 7, November 2006, pp. 1641-1697. Copyright © 2006 Columbia Law Review.

Originally published in: Columbia Law Review, Vol. 106, No. 7, November 2006, pp. 1641-1697.

This report is part of the RAND reprint series. The Reprint was a product of RAND from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.