5) What is one of the main reasons an attorney may refuse to provide auditors with complete information about contingent liabilities? A) The attorneys refuse to disclose information they The attorneys refuse to respond due to a lack of consider confidential. knowledge about matters involving contingent liabilities.
5) What is one of the main reasons an attorney may refuse to provide auditors with complete information about contingent liabilities? A) The attorneys refuse to disclose information they consider confidential. The attorneys refuse to respond due to a lack of knowledge about matters involving contingent liabilities. Yes Yes. B)
What is one of the main reasons an attorney may refuse to provide auditors with complete information about contingent liabilities? 1. The attorneys refuse to disclose information they consider confidential. 2. The attorneys refuse to respond due to a lack of knowledge about matters involving contingent liabilities.
What is one of the main reasons an attorney may refuse to provide auditors with complete information about contingent liabilities? (The attorneys refuse to disclose information they consider confidential.) (The attorneys refuse to respond due to a lack of knowledge about matters involving contingent liabilities.)
The auditor's responsibility for "reviewing the subsequent events" of a public company that is about to issue new securities is normally limited to the period of time: beginning with the balance sheet date and ending with the date the registration statement becomes effective.
If the client refuses to prepare and sign a letter of representation, the auditor would be required to issue either a qualified opinion or a disclaimer of opinion. T/F. True. Because a management representation letter is a written statement from a nonindependent source, it cannot be regarded as reliable evidence.
True. The auditor has a responsibility to review transactions and activities occurring after the balance sheet date to determine whether anything occurred that might affect the statements being audited. The procedures required to verify these transactions are commonly referred to as the review for: subsequent events.
Subsequent events affecting the realization of assets ordinarily will require adjustments of the financial statements under examination because such events typically represent: additional new information related to events that were in existence on the balance sheet date.
In a standard inquiry of client's attorney letter, the attorney is requested to communicate about contingencies up to the balance sheet date.
Yes. Whenever subsequent events are used to evaluate the amounts included in the statements, care must be taken to distinguish between conditions that existed at the balance sheet date and those that come into being after the balance sheet date. The subsequent information should not be incorporated directly into the statements if ...
As an auditor, use your intuition, judgment and experience to look for patterns in the identified fraud risks. The new standard reminds you that failure to observe one of the elements of the triangle does not guarantee an absence of fraud.
When assessing information about potential fraud risks, consider the type, significance, likelihood and pervasiveness of the risk.
The session will be much more productive if all members have a similar level of understanding about the client, the nature of its business and its current financial performance. For auditors brainstorming about fraud matters, it may be beneficial to perform analytical, fact-based research before the session.
SAS no. 99 states that you “should ordinarily” presume there is risk of material misstatement due to fraud relating to revenue recognition. If you do not identify improper revenue recognition as a risk of material misstatement due to fraud, you should document the reasons supporting this conclusion.
Several of these inquiries were not required under previous standards. Some inquiries are relatively straightforward, but others may require you to “educate” management about the characteristics of fraud, the nature of fraud risks and the types of programs and controls that will deter and detect fraud.
Always identify the risks of management override of controls as a fraud risk. Those who have studied fraudulent financial reporting have noted that risk of management override is unpredictable, and, therefore, it is difficult for auditors to design procedures to identify and assess it.
the client is refusing to pay the attorney for his or her services in violation of their fee agreement. the client is refusing to follow the attorney's advice. the client is engaged in fraudulent conduct, and.
the attorney is not competent to continue the representation. the attorney becomes a crucial witness on a contested issue in the case . the attorney discovers that the client is using his services to advance a criminal enterprise. the client is insisting on pursuit of a frivolous position in the case. the attorney has a conflict of interest ...
When an attorney withdraws in the middle of a client's case, that withdrawal is usually categorized as either "mandatory" or "voluntary." In this article, we'll explain the difference between these two processes, along with some examples of each. Keep in mind that with either type of withdrawal, the attorney usually needs to ask for and obtain the court's permission before ending representation of one of the parties in a civil lawsuit in the middle of the case.
The attorney must cooperate with the client's new counsel and must hand the client's complete file over as directed. An attorney who has withdrawn from representation has a continuing professional obligation to maintain the confidentiality of all matters within the attorney-client relationship, so for example the attorney cannot become ...
An Attorney's Mandatory Withdrawal. If the circumstances require that the attorney withdraw from representation, the withdrawal is considered mandatory. Situations that could give rise to an attorney's mandatory withdrawal from a case include: the attorney becomes a crucial witness on a contested issue in the case.