The Effects of Corporate Litigant Counterparties Sharing a Common Auditor

SUMMARY This study investigates whether sharing an auditor between corporate litigant counterparties influences their public litigation disclosure choices and litigation outcomes. Consistent with risks and incentives unique to common auditors, I find that defendants are more likely to disclose the existence of legal cases and are less likely to provide predictive loss estimates. In contrast to the settings of other studies, where common auditors have been shown to act as information intermediaries and share private information from one client with another, I do not find evidence to support an effect on litigation outcomes. Overall, the results suggest that common auditors play a “qualified” monitoring role for litigant counterparties, balancing their unique risks and incentives of serving both clients, leading to a nuanced influence on litigation disclosure. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources identified in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; K41.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory
Published
2025-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-2023-099
Primary Topic
Regulation and Compliance Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Effects of Corporate Litigant Counterparties Sharing a Common Auditor

Eric Lohwasser
Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory
Regulation and Compliance Studies
article

The Effects of Corporate Litigant Counterparties Sharing a Common Auditor

Eric Lohwasser
article en

Abstract

SUMMARY This study investigates whether sharing an auditor between corporate litigant counterparties influences their public litigation disclosure choices and litigation outcomes. Consistent with risks and incentives unique to common auditors, I find that defendants are more likely to disclose the existence of legal cases and are less likely to provide predictive loss estimates. In contrast to the settings of other studies, where common auditors have been shown to act as information intermediaries and share private information from one client with another, I do not find evidence to support an effect on litigation outcomes. Overall, the results suggest that common auditors play a “qualified” monitoring role for litigant counterparties, balancing their unique risks and incentives of serving both clients, leading to a nuanced influence on litigation disclosure. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources identified in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; K41.

Auditing A Journal of Practice & TheoryVol. 44(4)
Colorado State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Regulation and Compliance Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.