Judges' attitudes toward the public accounting profession: An update

This study examines U.S. judges' attitudes toward the public accounting profession and the extent to which they have changed over the last 16 years: (a) early in the decade of the 1990's (1993), (b) late in the decade of the 1990's, but before the Enron and subsequent corporate accounting debacles (1997), (c) three years after the Enron debacle (2003), and (d) following the recent market collapse related to the failures of our financial institutions (2009). As previously reported (Reckers et al., 2004) attitudes of judges toward the public accounting profession are known to be representative of the views of other stakeholders (lawyers, jurors and MBAs) and would be expected, and have been found, to be relatively stable over time. Nonetheless attitudes are subject to change if given a substantial stimulus and the corporate debacles at the beginning of this decade, the corresponding CPA firm litigation and the demise of Arthur Andersen arguably constituted such a stimulus. It was reported that a significant erosion of judges' attitudes toward the public accounting profession could be measured in 2003 (Reckers et al, 2004). Given that judicial attitudes have been found to be significantly correlated with judgments rendered in a laboratory experiments, sharp erosion of attitudes is a concern. Judges were re-examined in 2009 to determine if attitudes had potentially rebounded. Reasons to expect attitudes may have rebounded include (a) expectations related to federal reforms of the auditing profession (e.g., SOX, PCAOB), (b) lack of recent accounting scandals, and (c) the financial institutions debacles of 2008. In comparison to the perceived abuses of the financial industry revealed in 2008, the earlier accounting abuses may have faded away.