Accounting

Balancing the interests between attorney-client privilege and the auditor’s need to know

Published

5 months ago

October 23, 2024

Companies often face the tricky task of producing privileged and confidential information to their independent auditors for audit purposes.

This article first examines a company’s dilemma regarding whether to disclose any privileged information to its independent auditors. Next, it provides an overview of the existing law, which addresses when the attorney-client privilege and work product protection could be waived when documents are voluntarily disclosed to an independent auditor for the audit. Finally, we’ll examine how to successfully manage the conflict between an auditor’s need to know and a company’s need to protect privileged and confidential information.

A company’s dilemma: To disclose or not to disclose?

Corporations hire independent auditors to perform financial audits and comply with the applicable SEC requirements, shareholder demands, banking regulations and other obligations. In the course of such audits, independent auditors review and test the corporation’s financial statements, detailed books and records, and internal controls. Auditors may also request to review certain privileged information that the corporation prepared for any ongoing or anticipated litigation, including internal investigation reports, attorney memoranda evaluating possible liabilities, tax position papers, and other materials.

Auditors may request privileged materials for several reasons – for example, to verify financial disclosures; to investigate potential “illegal acts” by a company under Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; or to avoid liability under the recent SEC-approved Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Rule 3502, regarding negligence in the conduct of an audit. Auditors are not required, however, to conduct a legal assessment as to a corporation’s compliance or noncompliance with law.

Companies may comply with the auditor’s request for privileged information. The potential downside to such compliance is that a third party may argue that the documents are no longer privileged because they were disclosed to a third party — the company’s independent auditor. The privilege protecting such documents could be waived and such materials may become discoverable by third parties, including government agencies and a corporation’s litigation adversaries. Conversely, companies may choose to decline to disclose the privileged information to their auditors. With access to less information, a company runs the risk that the auditor could be unable or unwilling to opine on the company’s financial statements.

In June 2023, PCAOB proposed a new audit standard — Noncompliance with Laws and Regulations — that would require auditors to identify and respond to NOCLAR instances, including whether a company is complying with all the laws and regulations or committing any fraud (see PCAOB Release No. 2023-003). While the rule is pending approval, if enacted, the rule may cause auditors to seek access to more privileged material to meet this obligation.

In a surge of comments on the PCAOB’s proposal, companies said the new rule could mean more correspondence with lawyers would have to be shared with auditors, with the result that it loses its legal privilege and could become evidence in litigation (see Stephen Foley’s article “Attorney-client privilege at center of clash over new US auditing rules,” in the Financial Times). According to one controller, company personnel may be more hesitant to disclose legal violations to their counsel if they fear that the communication will not be privileged. Defending the proposals, PCAOB chair Erica Williams said the companies’ noncompliance with laws and regulations, including fraud, can really have devastating consequences for investors. Regardless of whether the PCAOB ultimately adopts such requirements, companies have ways to satisfy auditor demands that best protect the applicable privileges.

Applicable law: Privileges and work product doctrines

The attorney-client privilege is designed to protect communications between clients and their attorneys. Depending on the circumstances, the protection can be waived when documents or communications are voluntarily disclosed to an independent auditor for audit purposes. In a 2019 case In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig, PwC was acting as an independent auditor and received information so that it could audit Keurig’s financial statements. The court held that disclosure to PwC, as a third party, vitiated the attorney-client privilege.

Unlike the attorney-client privilege, a voluntary disclosure of work product to an independent auditor does not automatically waive work product protection (see New York Times Co. v. United States Dep’t of Just., 939 F.3d 479, 496 (2d Cir. 2019). To assert attorney work product protection, the corporation must show that the materials disclosed to its auditor were prepared for an ongoing or anticipated litigation.

There are two categories of work product, each of which is afforded a different level of protection. First, there is “ordinary” work product, which includes facts and evidentiary documents prepared for an ongoing or anticipated litigation. Ordinary work product is generally subject to protections from discovery, but those protections can be overcome by the opposing party upon a showing of “substantial need” and “undue hardship.” Second, “opinion” work product consists of work product that is narrowly confined to the attorney’s legal analysis, mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories. Because opinion work product reflects the attorney’s analysis of the client’s legal position, courts typically afford it near-absolute protection from disclosure to third parties. Determining whether the work product is ordinary or opinion involves a fact-intensive inquiry.

There is a split among the courts regarding waiver of work product doctrine for materials shared with auditors. Under the majority view, auditors are not considered “adversaries” and any disclosure of work product to them does not waive protection. In other words, a corporation’s disclosure of privileged information to its independent auditor does not waive work product protection, because an auditor’s role — including scrutiny and investigation of a corporation’s records and bookkeeping practices – does not constitute an adversarial relationship. In a 2010 case, United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the court held that Dow had not waived work product protection over documents it had provided to Deloitte, its independent auditor. Id. at 140–41. The key analysis was whether “Deloitte could be Dow’s adversary in the sort of litigation the [withheld] [d]ocuments address” and not “whether Deloitte could be Dow’s adversary in any conceivable future litigation….” Under the minority view, however, independent auditors can be considered inherently adversarial to the companies they audit, so the work product protection could be waived by disclosing privileged materials to them.

In the event that an opinion work product is disclosed to an auditor, courts are not likely to deem it a waiver and will protect the opinion work product from disclosure to third parties. The same level of protection may not apply to ordinary work product shared with auditors, although the majority rule still would likely provide some protection from disclosure to third parties.

Managing the conflict: Planning, balancing and taking charge

As in any conflict situation, the means to a successful resolution is understanding the needs of all interested parties and narrowing the areas of dispute to the core issues. The key to achieving this includes planning ahead, balancing the needs of the interested parties, and taking charge of the situation.

First, consider negotiating a strong confidentiality and non-waiver agreement in an audit engagement letter from the outset. Before a company receives a request for production of any privileged materials by its auditor, the objectives of the auditor’s engagements and responsibilities should be clearly defined. Any engagement letters, work plans and other documents should memorialize the scope of the auditor’s confidentiality requirements. The corporation and auditor should have a mutual understanding that any information sent to the auditor would remain confidential and any disclosure to the auditor is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.

Second, balancing the auditor’s need to know with the attorney’s need to protect is crucial. Blanket demands by auditors for all information possessed by counsel are intrusive and unnecessary. Equally unhelpful is the counsel who refuses to understand that the client’s interests are best served by working with the auditors to help them discharge their audit responsibilities. It is essential that the auditor and the counsel communicate in detail and plan an approach that allows the auditor to gather the maximum amount of information independent of counsel, thereby lessening the burden and reliance on privileged communications and protected materials. This may involve the auditor’s review of historical information and third-party documents that are not privileged. The auditor should also confer with the audit team and company counsel, and find ways of mitigating the audit’s need for privileged materials.

At the same time, company counsel should carefully examine the materials to be disclosed to the independent auditor to reduce the risk of any waiver. Although the corporation should provide all the necessary materials required by the auditor, it should do so only after conducting a thorough review of documents to ascertain whether they are truly responsive to the auditor’s requests and whether there are nonprivileged materials that would suffice. Even though the majority rule protects work product, a company should limit disclosure to materials that are necessary for the auditors to complete their audit.

To the extent possible, attorneys should limit the amount of written work product that is shared. Where feasible, the corporation should consider oral briefings that focus on nonprivileged facts. A telephonic or in-person conversation responding to the auditor’s specific questions might limit the amount of written work product that needs to be disclosed. It is important to note that counsel should exercise caution even when presenting work product orally, as an auditor’s notes from an oral presentation might be subject to discovery.

If litigation arises and the auditor is subpoenaed, company counsel should closely work with the auditors and review any materials that may contain privilege or work product before they are produced. Being proactive and working cooperatively with the auditors will mitigate and avoid unnecessary disclosures.

Accounting

IRS employee union requests emergency relief

Published

30 minutes ago

April 4, 2025

Business Finance News

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents workers at the Internal Revenue Service among 37 federal agencies and offices, has asked a federal judge for emergency relief to preserve the union rights of federal employees while NTEU’s legal challenge to President Trump’s executive order stripping unions of collective bargaining rights can be heard in court.

Trump signed an executive order last Thursday removing the requirements from employees at agencies including the Treasury Department that he deemed to have national security missions. On Monday, the NTEU filed a lawsuit to stop the move arguing that Trump’s rationale for protecting national security was just a way to end union protections for federal workers. The administration also wants to prevent the unions from collecting dues automatically withheld from employee paychecks.

NTEU’s request for a preliminary injunction was filed Friday with U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman.

“NTEU seeks emergency relief to protect itself and the workers it represents from this unlawful attempt to eliminate collective bargaining for some two-thirds of the federal workforce,” the request stated.

The NTEU contended that the Trump administration’s executive order claims that allowing workers to join a union was a threat to national security were absurd.

“We all know this has nothing to do with national security and that the true goal here is to make it easier to fire federal employees across government,” said NTEU national president Doreen Greenwald in a statement Friday. “Just five days after declaring the administration would no longer honor our contract with Health and Human Services, thousands of brilliant civil servants who work tirelessly to improve public health were let go for spurious reasons and little recourse to fight back.”

The union pointed out that Congress declared 47 years ago that collective bargaining in the federal sector was in the public’s interest by giving employees a voice in the workplace and allowing labor and management to work together. It acknowledged there is a narrow exemption in the law for groups of employees whose work directly impacts national security, but argued that Trump’s executive order is blatant retaliation against federal sector unions and ignores the laws passed by Congress creating the agencies.

In agencies where a reduction-in-force has been announced, NTEU’s contracts provide time for employees to respond to a RIF notice and explore alternatives to mitigate the impact of the layoffs.

Earlier this week, after two court rulings in California and Maryland, the IRS’s acting commissioner, Melanie Krause, announced the IRS would be bringing back approximately 7,000 probationary employees who had been fired and then put on paid administrative leave.

A bipartisan bill has been introduced in Congress to preserve collective bargaining rights for federal employees. The Protect America’s Workforce Act (H.R. 2550), sponsored by Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania, would overturn Trump’s executive order stripping collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers at multiple agencies. Separately, eight House Republicans and every House and Senate Democrat have sent letters to the White House condemning the executive order.

Accounting

Estate planning for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expiration

Published

1 hour ago

April 4, 2025

Business Finance News

The political calculus involved with the details of estate planning next year and beyond may be distracting financial advisors and clients from a larger, simpler conversation, one expert says.

On the off chance that the federal estate-tax exemption levels of $13.99 million for individuals (and double for couples) revert to half those amounts when Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions expire in 2026, only 0.2% of households would face potential duties upon transfer of assets, according to Ben Rizzuto, a wealth strategist with Janus Henderson Investors‘ Specialist Consulting Group. He predicted that most financial advisors and high net worth clients, such as those he works with and others across the industry, will see no changes.

With few other revenue-raising provisions available to President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, they’re not likely to shield all estates from payments to Uncle Sam — as much as they might like to play undertaker to the “Death of the Death Tax,” Rizzuto said, using the label for estate taxes adopted by critics favoring bills like the “Death Tax Repeal Act.” Lawmakers’ decisions on future exemptions from the taxes (and when they make those decisions) remain out of advisors’ control. Meanwhile, they must remind clients that estate planning is much more than having a will and avoiding taxes, Rizzuto said.

“For financial advisors and clients, I would expect for many of them not to have to worry about federal estate taxes next year,” he said in an interview. “Even though they may not have to worry about it, there are still a lot of good conversations to be had.”

The 1%

Trust tools that reduce the value of the assets that will transfer to spouses or other beneficiaries upon a client’s death, combined with the available statistics about the shrinking share of estates subject to taxes, could bring some peace of mind to clients. The 2017 tax law itself pushed down estate tax liability as a percentage of gross domestic product to a quarter of its 2001 level, according to an analysis by the “Budget Model” of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. Just two years after the law’s passage, the number of taxable estates had plummeted to 1,275 — or 1% of the number at the beginning of the century.

At the same time, advisors could raise any number of questions with clients about their estates that involve varying degrees of expertise and collaboration with outside professionals. And many surveys have found that clients are expecting them to do so. For example, at least 70% out of a group of 10,000 adults contacted in January by WeAreTalker (formerly OnePoll) on behalf of online legal information service Trust & Will said advisors should offer estate planning. In addition, 40% of the group said they would switch to an advisor who provided that service.

“We’re seeing a fundamental shift in client expectations,” Trust & Will CEO Cody Barbo said in a statement. “The findings are clear. Advisors who fail to integrate estate planning into their practice aren’t just missing an opportunity; they are facing a threat to their client base as wealth transfers to younger generations over the next two decades.”

Get back to the planning basics

In that context, advisors and their clients should steer clear of trying to make sense of a complicated, ever-changing flow of news from Capitol Hill as Trump and the GOP pursue major tax legislation with a year-end deadline, Rizzuto said. If clients truly could be on the hook for estate taxes, a grantor retained annuity trust, a spousal lifetime access trust or gifting strategies may eliminate the possibility. One method involved with the latter could set them up in the future to receive stock that is “highly appreciated with lower basis,” Rizzuto noted, citing the example of equities that have gained a lot of value that a client could give to their parents.

“Why not gift them upstream?” Rizzuto said. “My father holds it. I tell him, ‘Dad, you have to do these things: Live for another 12 months, make sure you don’t sell, make sure that you update your will or your instructions to gift it back to me when you die.’ That’s another idea that we’ve been talking about with advisors.”

From another perspective, these possible paths forward may beckon to clients this year, if they are tuning into Beltway news about the progress of the tax legislation, he said. To bypass the risk of client perceptions that their advisor isn’t doing any tax planning at all, Washington’s complex maneuvering around the future rules is, “if nothing else,” a “great opportunity for advisors to bring this up at a very high level,” Rizzuto said.

“Advisors will really need to go back to basics and have some foundational conversations with clients,” he said, suggesting their goals with taxes as one key point of discussion. “‘What is it that we actually control within your financial and tax plan?’ When it comes right down to it, it’s really just incomes and deductions.”

Accounting

Developing future leaders in accounting: the new imperative in an AI and automation driven era

Published

4 hours ago

April 4, 2025

Business Finance News

As technology continues to automate routine tasks, the role of finance professionals is evolving, demanding deeper capabilities in critical thinking, communication and business acumen.

Many of PrimeGlobal’s North American firms are focused on cultivating these skills in their future leaders. Carla McCall, managing partner at AAFCPAs, Randy Nail, CEO of HoganTaylor, and Grassi managing partner Louis Grassi shared their views with PrimeGlobal CEO Steve Heathcote on the need for future leaders to balance technological proficiency with human-centered skills to thrive.

AI is transforming the sector by streamlining workflows, automating data analysis and reducing manual processes. However, rather than replacing accountants, AI is reshaping their roles, enabling them to focus on higher-value tasks. In the words of Louis Grassi, AI can be seen as a strategic partner, freeing accountants from routine tasks, enabling deeper engagement with clients, more thoughtful analysis, and ultimately better decision-making.

Nail emphasized the importance of embracing AI, warning that those who fail to adapt risk being replaced by professionals who leverage the technology more effectively. HoganTaylor’s “innovation sprint” generated over 100 ideas for AI integration, underscoring why a proactive approach to adopting new technologies is so necessary and valuable.

McCall advocates for an educational shift that equips professionals with the skills to interpret AI-generated insights. She stressed that accounting curricula of the future must evolve to incorporate advanced technology training, ensuring future accountants are well-versed in AI tools and data analytics. Moreover, simulation-based learning is becoming increasingly crucial as traditional methods of education become obsolete in the face of automation.

Talent development and leadership growth

As AI reshapes the profession, firms must rethink how they develop and nurture their future leaders. To attract and retain top talent, firms need to prioritize personalized development plans that align with individual career goals.

HoganTaylor’s approach to talent development integrates technical expertise with leadership and communication training. These initiatives ensure professionals are not only proficient in accounting principles but also equipped to lead teams and navigate complex client interactions.

Nail underscored the growing importance of writing and presentation skills, as AI will handle routine tasks, leaving professionals to focus on higher-level analytical and decision-making responsibilities.

Soft skills are the success skills

While technical proficiency remains vital, future leaders must also cultivate critical thinking, communication and adaptability — skills McCall refers to as the “success skills.” McCall highlights the necessity of business acumen and analytical communication, essential for interpreting data, advising clients and making strategic decisions.

Recognizing teamwork and collaboration remain crucial in the hybrid work environment, McCall explained in detail how AAFCPA fosters collaboration through structured remote engagement strategies such as “intentional office time,” alcove sessions and stand-up meetings. Similarly, HoganTaylor supports remote teams by offering training for career advisors to ensure effective mentorship and engagement in a dispersed workforce.

McCall emphasized why global experience can be valuable in leadership development. Exposure to diverse markets and accounting practices enhances professionals’ adaptability and broadens their perspectives, preparing them for leadership roles in an increasingly interconnected world.

Grassi reminded us that an often-overlooked leadership skill is curiosity. In his view the most effective leaders of tomorrow will be inherently curious — not just about emerging technologies but about clients, market shifts and global trends. Encouraging curiosity and continuous learning within our firms will distinguish the true industry leaders from those simply reacting to change.

A balanced future

What’s clear from speaking to our leaders is PrimeGlobal’s role in fostering trust, community and knowledge sharing. McCall recommended member-driven panels to discuss AI implementation and automation strategies and share best practice. Nail, on the other hand, valued PrimeGlobal’s focus on addressing critical industry issues and encouraged continuous evolution to meet professionals’ changing needs.

The future of leadership in the accountancy profession hinges on a balanced approach, leveraging AI to enhance efficiency while cultivating essential human skills that technology cannot replicate, which Grassi highlights skills including leadership and building client trust.

As McCall and Nail advocate, the next generation of accountants must be agile thinkers, skilled communicators and strategic decision-makers. Firms that invest in these competencies will not only stay competitive but will also shape the future of the industry by developing well-rounded leaders prepared for the challenges ahead.

By investing in both AI capabilities and essential human skills, firms can not only future proof their leadership but also shape a resilient and forward-thinking profession ready to meet the challenges of the future.

As Grassi concluded, while technical skills provide the foundation, leadership in accounting increasingly demands emotional intelligence, empathy and adaptability. AI will change how we perform our work, but human connection, trust and nuanced judgment are irreplaceable. Investing in these human-centric skills today is critical for firms aiming to build resilient leaders of tomorrow. To remain relevant and thrive, professionals must prioritize developing strong success skills that will define the leaders of tomorrow.