Accounting
Balancing the interests between attorney-client privilege and the auditor’s need to know
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
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
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
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
Unlike the attorney-client privilege, a voluntary disclosure of work product to an independent auditor does not automatically waive work product protection (see
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,
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.
The House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing Tuesday to mark up the so-called “one, big beautiful bill” extending the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while adding other tax breaks for tip income, overtime pay and Social Security income and eliminating tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act for renewable energy as well as the Direct File and Free File programs.
“Today, this Committee will move forward on President Trump’s promise of delivering historic tax relief to working families, farmers and small businesses,” said committee chair Jason Smith, R-Missouri, in his opening statement. “The One Big Beautiful Bill is the key to making America great again. This moment has been years in the making. While Democrats were defending IRS audits on the middle class and tax carveouts for the wealthy, Republicans on this Committee got on the road, to hear from real Americans about how the 2017 tax cuts benefited them. This bill wasn’t drafted by special interests or K Street lobbyists. It was drafted by the American people in communities across the country.”
Democrats blasted the bill. “In 2017, Republicans passed a tax law that was supposed to pay for itself, raise wages, and help working families,” said ranking member Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts. “None of that happened. Instead, it exploded the deficit, worsened inequality, and left everyday Americans behind. Now they want to double down on the same failed playbook. One that rigs the system for billionaires and big corporations while everyone else pays the price.”
Among the provisions, the bill would make the expiring rate and bracket changes of the TCJA permanent and increase the inflation adjustment for all brackets excluding the 37% threshold, according to a
Other changes and limitations to itemized deductions would be made permanent, including the limitation on personal casualty losses and wagering losses and termination of miscellaneous itemized deductions, Pease limitation on itemized deductions, and certain moving expenses.
The bill is likely to go through some changes when it goes to the Senate. “Politically, we’ve been talking about the process for the last couple months,” said Mark Baran, managing director at CBIZ’s national tax office. “Congress is finally able to pass a concurrent resolution to unlock the budget reconciliation process.”
“The House and the Senate have completely different instructions on what they’re going to cut and how they’re going to score,” he added. “Some of that’s very controversial, and that needs to be worked out. But now we’re getting into the actual crafting of provisions and legislation.”
According to a
The bill would also allow businesses to include amortization and depreciation when figuring the business interest limitation through Dec. 31, 2029, while making permanent the excess business loss limitation.
In addition, the bill would retroactively terminate the Employee Retention Tax Credit for taxpayers who filed refund claims after Jan. 31, 2024.
In keeping with Trump campaign promises, the bill would eliminate taxes on tips for employees in certain defined industries where tipping has been a traditional form of compensation. There would be a new $4,000 deduction for seniors that phases out starting at $75,000 of income. The bill would also eliminate taxes on overtime pay.
The bill would give individuals an above-the-line deduction for interest on loans used to purchase American-made cars, but that would be capped at $10,000 with income phaseouts starting at $100,000 (single) and $200,000 (married filing jointly).
The bill would also increase taxes on certain private college investment income up to a maximum of 21% on universities with a student-adjusted endowment above $2 million.
It would also roll back some of the renewable energy provisions from the Inflation Reduction, including a phaseout and restrictions on clean energy facilities starting in 2029, while also limiting or eliminating clean housing energy and vehicle credits. The bill would sunset major IRA clean electricity tax credits, including the clean electricity production tax credit (45Y), clean electricity investment tax credit (48E), and nuclear electricity production tax credit (45U) begin phasing out after 2028 and finish phasing out by the end of 2031; repeal hydrogen production credit (45V) for facilities beginning construction after 2025, according to the Tax Foundation. It would also phase out advanced manufacturing production credit (45X) for wind energy components after 2027, for all other eligible components after 2031. Across several IRA clean energy credits, the bill would repeal transferability after the end of 2027 and further limit credits based on involvement of foreign entities of concern. On the other hand, it would expand the clean fuel production credit (45K), and tighten rules on the 126(m) limitation for executive compensation.
The bill would terminate the current Direct File program at the Internal Revenue Service and establish a public-private partnership between the IRS and private sector tax preparation services to offer free tax filing, replacing both the existing Direct File and Free File programs.
The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board is asking for input on emerging accounting issues and questions related to reporting entity reorganizations and abolishments as the federal government endures wide-ranging layoffs and reductions in force, including the elimination of entire agencies by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency.
“Federal agencies and their functions, from time to time, have been reorganized and abolished,” said FASAB in its
Reorganization refers to a transfer, consolidation, coordination, authorization or abolition of one (or more) agency or agencies or a part of their functions. Abolition is a type of reorganization and refers to the whole or part of an agency that does not have, upon the effective date of the reorganization, any functions.
The Trump administration has recently moved to all but eliminate parts of the federal government such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and earlier this month, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee
FASAB issues federal financial accounting standards and provides timely guidance. Practitioner responses to the request for information will support its efforts to identify, research and respond to emerging accounting and reporting issues related to reorganization and abolishment activities, such as transfers of assets and liabilities among federal reporting entities. The input will be used to help inform any potential staff recommendations and alternatives for FASAB to consider regarding short- and long-term actions and updates to federal accounting standards and guidance in this area.
The questions include:
- Have any recent or ongoing reorganization activities or events affected the scope of functions, assets, liabilities, net position, revenues, and expenses assigned to your reporting entity (or, for auditors, your auditees)? If so, please describe.
- What accounting issues have you (or your auditees) encountered (or do you anticipate) in connection with recent or potential reorganization activities and events?
- Please describe the sources of standards and guidance that you (or your auditees) are applying to recent, ongoing, or pending reorganization activities and events.
- Have you experienced any difficulties or identified gaps in the accounting and disclosure standards for reorganization activities and events? What potential improvements would you recommend, if any?
FASAB is asking for responses by July 15, 2025, but acknowledged that late or follow-up submissions may be necessary given the provisional nature of the request. Responses should be emailed to RERA@fasab.gov with “RERA RFI response” on the subject line.
-
Economics1 week agoChina risks deeper deflation by diverting exports to domestic market
-
Personal Finance5 days agoHow consumers prepare for an economic hit
-
Personal Finance6 days agoI bonds investments and Trump’s tariff policy: What to know
-
Personal Finance5 days agoReal estate and gold vs. stocks: Best long-term investment
-
Economics6 days agoThe president has deleted a key tenet of American civil-rights law
-
Economics6 days agoAndrew Bailey on why UK-U.S. trade deal won’t end uncertainty
-
Economics6 days ago
Trump knocks down a controversial pillar of civil-rights law
-
Finance4 days agoAmerica failing its young investors, warns financial guru Ric Edelman