August 14, 2020

Auditors/Attorney Letters

Auditors/Attorney Letters

Lawyers' Responses to Auditors—Some Practical Aspects
      James J. Fuld, 44(1): 159–67 (Nov. 1988)
Each year clients ask their lawyers to advise the clients' auditors about the clients' "contingencies." A "Treaty" approved by the American Bar Association and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants sets forth certain policies. This Article considers some practical aspects of complying with the Treaty.

Inquiry of a Client's Lawyer Concerning Litigation, Claims, and Assessments: Auditing Interpretation AU Section 337
      Subcommittee on Audit Inquiry Responses, 45(4): 2245–52 (Aug. 1990)
This Report considers the use of certain statements in letters of the client or the lawyer to preserve the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege. The Report was prepared in consultation with representatives of the Auditing Standards Division of the Auditing Standards Board of the AICPA.

Guidance for Lawyers Responding to the OTS Revised Attorney Letter
      Ad Hoc committee on OTS Attorney Inquiry Letters, 50(2): 607–61 (Feb. 1995)
In order to address concerns surrounding the Office of Thrift Supervision's requirement that thrifts request their lawyers to provide written information to federal examiners regarding various matters, including litigation, foreclosure, legal fees, and documents and funds controlled by the attorney, the OTS invited members of the private bar to engage in informal consultation and discussion of proposed revisions to the OTS attorney letter. An Ad Hoc committee of the Section of Business Law was formed in response to that invitation and participated actively in an attempt to guide the OTS in the development of the revised attorney letter and accompanying commentary. A revised attorney letter and commentary were issued by the OTS on June 24, 1994, without endorsement by the Ad Hoc committee, the Section of Business Law, or the ABA. Believing there to be several limitations to the OTS's suggested form of response, the Ad Hoc committee drafted its own response letter and commentary, which was approved by the Council of the Section of Business Law on October 20, 1994. Both the committee's response letter and commentary as well as the OTS's revised attorney letter and commentary are provided.

Statement on Effect of FIN 48 on Audit Response Letters
      committee on Audit Responses, ABA Section of Business Law, 64(2): 389-394 (February 2009)

Statement on Updates to Audit Response Letters
     Audit Responses committee, ABA Business Law Section; 70(2): 489-494 (Spring 2015)

The ABA Statement on Audit Responses: A Framework that Has Stood the Test of Time
     Alan J. Wilson, Stanley Keller, Randall D. McClanahan, Noël J. Para, James J. Rosenhauer, and Thomas W. White, Audit Responses Committee, ABA Business Law Section, 75(3): 2085-2102 (Summer 2020)
This article summarizes key developments in the preparation of audit response letters concerning loss contingencies since the American Bar Association Statement of Policy Regarding Lawyers’ Responses to Auditors’ Requests for Information was published in 1976. These developments illustrate both the utility of the framework set forth in the ABA Statement and the responsiveness of the American Bar Association through the Business Law Section Audit Responses Committee (and predecessor committees) to issues arising under the ABA Statement and changes in accounting and auditing standards and practice.