Screening is a process used in all sorts of different situations to try to avoid
undesirable outcomes. In forensic accounting it is important to screen
engagements before accepting or rejecting the offer. Screening involves
balancing the risk versus the reward. Risks include threats to compliance and/or
competence, overuse/overextension of resources, logistical issues, legal issues,
while rewards include compensation, positive reputation, and recognition.
Despite the fact that Attorney Joseph Leslie is known for winning difficult white-
collar crime cases, which could provide a boost to my reputation, he is also
known for pushing long work hours and choosing only wealthy clientele who pay
up front while still paying his own consultants in a timely manner, both of which
could damage my reputation and cause financial strife. Deciding whether or not
to accept his engagement means balancing the reward of being associated with a
winning lawyer, with the risks of accepting that he doesn’t take care of his
consultants and only accepts wealthy clients. In addition to considering the
engaging attorney, it is also important to consider competence, due care, the
nature of the assignment, and compensation. If I am not an expert in white collar
crime cases, I may not be the right forensic accountant for the job. My own skill
set is important to consider in the process of accepting an engagement. The
nature of the assignment is relevant to determine how easily I would be able to
do my job - not in the sense that the job itself is easy, but in that I have access to
witnesses and data, travel isn’t extensive, there are not unusual risks or other
special circumstances. Compensation is important and establishing amounts and
times of payment is essential (Rufus, Miller, & Hahn, 2015).
This is not a case that I would accept at all. The potential boost to my reputation
of being associated with a winning attorney does not outweigh the hit my
reputation could take for being associated with an attorney who doesn’t respect
the time and work of his consultants and experts. Even if I were to ignore the
treatment of those he engages, I would need to know the details of the case to
ensure that I am competent to serve as an expert witness, as I would not engage
myself in a case where I do not meet the criteria set forth for expert witnesses. I
would also need information on the nature of the assignment. I can not
accurately gauge unusual risk or special circumstances without it. Additionally, I
would need compensation information, with specifics (as we’ve established he
doesn’t pay in a timely manner and demands many work hours). All that being
said, my reputation is very important to me, and I don’t see a situation where the
reward outweighs the risk in this scenario.
References
Rufus, R. J., Miller, L. S., & Hahn, W. (2015). Forensic accounting.
Pearson.
