The factors one should consider before potentially taking on the services of Attorney Joseph Leslie or
engaging anyone for professional services. We know that he has success with white collar crime, given
his track record in the court room winning those difficult cases, but one must not overlook any risks
that can arise or uncover and the rewards that can result from taking on the case. One must conduct a
screening process to determine the factors that take into consideration the decision to continue the
engagement. These factors include engaging attorney and looking at their reputation for making
ethical decisions that produce efficient outcomes and signal any potential red flags that can discourage
from accepting a client. Other factors one must consider include disclosing any conflicts of interest
that can result in any biases, ensuring that the client exhibits competence and due care with their
objectives, as well as familiarizing oneself with the nature and scope of the environment, which would
allow one to effectively assess the risks and rewards. Finally, the last factor one should consider before
accepting an engagement includes the compensation details, which should answer how much one is
going to get paid, “When? Who is responsible for the payment? How are fee disputes resolved?”
(Rufus et al., 2015, 51). Given the details of Mr. Leslie’s reputation I will find it difficult to even
consider accepting this engagement given his unethical tactics to push his employees to work long
hours in order to provide him the information needed to make his case. The reputation for expert abuse
would be red flag to signal a bad client, as, “forensic accountants must be aware that some attorneys
are quite willing to sacrifice an expert’s reputation to advance their client’s cause (and thus their own)”
(Rufus et al., 2015, 49). In order to possibly accept this case the proper competence and due care must
be improved dramatically in order to build and gain the necessary trust to proceed with an engagement
letter. These would include properly compensating for any overtime work, hiring the adequate number
of staff to efficiently analyze the case, and making sure that any and all consultants be paid in a timely
manner. One may give the attorney the benefit of the doubt until they meet in person because, “no
matter the reputation or marketing savvy of the lawyer, the impression the lawyer makes during the
engagement process and throughout a matter is critical to building and maintaining credibility,” which
could be the deciding factor to obtaining a better understanding before making the final decision to
accept or reject the potential client (Levine, 2015).
As a forensic accountant one must consider several factors when considering an engagement. z Some of
those factors include competence, professional care, objectivity, and integrity of the client and the
individual’s ability to best serve the client (Rufus, Miller, & Hahn, 2015). As a result, the forensic
accountant would need to review the case background, client’s history, understand what expertise is
required to ensure he or she is knowledgeable in the scope of the case, and understand all the
parameters of the case. Such as whether the engagement involves family, civil, criminal, state,
interstate, or federal court which can dictate the form of testimony that would be required. Whether
the engagement would require a written opinion or a court appearance. z Plus, determine if conflicts of
interest exist in actual or perceived form to preserve the expert opinion because if a conflict exists then
outcome of the engagement could be damaged if not acknowledge and addressed prior to the
engagement. This would require professional care and due diligence to ensure objectivity and
integrity are upheld. Finally, if the engagement is acceptable then compensation fees and a schedule
of engagement will need to be considered.
For this case I would think that I would reject the engagement because of the attorney’s reputation
which seems to be a “win at all cost” attitude has the potential to cause a conflict of interest and
compromised integrity and objectivity. As a result, the case could most likely result in pressure to
provide expert testimony to fit the case instead of following the facts. Which would lead to bias
results and has the potential to miss court deadlines due to the attorney’s slow responses. z In addition,
the attorney is slow to pay which may result in no payment for services provided even though the
attorney is paid upfront. Therefore, this engagement shows many red flags in a “bad” engagement
(Rufus et al, 2015). Meanwhile, in my opinion, this engagement could compromise a forensic
accountant’s reputation and ethical standards.
There are numerous pieces of the puzzle to analyze when trying to determine whether or not to accept
a new client engagement. I feel the most important step in practicing due diligence is to take the time
to thoroughly evaluate those involved, their environment, and history. Doing so will help to protect
yourself, the firm and the public.
If I were considering taking on this lawyer as a new client, I would check their level of integrity by
talking to current employees, past CPA firms, as well as collecting feedback from prior/current
customers of the potential client. This would help to give an unbiased and honest feel for what the
client is about. Taking a look at this factor alone I would tread lightly with Attorney Joe due to his
history of not practicing what he is preaching or making good on his word. Seems he is in it just for his
own benefit.
From here I would speak to prior CPA firms for their opinion/experiences with the client. Lastly if I
did not find I could be of help but was still a little uneasy you should always write of a contract
outlining the engagement which is a legally binding document.
In conclusion, due to the numerous red flags present right from the start I would decline the
engagement request for an expert witness.
The first item that would have to address in this instance, is if Attorney Joseph Leslie has any conflicts
of interests with the client for which he has accepted the engagement. Is he mainly accepting this
engagement because he has an expectation of getting paid by his client up-front?
The next thing that I would be sure to do is draw up an engagement letter that clearly defines my
expectations in this case, my expected fees and the timeline for them. The fact that he has a reputation
for rushing his staff to deliver quick results is a big red flag (Rufus, i.e., 2014), If he agrees to my fees,
there is a clearly defined understanding of my expectations, and proper care has been utilized to set-up
reasonable expectations to deliver my findings, I would most likely accept the engagement contingent
on a mutually agreed upon engagement letter. There are two things that would make this an
engagement that I would not accept, vague expectations of my work and any potential conflicts of
interest.
The factors I would consider in deciding to accept the engagement are:
The character of the client – I want to make sure that the client has great communication skills, shows
respect, is responsive, and provides payments timely. I do not want my reputation sacrificed in any
engagement.
Whether conflicts of interest exist - If one exists, it must be disclosed to the client before I accept the
engagement. z I should be objective and be independent in fact and appearance.
Competence and due care – I must make sure that I have the skills and the resources to complete the
engagement. I also want to make sure the case timeline works with my schedule.
Nature and scope of the assignment – I should make sure I understand what is being asked of me. I
also should ensure that I have the availability, accessibility to witnesses and understand the travel
requirements.
Compensation – I want to understand how much I will be paid, when I will be paid and who will pay
me. I should accept a retainer from the client before I begin work.
I would not accept the case with Attorney Joseph Leslie. He is considered a bad client. He expects a
quick turnaround of information from his staff. z He also requires them to work long hours. Although I
am not his staff, he may require the same from me. I may not be able to provide a good service if I am
under pressure to deliver. I would not want to rush my work and provide shoddy information. This
could tarnish my reputation. Mr. Leslie does not pay his consultants and experts on time. This is
another red flag of a bad client. He can pay on time because he only accepts wealthy clients who pays
upfront. These are the reasons why I would not accept the case.
There are several factors one should consider before taking accepting a client engagement such as
independence, client integrity, risk assessment and reasonable assurance. If a client's reputation is
well known for dishonesty, I could not, in good conscience, take on said client if I did not believe they
could be trusted. For Attorney Joseph Leslie, his lack of care to pay those who do work for him on
time is cheap, dishonest, lazy and arrogant. z They only way I would accept this case if if he paid me in
advance, 100%, but even so, I could never fully trust him. z At the end of the day, we are all here to do
a job, whether good or bad, and the end goal is to be paid. That is our livelihood that is being played
with and I for one would never put myself in a situation where my hard work is done for free.
https://linfordco.com/blog/client-acceptance-procedures-
guidance/#:~:text=Before%20accepting%20an%20engagement%20to,and%20perform%20risk%20ac
ceptance%20procedures.
Rufus, R., Miller, L., & Hahn, W. (2014). Forensic Accounting. Pearson Education (US).
Rufus, R., Miller, L., Hahn, W. (2015) Forensic Accounting. Pearson Education
AICPA. (2016, Dec.15). Code of Professional Conduct and Bylaws.
https://us.aihttps://us.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/standards/codeofconduct/downloadabledoc
uments/2014december15contentasof2016august31codeofconduct.pdf
Rufus, R., Miller, L., & Hahn, W. (2014). Forensic accounting. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Rufus, R. J., Miller, L. S., & Hahn, W. (2015). Forensic accounting. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Levine, S. (2015). The Power of Leading an Engagement Effectively. Law Practice: The Business of
Practicing Law, 41(5), 42–45
Rufus, R., Miller, L., & Hahn, W. (2015). Forensic Accounting. Pearson Education, Inc.
