Professional Liability Matters

The standard of care governing every professional begins with the scope of the engagement. That may seem fairly obvious to those in the professional malpractice community but it is often misunderstood by laypeople. Isn’t a CPA engaged to detect fraud? Isn’t a lawyer engaged to win my case? One of the difficult aspects of defending a malpractice case is overcoming the lay perspective of the precise role of a professional. Often the defense of a professional can turn on whether the fact finder fully understands the distinct role of the professional in the limited context of the facts presented. Accordingly, professionals should be proactive in ensuring that the parties and others refer to the applicable professional standard that governs the case.

In a decisive win for the malpractice community, an independent auditor achieved dismissal in a securities fraud class action lawsuit by way of a 12(b)(6) motion. The Middle District of PA dismissed some of the claims against a troubled bank and all claims against the bank’s public offering underwriter and its outside auditor. The court accepted the auditor’s arguments that the plaintiff had failed to establish the requisite element of scienter necessary to maintain a securities fraud claim and, moreover, had failed to properly plead that the auditor did not “honestly hold” its audit opinions with reference to the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Omnicare. Given the stakes of this litigation, like many securities claims, the victory may serve as an important template for other auditors to follow when faced with similar claims.

In a widely watched and long-awaited decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court definitively determined that an independent auditor has no fiduciary duty to the company, overturning a 2014 Court of Appeals decision finding that such a duty existed. The court, however, was evenly divided on the issue of whether the company’s claims were barred by the defenses of in pari delicto and contributory negligence, leaving undisturbed (albeit without precedential value) the Court of Appeals’ decision that the defenses did not bar the remaining claims. Certified public accountants live to fight another day for the validity of the in pari delicto defense in North Carolina.

The most common forum for malpractice claims is civil litigation. However, a professional may find himself in a potentially worse situation if the appropriate professional regulatory board also gets involved. Take for example a recent case of accounting malpractice that demonstrates the serious side effects that can occur when an accountant falls short of the standards of the profession.

If you are in the world of finance, accounting or tax chances are you have probably heard of Sam Wyly and his late brother Charles Wyly. In recent years, the business mogul brothers have been the hot topic of litigation as they battled with the IRS and SEC over alleged tax and securities fraud that may have spanned decades. In the most recent decision to come out of the Wyly saga, Sam Wyly was ordered by a Dallas bankruptcy court to pay $1.1 billion in back taxes, interest and penalties. While the litigation is noteworthy because of the massive amount of dollars involved, it can also provide some reminders for tax professionals, particularly those with sophisticated clients.

In the face of corporate fraud and deceit, it is not uncommon for the defrauded entity to turn on its professionals. The inevitable issue becomes who is responsible for overseeing the enterprise: the business entity or the independent professional? Perhaps both. The in pari delicto affirmative defense can be an effective tool for professionals to shield themselves from liability arising from alleged wrongdoing of their underlying client. For example, we previously posted a victory for an accountant who successfully asserted the defense here. But, how and when to assert the defense is tricky as evidenced by a recent Pennsylvania District Court decision.