審計訴訟能改善審計品質嗎？

Does Litigation Experience Improve Audit Partners’Audit Quality?

本文旨在探討被告會計師後續是否改善審計品質。以1999-2023年臺灣發生財務困難的公開公司為研究樣本，繼續經營疑慮審計意見（GCO）的正確性衡量審計品質，本文實證結果顯示被告會計師後續仍持續對未破產公司出具GCO，代表GCO型一錯誤繼續蔓延至後續審計，惟此種蔓延現象在一審法院判決被告會計師勝訴後減緩。另一方面，本文亦發現被告會計師後續對即將破產公司出具GCO的可能性顯著增加，顯示被告會計師改善審計品質且較不會犯GCO型二錯誤，尤其是那些訴訟事件客戶破產的被告會計師。整體而言，會計師的GCO型一錯誤並不因審計訴訟而改變。相對地，GCO型二錯誤會因審計訴訟而顯著降低。

This study investigates whether an audit partner’s litigation experience affects subsequent audit quality. Using a sample of financially distressed public firms in Taiwan from 1999 to 2023 and employing the accuracy of the going-concern opinion (GCO) as a proxy for audit quality, this study documents that defendant audit partners remain more likely to issue GCOs to non-bankrupt firms after being sued, suggesting that GCO Type I errors contaminate subsequent audits. However, this contagion phenomenon will be mitigated after the district courts rule in favor of the defendant audit partners. On the other hand, this paper also finds that audit partners significantly increase the likelihood of issuing GCOs to soon-to-go-bankrupt firms after being sued, indicating that defendant partners improve audit quality and commit fewer GCO Type II errors, especially those partners whose litigated event clients go bankrupt. Overall, litigation experience does not significantly affect audit partners’ GCO Type I errors, but it does significantly reduce GCO Type II errors.