Case 3.1 Brent Dorsey

1823 Words May 29th, 2011 8 Pages
Case 3.1 – A Day in the Life of Brent Dorsey, Staff Auditor Professional Pressures

1. What alternatives are available to Brent in regards to the audit of payables? What are the pros and cons of each alternative?

- Brent could refuse to work the extra hours – Pros: Brent will improve his strained relationship with his wife and remain morally correct by not reporting dishonest working hours on the engagement. Cons: Brent could cause the engagement to come in over budget, which will make John look bad and could cost John his management promotion. Brent may also receive a less positive evaluation by John after the engagement is over, this could hold him back from future promotions with the company which will affect his income and
…show more content…
2. What consequences for Brent, the auditing firm, and others involved, may arise from “eating time,” as Scott suggested? Similarly, what consequences for Brent, the auditing firm, and others involved, that may arise from not completing audit procedures, as Megan suggested?

For “eating time” – this action would involve violating Rule 102 (Integrity and Objectivity) because it is “knowingly misrepresenting facts” during the performance of a professional service (Arens, Elder, & Beasley, 2010). While there may never be any legal consequences, assuming the client never finds out (and if they did they would not complain about paying less in fees), there could still be long-term consequences. For Brent, it could lead to managers or co-workers asking him to do this again, which means less income for hours for which he deserves to be paid, plus the added family problems discussed above. The auditing firm would have erroneous information about the hours necessary to complete audits for the clients involved, and would continue to bid incorrectly when writing the contracts for engagements. It would also be losing out in billable income since it is not being recorded, and the pressures to perform without pay for extra hours could lead to higher turnover (Arens et al., 2010). Furthermore, the case did not specify for certain but it is probably against company policy to record dishonest hours worked. For others involved, such as future
Open Document