Services

0
false

18 pt
18 pt
0
0

false
false
false

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}


My Background:

In the three phases
of my legal practice over thirty-five years – in a large law firm, an in-house
legal group and now in my individual practice – my focus has been on litigation
and disputes involving securities and financial information, with particular
emphasis on the complexities of cross-border and multi-national situations.

Engagements:

The scope of my engagements covers case evaluation and management, negotiations and alternative
resolutions, government agency proceedings and standard-setting, and related
strategic and risk assessment consulting.

Clients:

My clients are primarily
large multi-nationals and other organizations engaged in international
business and practice — including accounting firms, insurance and
financial
institutions and trade and professional services associations.

To arrange a
confidential consultation, contact me at jim@jamesrpetersonllc.com.

Presentations, Training and Strategic Consulting: 

0
false

18 pt
18 pt
0
0

false
false
false

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

As an extension of my
writing and MBA-level teaching on risk management and decision-making, I also have
availability for presentations, training and strategic consultations with
individual companies and industry groups. To confer, contact me at jrpllc@mac.com.

   

Responses

  1. Richard E. Brodsky Avatar
    Richard E. Brodsky

    Re Chairman Doty’s speech…
    I have been involved in accountant liability litigation since 1973. I have sued accountants and defended them. There is no question that the structural change that is needed is firm rotation. The profession fought it tooth and nail in 2002, stupidly in my view. No one goes into accounting to perfect the art of bending down from the waist without getting one’s hair askew, but economic reality and human nature being what they are, that’s what is called for to succeed (often referred to as having a “client service” mentality). Every CPA knows it but no one is willing to admit it except when they are drunk or preparing for their deposition. If a system were installed where firms could not be a company’s auditor for more than 3 or 4 years — the amount of time is not the key — then you will see a reemergence of the CPA’s backbone. The partner can then tell the CFO (forget the audit committee) that she can’t any longer be pushed around for fear of losing the client… she’ll be losing it in 2 or 3 years. Why the profession hasn’t endorsed — nay, trumpeted — this idea is beyond me. Maybe when the Big 2 or 3 get together they’ll realize that this is a very good idea.

    Reply
  2. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    On mandatory rotation — there are several reasons to be very skeptical. The first is that Italy, the only country with a track record, is hardly a picture of success, between its issues of quality and the indication of increased concentration and reduced choice. The second follows — in many countries and sectors, there is literally no range of choice due to the combination of concentration and disabling conflicts.
    The reference to a “Big 2 or 3” only highlights the depth of the problem with the current structure, since it cannot seriously be argued that the system of privately-provided assurance can function with fewer than the current Four.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts
Stay Informed

Subscribe to get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Post Categories
Get In Touch
Contact Jim
Legal

Copyright © 2025 · All Rights Reserved

Discover more from Re:Balance

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading