Help Wanted: Audit Quality Considerations in Light of the Great Resignation

As a millennial, I was told that the 2008 global financial crisis was a “once-in-a-lifetime” economy. Many firms went on hiring freezes and some even had layoffs, rescinding offers previously extended to new college graduates. As a young 20-something-year-old, I was happy to know that the “exceptional” economy was early in my career and that the rest of my life would be smooth sailing. Or so I thought.

Then the pandemic of 2020 came around and yet again, the headlines proclaimed the unusual nature of the pandemic and the “once-in-a-lifetime” economic repercussions. Overnight it seemed, more than 10 million people lost their jobs and the world appeared to spiral out of control. Fast forward to August of 2022 and the economy has now fully recaptured the 10 million lost jobs. But surprisingly, there is suddenly a labor shortage. The Great Resignation. What? How is that possible?

Almost every industry is feeling it, whether the medical profession struggling with burnout from two-years of pandemic stress or the transportation industry struggling to find drivers to keep up with home deliveries. The audit industry is no exception; every client we work with is feeling it. We’re feeling it.

In a recent study published by McKinsey & Company, at the end of May 2022, there were 11.3 million job openings. And to make matters worse, “Despite significant changes in the economy since the onset of the Great Attrition (or what many call the Great Resignation), the share of workers planning to leave their jobs remains unchanged from 2021, at 40 percent. That’s two out of five employees in our global sample who said that they are thinking about leaving in the next three to six months.”

Talk with an economist and there are any number of reasons why there is a labor shortage in the current economy. But answers to “why” rarely provide practical solutions to “what do we do?”

For firms that are struggling with resources, we hear you. Within the audit and accounting profession, we know of many firms that have resorted to using part-time employees and independent contractors to help fill needs. Some firms have leveraged staff from various departments such as IT consulting or internal audit. While all these approaches fill the seats and provide resources to execute the audits, the question remains, what procedures are firms putting into place to ensure quality audits?

Firm QC Considerations

Acceptance and Continuance: Paramount to any audit, the firm process starts first and foremost with engagement acceptance and continuance. This process is already in place for firms, but how much thought is put into the careful completion of these checklists? The critical consideration here is capacity and competence. I know when I was an associate, I was charged with rolling forward the A&C forms from prior year; the senior then officially completed the form and the approval process started with the manager, then partner and up the chain depending on the type of client and the risk profile. In light of the current resource constraints, how are A&C forms capturing considerations around capacity and competence? And how do staff know whether the firm has the right resource capacity and competence? These are often higher-level discussions held at regional and national management levels, but how are those considerations being evaluated and documented? The reality is, if the firm doesn’t have the capacity or the right competence, it needs to either decline engagements or hire the right knowledge base/skill sets to execute a quality audit.

Independence: Once an engagement has been accepted, the firm then needs to determine the proper staffing. While it may be easy to pull from internal resources, such as leveraging IT consultants to come perform IT controls testing, the Firm needs to be intentional in making sure all engagement team members understand the independence implications of working on the audit. For instance, consulting has very few independence limitations, so an IT consultant may not be aware of the strict nature of SEC independence rules for a public company audit. Similarly, the use of contractors external to the firm is another viable solution to resource constraints, but the question still stands, despite completing an independence checklist/confirmation, has the consultant been educated on the specific nature of independence requirements for the audit?

Technical Knowledge: Assuming the borrowed staff and/or consultants are independent, what is the firm’s process for evaluating competence of these resources? Sure, firms know to review the CV and certifications, but we all know there is a distinction between an accountant and an auditor and yet both often have the same degree and may even both be CPAs. Or take an IT consultant for example. The IT consultant likely has a strong understanding of information systems and could easily perform a walkthrough and execute tests of operating effectiveness over automated controls and/or information technology general controls (ITGCs). However, mere execution is not the same as truly understanding the audit risks and implications of findings. For instance, in performing a walkthrough, the IT consultant may obtain an understanding of the change management process and as with all processes, there are always exceptions to the rules. The question is, would an IT consultant understand the audit implications for various exceptions? Or if the IT consultant is testing an automated control, would they know to test more than the mere functionality as described in the walkthrough? Would they know to test all possible scenarios to demonstrate that the system can only process information as described in the automated control?

Regardless the area, whether IT, valuation, tax or some other specialty knowledge, understanding audit risks is critical. After all, risk is what drives an audit. So, what does management do to ensure that resources have the proper audit understanding? While a three-hour training on PCAOB audit standards may help provide some insight and may placate the PCAOB from a “checklist” mentality, let’s be frank, audit risk is learned over time. There is a reason managers and partners perform reviews, having years of audit experience, slowly learning the risks and implications of various scenarios that emerge in audits. A three-hour training cannot replace years of experiential learning. The question remains, what are firms doing to bridge this gap? This points to consideration of the staffing mix and the need for appropriate review and supervision, as discussed below.

Monitoring: Current QC standards require various monitoring programs at a firm level. These programs are often executed for all internal resources, but what about external resources or resources from different divisions? Take independence monitoring and/or training/CPE/licensure monitoring, are “fill-in” resources subject to these same processes? While performing an independence check for an occasional contractor may be easy enough, as firms embrace more part-time workers and engage more contractors, firm QC processes will need to be amended to ensure appropriate checks over this emerging resource pool.

Tone at the Top: It’s worth emphasizing the importance of creating a culture of curiosity over conviction. Employees and teams should feel encouraged to ask questions, to seek for better understanding, and to not hesitate to consult with national office / upper management. Considering a lot of cumulative audit knowledge and experience is being lost through the great resignation, promoting a culture of knowledge sharing is even more important to ensuring employees feel comfortable raising their hand when they don’t understand something and feel supported by all levels of management so they can perform quality audits.

Engagement Team Considerations

Team Assignments: At the engagement team level, it’s important that firms consider the staffing mix on audit teams. While firms may have no choice but to use contractors and borrow staff from other departments, audit teams should still have “core audit members” who can share the audit knowledge and keep audit risks front of mind. Maybe that means the firm will need to rotate clients for some of its core assurance staff so that every team has core assurance members. As well, as audit areas are assigned, managers and partners should be thinking through risks at the financial statement level and ensuring higher risk audit areas are completed by stronger, core assurance members.

What about areas like IT or taxes where the area is specialized and may present a pervasive or significant risk? Firms need to be conscientious of these areas and if their resources do not themselves have the requisite audit knowledge and/or experience, then perhaps firms should consider specific coaching programs or targeted in-flight review programs that can compliment the use of contractors and/or borrowed staff. For instance, perhaps the firm uses an IT partner with years of in-depth audit experience to coach less experienced IT contractors across multiple engagements. As the workforce and employment model is changing, so too will the structure and makeup of engagement teams. Be creative.

Review and Supervision: In addition to the staffing mix, firms should consider review and supervision at the engagement team level. Though the standard around engagement team review and supervision has not changed, the expectations may be evolving. For areas performed by less experienced staff, whether new hires, borrowed staff, or independent contractors, managers and partners should be performing more in-depth reviews. For areas of higher risk, teams should consider whether additional levels of review are necessary. And for areas of specialized risk, as mentioned above, firms should consider whether there is a need for targeted in-flight reviews. Perhaps the most important factor for quality review and supervision is workload. What metrics is the firm using to monitor manager and partner workload? What are firms doing to relieve overworked managers and partners? This ties directly into the capacity discussions that management is having at the acceptance and continuance level.

Consultations: Finally, in conjunction with firm management setting the correct tone-at-the-top at the firm level, engagement teams should leverage firm-wide resources and not be afraid to consult when needed. Too often, teams only focus on required consultations, but nothing says that a team can’t consult when questions arise in other non-mandatory scenarios. Knowledge is power and firms have vast sums of cumulative audit knowledge and experience at the management levels, so don’t be afraid to reach out to national office with questions. Chances are, you aren’t the first to have that question.

Use of Other Firms Considerations

So far, we’ve focused mainly on the use of independent contractors and borrowed staff, but there is also a movement to using other audit firms to also assist with audits. Sometimes the other firm will issue an opinion and sometimes the other firm only performs audit procedures on behalf of the principal auditor. Currently, China comes to mind; given various restrictions due to COVID and regulatory concerns, many US firms are leveraging other audit firms in China to assist in executing audits. In our recent article of use of other auditors, we provide factors to consider, but the general theme points to review and supervision. So what procedures are firms implementing to ensure appropriate review over the work performed by other auditors? A mere review of the reporting package is likely not sufficient given the new PCAOB standards/amendments.

Technology Considerations

Given the digital age, we would be remiss not to mention technology. In our joint webinar on ISQM 1, Dayshape CEO, Andrew Bone, said: “For those already struggling to fill their current vacancies, the obvious question is where will this extra capacity come from? Unable to simply recruit and reluctant to scale back fee earning work, firms are looking to technological resources for answers. What firms are finding is that technology can help in a number of different ways.”

For instance, using technology for resource management will help firms easily identify available employees, what skills and experience various resources have, and potentially even reduce administrative burdens on resources, such as finding ways to automate administrative processes. “Technology can be used by firms to track and evidence that the right skills and competencies have been assigned to a project and that independence criteria have been met. When doing this at scale, technology can be extremely useful to help firms track skills firm-wide and demonstrate a robust and standardized process.”

In addition, technology can automate various Firm QC processes or monitor QC metrics (i.e. partner or manager workloads, as mentioned above). Bone continued, “technology can be used to implement automated project controls to provide assurance that the right quality measures and checks are in place and that these are followed consistently. These can be set at a firm level to ensure that the right people review and approve work at the right stage. Or at the engagement level where engagements failing certain quality criteria can also be automatically escalated.”

Finally, as we all know, big data can be incredibly powerful, and technology combined with data analytics could transform future audits. Already, technology is being used to help perform many non-subjective functions such as account reconciliations, cash proofs for revenue, various roll forwards for investments or equity or journal entries, etc. Technology requires an investment, but as we approach a more and more automated world, it will soon be inevitable, and thanks to software-as-a-service models, technology resources are becoming more and more accessible to the masses.

Key Takeaways

The Great Resignation is proving to be a challenging time for everyone. Whether flight cancellations or poor service in restaurants (if the restaurant stayed open), we’re all feeling the effects of staff shortages. For those who didn’t resign, it seems there is more to do with less (yet again). While use of contractors and borrowed staff is a temporary fix, firms should incorporate the following:

Acceptance and continuance decisions need to be thoughtfully considered, taking into account a firm’s capacity and competence.

Independence and ethics requirements should be clearly explained and understood by all staff working on audit engagements, regardless of whether they are internal or external.

Competence is more than just technical ability and should incorporate an element of understanding audit risk. This could be accomplished through trainings, but firms could also incorporate other elements such as engagement team coaching (either by team mangers and partners or through designated coaches), in-flight reviews, and consultations.

Engagement team staffing should be thoughtfully evaluated to ensure there is a mix of core assurance and other staff such as contractors or borrowed staff.

Review and supervision are becoming increasingly important, especially as the use of alternative resources increases. Ensure workloads allow for adequate time for coaching and review during an audit.

When using other audit firms, keep in mind the new PCAOB amendments and standards, largely pointing to increased responsibility around review and supervision for lead engagement teams.

There are tools, technology and services available to help. Firms must assess the gaps whether intellectual, human, or technological, and make investments now for the future.

No one knows how long the labor shortage will last. In the long term, the economy and the markets will adjust. My grandfather worked at one company his entire life. At the time, that was normal. Today, that’s exceptional. In the 90’s, companies complained about lack of loyalty when the younger generations began to change jobs more frequently, but sure enough, the workforce adjusted. Now with the Great Resignation, once again, companies are feeling the strain and in particular, the employees who didn’t resign. But, as has always been the case, the markets will adjust in time. Perhaps this is truly the emergence of the “gig economy” en masse. Perhaps this is creating the impetus needed for firms to more rapidly adopt technology, making audits more efficient. Whatever the outcome, in the short term, we can’t lose sight of audit quality. Filling seats isn’t the same as engaging the right resources with the appropriate firm QC protocols in place to enable teams made up of contractors, borrowed staff, and traditional assurance staff to perform high quality audits.

About Johnson Global Advisory

Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB and SEC staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporate solutions which navigate those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide.

Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Jackson Johnson Appointed to AICPA & NASBA International Qualifications Appraisal Board (IQAB)

June 8, 2026

Johnson Global Advisory is pleased to announce that Jackson Johnson, CPA, President, has been appointed to serve on the AICPA & NASBA International Qualifications Appraisal Board (IQAB). The IQAB is responsible for evaluating international accounting qualifications and facilitating mutual recognition agreements between the United States and other countries, helping to support global mobility and consistency in professional standards. “It’s an honor to serve on the IQAB and contribute to efforts that strengthen the global accounting profession,” said Johnson. “As the profession continues to evolve, collaboration across jurisdictions is critical to maintaining high standards and enabling greater mobility for accounting professionals worldwide.”

AI Governance Belongs in the Boardroom, Not the Server Room

May 20, 2026

Few technologies have generated as much excitement—and as much promise—for accounting firms as artificial intelligence (“AI”). The potential to streamline audit execution, reduce hours, and enhance firm profitability is real and already being realized. However, AI does not simply change how audits are performed; it fundamentally alters how firms must think about oversight, responsibility, and quality management. As regulators sharpen their focus on AI‑enabled audits, firm leadership must move beyond adoption and address a more complex challenge: establishing clear and scalable AI governance. This article outlines why AI governance is now a strategic imperative for accounting firm leadership. As discussed in JGA’s article What Regulators Expect to See When AI is Used , inspectors do not evaluate AI tools in isolation. They evaluate whether the engagement team obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence, exercised professional skepticism, and applied appropriate supervision and review when AI was used. Those expectations are grounded in existing auditing standards and apply regardless of whether AI was used for risk assessment, testing, or documentation support. Against that backdrop, AI governance is not simply about approving tools or managing technology risk. It is about ensuring the firm’s system of quality management supports consistent, supervised, and well-documented use of AI that aligns with audit objectives and withstands inspection scrutiny. When firms treat AI as an IT matter, governance discussions tend to center on 1) Data security, 2) System access, 3) Vendor due diligence, and 4) Infrastructure controls. Those topics matter—but they are only the baseline. Inspectors do not evaluate whether AI systems are well engineered; they evaluate whether AI enabled audit work complies with standards, supports professional judgment, and is governed within the firm’s system of quality management. In short, AI governance is a firmwide audit quality issue, not a back office technology function. Using AI does not change the auditor’s responsibilities. Requirements still apply when AI is used for 1) Audit evidence, 2) Professional skepticism, 3) Supervision and review, 4) Engagement partner accountability and 5) Firm level quality controls. From an inspection standpoint, AI introduces new audit quality risks, including: Over reliance on automated outputs Reduced professional skepticism (automation bias) Inconsistent application across engagements Insufficient documentation of judgment Lack of transparency around how conclusions were reached These are not IT risks—they are audit quality risks. AI Touches Nearly Every Component of a QC System Under modern quality management frameworks (including PCAOB QC 1000 , AICPA SQMS No. 1, IAASB ISQM 1), AI affects nearly every component of a firm’s QC system, not just technology or data governance.

Joe Lynch, JGA Shareholder, to Present at 41st Midyear SEC Reporting & FASB Forum in San Francisco

May 20, 2026

Johnson Global Advisory ("JGA") is proud to announce that Joe Lynch, Shareholder, will be speaking on a panel at the 41st Midyear SEC Reporting & FASB Forum . Joe will deliver the PCAOB update on June 5, with attendance available both in person and virtually. This panel will summarize the activities of the PCAOB including: Recite new requirements for the lead auditor’s use of other auditors Anticipate the new standard, “The Auditor’s Use of Confirmation” Enumerate the new requirements of QC 1000, “A Firm’s System of Quality Control” Recall the guidance of the new auditing standard “General Responsibilities of the Auditor in Conducting an Audit” Understand the amendments addressing aspects of audit procedures that involve technology-assisted analysis of information in electronic form Learn about the proposal to replace existing auditing standards related to an auditor’s use of substantive analytical procedures Anticipate other Standard-Setting and Research Projects Summarize PCAOB inspection findings and enforcement activities Understand recent PCAOB publications, including: Spotlight Publications Audit Focus Publications Data Points Publications Click here to register and learn more. Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporates solutions which navigates those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide.

JGA Response to PCAOB Request for Comment on Strategic Priorities

May 15, 2026

Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) has submitted its response to the PCAOB’s request for input on its 2026–2030 strategic priorities. Drawing on extensive experience supporting firms subject to PCAOB oversight, JGA’s comments emphasize a more modern, risk-based approach to regulation focused on audit quality, scalability, and transparency. View JGA's comments here. Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporates solutions which navigates those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide.

Monitoring and Remediation: Turning Engagement Deficiencies Into System Improvement

April 28, 2026

In our work with firms, we have seen a clear shift in how monitoring and remediation are viewed under modern quality management frameworks. They are no longer treated as retrospective compliance exercises. Instead, engagement deficiencies are increasingly used as meaningful inputs into an ongoing, risk-based system designed to identify issues early, address them thoughtfully, and reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Regulatory messaging reinforces this evolution. Oversight bodies are signaling a shift in focus from isolated engagement outcomes and more on whether firms have a system of quality management that consistently detects quality risks, responds appropriately, and demonstrates that remediation is working in practice. Based on our experience, while individual engagement deficiencies remain important, the more critical question is becoming how firms analyze, respond to, and learn from those issues over time. Engagement Deficiencies Are Signals, Not Endpoints Engagement deficiencies can surface through many channels, including pre-issuance reviews, internal inspections, post-issuance reviews, peer reviews, and regulatory inspections. Regardless of source, firms benefit most when these findings are evaluated through a consistent quality management lens. In practice, we encourage firms to look beyond whether a single engagement fell short . The more meaningful consideration is whether the deficiency points to potential weaknesses in governance, methodology, training, supervision, resourcing, or monitoring activities. We often observe that when issues are quickly labeled as engagement-specific, without assessing whether they reflect broader quality risks, valuable insight is lost. Modern quality management frameworks are designed to use these signals to strengthen the system, not simply close individual findings. What Effective Monitoring and Remediation Looks Like in Practice Firms that navigate this environment effectively tend to apply a disciplined and repeatable approach when deficiencies are identified. Based on our experience supporting firms across a range of practice areas, several elements consistently make a difference: Assess whether the issue may be systemic Recurring observations across engagements, service lines, or time periods often indicate system-level risk. Similar documentation gaps, inconsistent application of methodology, or supervision challenges rarely arise in isolation. Perform meaningful root cause analysis Effective root cause analysis typically moves beyond surface explanations. Firms benefit from evaluating whether policies and procedures were designed appropriately, implemented as intended, and supported by sufficient training, time, and resources. Design remediation that directly responds to the quality risk Remediation is most effective when it is clearly linked to the underlying risk. Depending on the circumstances, this may include enhancements to methodology, targeted training, revised review requirements, or changes to engagement acceptance, staffing, or oversight processes. Validate remediation through timely monitoring Implementing corrective actions is only part of the process. In our experience, firms are most successful when they also confirm that remediation operates as intended. Follow-up monitoring performed early enough to prevent recurrence is a critical component of this step. Failure to validate remediation remains one of the most common and consequential weaknesses we observe across firms. Case Study: When Remediation Is Not Validated In one situation we encountered, a firm identified engagement deficiencies through post-issuance reviews. The issues mirrored observations that had previously been noted during peer review and were communicated as having been addressed by the group responsible for report issuance. However, responsibility for validation was not clearly assigned, and no follow-up procedures were performed to evaluate whether the revised processes were effective. Subsequent post-issuance reviews, triggered by an organizational change, revealed that similar and additional deficiencies had re-emerged. From a quality management perspective, this was not an engagement execution failure. It reflected a breakdown in monitoring and remediation. The firm had information indicating quality risk but did not adjust its monitoring activities to confirm that remediation was working. Viewed through a system lens, this represents a system-level deficiency rather than an isolated engagement issue. Quality Management Applies Across All Engagement Types Modern quality management frameworks apply across a firm’s assurance and attestation practice, including private company audits, public company audits, SOC engagements, nonprofit audits, and other services. Deficiencies identified in any practice area may signal broader weaknesses in: Governance and leadership Methodology and training Monitoring activities Remediation processes In our experience, firms struggle to maintain an effective system of quality management when certain practices are treated as exempt from system-level evaluation. Key Takeaways Engagement deficiencies are inputs into the system, not endpoints. Recurring issues often indicate systemic quality risk. Remediation should be validated, not assumed. Monitoring activities should evolve as risks emerge. Quality management applies across all engagement types. Firms that treat monitoring and remediation as a continuous feedback loop, rather than a periodic exercise, are typically better positioned to improve engagement quality and respond to evolving regulatory expectations. Looking for an independent perspective on whether engagement deficiencies have been fully addressed? Based on our experience working with firms across assurance and attestation practices, Johnson Global Advisory supports clients by performing independent reviews, validating remediation efforts, and strengthening monitoring processes. If you would like support refining policies, training, workflows, or documentation standards, or would benefit from an objective assessment ahead of regulatory, peer, or internal inspections, contact your JGA audit quality advisor to discuss your needs.

What Regulators Expect to See When AI Is Used

April 28, 2026

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is no longer experimental in public company audits. From risk assessment and scoping decisions to population testing, anomaly detection, and documentation support, AI enabled tools are increasingly embedded in audit execution and workflow. As use expands, the auditor’s core obligations do not shift to the technology, they remain with the engagement team. If AI is used to inform judgments, influence the nature, timing, or extent of procedures, or summarize and interpret information, auditors must still demonstrate that they obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence and applied professional skepticism throughout. In practice, auditors must understand what the tool is doing, confirm that inputs are complete and accurate, and evaluate whether the outputs are reliable and fit for purpose in the specific audit context. While the auditing standard devoted solely to AI have not been issued, our experience is that inspectors have been increasingly direct—through staff publications, questions from inspectors in the field, and public remarks—about what they expect to see when AI is used. The expectations are grounded in existing standards and longstanding inspection focus areas: audit evidence, supervision and review, professional skepticism, and firm quality control (now quality management). In other words, AI does not create a “new” audit; it amplifies the need to show your work. Firms that treat AI as a “shortcut”, rely on outputs that cannot be explained or reproduced, or fail to govern and document how tools were selected, configured, and monitored are inviting new risks to support their audit conclusions. Conversely, firms that can clearly articulate the purpose of the tool, how it aligns to audit objectives, how inputs and outputs were validated, and how experienced personnel supervised and challenged the results will be far better positioned during inspection. The table below summarizes what inspectors typically expect to see documented when AI is used in a public company audit. Firms can use these themes to evaluate whether their engagement documentation tells a complete story that an experienced auditor (and an inspector) can follow from objective, to procedure, to results, to conclusion.

Audit Documentation: From Low-Hanging Fruit to Load-Bearing Standard

March 30, 2026

In a previous article, Back to Basics: Audit Documentation Failures Have Become Dangerous Low Hanging Fruit , we highlighted how audit documentation had quietly re-emerged as a source of regulatory risk after years of relative deprioritization. While PCAOB Auditing Standard 1215, Audit Documentation (AS 1215), has historically been cited less frequently than other standards, our direct experience from recent inspection activity, enforcement actions, and internal inspection results, demonstrate that documentation failures are increasingly treated as indicators of deeper execution, supervision, and quality management breakdowns. In today’s environment, audit documentation is no longer merely a record of work performed. It is the primary evidence inspectors rely on to evaluate whether an engagement was properly planned, executed, and supported at the time the auditor’s report was issued. What has been low-hanging fruit now requires firms to close these gaps and transform them into a load-bearing foundation for audit quality. From Rare Enforcement to Systemic Inspection Risk AS 1215 establishes clear requirements regarding what must be documented, when documentation must be completed, and how engagement files must be assembled and retained. As discussed in our prior article, failures to comply with these requirements were historically viewed as technical or secondary issues, often resulting in inspection comments rather than enforcement action. That distinction is no longer meaningful. Recent enforcement actions involving backdating, improper (both intentionally, and inadvertent) modification of workpapers, and failure to timely assemble a complete audit file reflect an evolving regulatory view. Documentation failures do not simply violate procedural requirements; they call into question the credibility of the audit opinion itself. More importantly, beyond enforcement, documentation deficiencies are increasingly cited as core inspection findings. Inspectors are challenging situations where engagement teams assert that work was performed but cannot demonstrate that work within the archived file. In these cases, the absence of timely, complete, and clear documentation is no longer treated as a formality. It is treated as evidence that the engagement may not have been properly executed, supervised, or supported in accordance with PCAOB standards. This represents a fundamental shift. Documentation is no longer “low-hanging fruit.” It is a systemic inspection risk that cuts across execution, supervision, and firm-level quality management. From Misconduct to Execution Failures Pervasive documentation failures that do not involve intentional misconduct but still result in non-compliance are increasingly observed. For example, reviewer signoffs occurring near the documentation completion date, rather than contemporaneously with the performance of audit procedures, raise questions about whether effective supervision occurred during the audit or was deferred to meeting archiving deadlines. Similarly, engagement teams may assert that key judgments can be explained verbally, even when those judgments are not clearly documented in the audit file. In today’s environment, the distinction between “we can explain it” and “it is clearly documented” is critical. If procedures, judgments, and conclusions are not evident in the documentation itself, inspectors increasingly conclude that the work was not performed in accordance with PCAOB standards. The issue is not whether the engagement team can explain what they did after the fact. The issue is whether the archived documentation allows an experienced auditor, with no prior connection to the engagement, to understand the procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions reached at the time of the auditor’s report. When documentation fails to reach that standard, inspectors are increasingly concluding that the audit itself was not properly executed, regardless of intent. This reflects an important shift. Documentation failures are no longer viewed primarily as misconduct. They are viewed as symptoms of execution breakdowns, including delayed supervision, compressed review cycles, and audit workflows that defer documentation until the end of the engagement. As a result, AS 1215 has become a direct proxy for how audits are actually performed in practice. How the 14-Day Documentation Completion Requirement Changes the Risk Profile The execution risks are further amplified by the PCAOB’s shortened documentation completion timeline. Recent amendments to AS 1215 reduce the timeframe to assemble a complete and final audit file from 45 days to 14 days after the report release date. While this change may appear procedural, its implications are operational. Under this accelerated timeline, engagement teams no longer have a meaningful post-issuance window to resolve review notes, complete documentation, or finalize supervisory evidence. What were once viewed as “clean-up” activities are now more likely to result in timing violations and non-compliance. This shift places increased emphasis on: Contemporaneous documentation Real-time supervision Realistic workload and staffing models Audit Documentation as a Cornerstone of Audit Quality Audit documentation has long been described as low-hanging fruit in the inspection process. That characterization no longer reflects its role in today’s regulatory environment. Documentation now serves as the primary lens through which regulators assess whether an engagement was properly executed, supervised, and supported. With shortened timelines, expanded quality management expectations, and increased regulatory scrutiny, firms can no longer treat documentation as a downstream activity. It must be embedded into how engagements are planned, staffed, reviewed, and completed. In an environment where inspection conclusions are driven by what is, and what is not, in the audit file, strong documentation is not merely defensive. It is foundational to audit quality. At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®. For more information, please contact your JGA audit quality expert .

Accounting Firm Acquisitions: Why Due Diligence and Integration Determine Long-Term Success

March 30, 2026

Mergers and acquisitions within the accounting firm industry continue to accelerate, driven by succession planning needs, technology investment, talent constraints, geographic expansion, and the pursuit of new service lines. The pace and volume of transactions is being fueled, in large part, by private equity investment in the accounting firm space. Yet as deal activity accelerates, so does a critical reality: the long term success of an acquisition is determined well before the transaction closes—and long after the announcement is made. Experience across the profession shows that insufficient due diligence and poorly executed post acquisition integration are the most common sources of value erosion in accounting firm transactions. What the Regulator is saying and How JGA sees it At the AICPA December 2025 conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, common topics were the presence of private equity in the accounting firm space and the opportunities and challenges that come with this investment. As it relates to private equity, then-acting PCAOB Chair George Botic noted that while these investments have the potential to enhance audit quality by increasing firm capacity and modernizing audit tools with advanced technologies, the presence of private equity presents a risk that firms shift incentives to prioritize profitability over audit quality. Mr. Botic stated, “Both AI and private equity investments in accounting firms carry the potential to truly reshape the profession. Yet these opportunities come with clear challenges to ensure that overreliance on AI and the pressures of private equity do not jeopardize audit quality.” At JGA, we expect the PCAOB to increase its inspection focus on a firm’s system of quality management. To the extent that acquisitions present quality risks to a firm, we expect increased attention from the PCAOB in terms of how firms are managing these risks. Due Diligence: Looking Beyond the Numbers Financial performance, partner buy ins, and deal structure naturally receive significant attention during an acquisition. However, professional services firms—particularly those providing audit and assurance services—certain of the greatest risks often reside outside the financial statements. Effective accounting firm due diligence must assess not only what the target firm has earned, but how it has earned it—and whether that performance is sustainable. This includes gaining a deep understanding of: Audit quality history, including inspection and peer review results, Independence, ethics, and regulatory compliance practices, Industries served, industry concentration and related expertise, Client concentration, retention trends, and engagement risk profiles, Partner governance, compensation alignment, and succession readiness, Technology platforms, data security, and scalability, and Firm culture, leadership dynamics, and decision making processes. When these areas are not rigorously evaluated, issues frequently surface after the transaction closing—when remediation is more disruptive, more expensive, and far more visible to regulators, clients, and staff. The Risks of Inadequate Due Diligence Inadequate diligence often leads to unanticipated post transaction challenges, including: Regulatory findings related to legacy engagements, Independence violations requiring retroactive remediation, Client attrition driven by service disruption or cultural misalignment, Talent loss stemming from unclear expectations or compensation inequities, and Technology incompatibilities that impair efficiency and data integrity. Deficiencies inherited through acquisition can affect inspection outcomes, firm reputation, and overall audit quality long after the transaction closes. Integration: Where Value Is Created—or Lost Even when due diligence is performed thoughtfully, post acquisition integration remains the most common point of failure. Integration is often underestimated, treated as an operational exercise rather than a strategic initiative requiring sustained leadership attention. Successful integration goes far beyond combining systems or standardizing branding. It requires deliberate alignment across how the firm operates, governs itself, and delivers quality—particularly in areas such as: Audit methodology and documentation standards Quality management systems and monitoring processes Partner roles, authority, and accountability Talent development, evaluation, and retention Communication with clients, regulators, and staff Absent a structured integration plan, firms risk operating as a collection of semi independent practices rather than a cohesive organization. This fragmentation can undermine consistency, weaken accountability, and complicate regulatory compliance. A Strategic Imperative in a Changing Profession As consolidation continues and regulatory scrutiny intensifies, rigorous due diligence and disciplined integration are no longer optional. They are essential to managing risk, sustaining quality, and realizing the full value of a transaction. For accounting firm leaders, the message is clear: growth through acquisition can be a powerful strategy—but only when supported by a comprehensive understanding of what is being acquired and a deliberate plan for how the combined firm will operate as one. Firms that treat diligence and integration as leadership imperatives—rather than transactional steps—are better positioned to protect audit quality, retain talent, and preserve client trust while achieving growth objectives. JGA’s Role Guiding Firms through these Opportunities For firms seeking to grow through acquisition without sacrificing quality, control, or visibility, JGA is a solution. JGA is uniquely qualified with deep experience working with accounting firms on quality management, governance, and operational transformation. We have proven due-diligence tools built that are designed to be practical, adaptable, and immediately usable—while also supporting long term consistency as firms pursue multiple acquisitions over time. Ready to get started or need help refining your acquisition activities? Contact your JGA audit quality expert today to schedule a consultation and ensure acquisition activities are tailored to your firm’s needs.

JGA to Sponsor ALI's Accountants' Liability 2026 Conference

By Jackson Johnson • February 24, 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C.: — Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) is proud to sponsor the ALI’s Accountants’ Liability 2026 conference hosted by the American Law Institute (ALI). The two‑day program will take place May 14–15, 2026, in Washington, D.C., with a live webcast option available for remote attendees. This annual conference is a premier forum for accounting firm leaders, in‑house counsel, litigators, and regulators to examine the evolving landscape of accountants’ liability, enforcement priorities, and risk management. The 2026 program will explore how recent regulatory, litigation, and technological developments are reshaping the profession and what firms can do to proactively respond. “We are pleased to once again sponsor the ALI Accountants’ Liability Conference,” said Jackson Johnson, President of Johnson Global Advisory. “This event consistently brings together leading regulators, practitioners, and risk professionals to discuss the most pressing liability and oversight issues facing accounting firms today. We value the opportunity to engage with participants and contribute to these important conversations.” The program will feature nationally recognized panels of practitioners, general counsel, industry professionals, and government officials. Planned discussions will address current and emerging challenges facing accounting firms, including: Regulatory and enforcement priorities impacting the accounting profession Recent trends in accounting‑related litigation PCAOB and SEC perspectives on audits, inspections, and gatekeeper liability The impact of AI, cryptocurrency, and emerging technologies on audit quality and firm risk Best practices for navigating an evolving and uncertain regulatory environment Register by April 13, 2026, to attend in-person and use the code “ JGA2026 ” to save $250 off . OR, for webcast attendance, use the code " JOHNSON " to save $125 off the tuition. Click here to register. To learn more about how Johnson Global partners with in-house and outside counsel to support public accounting firms, we invite you to explore our latest brochure. This resource outlines our approach to independent monitoring and consulting, including how we assist firms in navigating PCAOB and SEC investigations, implementing quality control improvements, and responding to regulatory findings. Download the brochure below to see how our experienced team can help your firm meet today’s compliance challenges and build a stronger foundation for the future. Get a copy of our brochure here . About Johnson Global Advisory Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB and SEC staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporates solutions which navigates those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.

Joe Lynch, JGA Shareholder, to Present in AICPA & CIMA Quality Management Webcast Series

By Jackson Johnson • February 24, 2026

We’re pleased to share that Joe Lynch , JGA Shareholder, will be presenting in a series of AICPA & CIMA webcasts focused on practical considerations for Quality Management. These sessions are designed to provide guidance in your QM journey. They support key elements such as engagement quality reviews, root cause analysis, and ongoing monitoring and remediation. Register for Upcoming Sessions Session 1 — Quality Management: Engagement Quality Reviews What you’ll learn: Practical considerations for your firm's responsibilities for engagement quality reviews and the reviewers requirements when executing engagement quality reviews under the updated quality management standards, including how to make EQRs scalable and effective. Register for this session here . Session 2 — Quality Management: Performing a Root Cause Analysis What you’ll learn: How root cause analysis supports remediation by identifying underlying drivers of the findings and deficiencies; supporting the design of corrective actions that prevent recurrence. Register for this session here . Session 3 — Quality Management: My System is Set Up — Now What? What you’ll learn: Post-implementation requirements of SQMS No. 1, which include monitoring activities, evaluating findings and deficiencies, remediation, and the annual evaluation process—so your system stays responsive and effective. Register for this session here . These sessions are included with a current Webcast Pass. At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®.