Question

Harris Fell, CPA and member of the AICPA, was engaged to audit the financial statements of Wilson Corporation. Fell had half-completed the audit when he had a dispute with the management of Wilson Corporation and was discharged. Hal Compton, CPA, was promptly engaged to replace Fell. Wilson Corporation did not compensate Fell for his work to date; therefore, Fell refused to allow Wilson Corporation’s management to examine his working papers. Some of the working papers consisted of adjusting journal entries and supporting analysis. Wilson Corporation’s management had no other source for this information. Did Fell violate the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct? Explain fully

Answer 1

It is apparent from the cae that Fell was dismissed and replaced rather quickly due to disagreement with managemnt. After reading the ethics case, it is easy to determine that Fell was dismissed and replaced rather quickly due to a disagreement with management. Wilson Co replaced him with Hal Compton, but, Fell had not been paid for the work he had performed on the audit to date. Due to Fell’s dismissal and Wilson Co.’s neglect in paying Fell for his work to date, they were not given access to Fell’s paperwork in regards to the work he had done due to the fact that he was not paid. I believe the Wilson Co wanted Fell’s paperwork so that Compton would not have to start from scratch and start where Fell left off, but, since Fell was not paid the Wilson Co was not allowed access to his paperwork. I believe that Fell is not conforming to the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct. If Wilson Co had still not paid Fell after a certain amount of time then he could have taken the appropriate actions to be paid for services rendered. Most companies do not pay for services as soon as a task is competed. A company has a certain amount of time to pay their bill before it goes into default. Fell should have made his findings available to his replacement and the Wilson Co immediately as a show of professional and ethical courtesy.