|
|
| Truth on Paper: Evaluating Client Representations in Expert Work (2178Q) |
Course CPE: 2 hour
Field(s) of Study: Business Law–2 hrs
Program Level: Intermediate
Prerequisites: Previous training or research on subject matter being taught. Such persons are often at a mid-level within the organization, with operational and/or supervisory responsibilities.
Advanced Preparation: None
Delivery Method: QAS Self-Study |
Item
Number: 25SEW0911TPE
Shipping Weight: 0lbs. 0oz. |
| Price:
$147.00 |
|
|
|
|
Recording Date: September 11, 2025
Presenter: Michael Pakter
Program Description:
Some level of client-provided information becomes part of the analysis in every expert engagement. How much reliance is appropriate—and how that reliance should be disclosed, tested, or limited—depends heavily on the nature of the engagement. This course will examine how client representations are treated across three types of financial expert work: forensic accounting, damages analysis, and business valuation.
In forensic accounting engagements, the expert is often in an investigative or adversarial role, which requires a heightened level of professional skepticism. Client representations are not taken at face value; instead, they are corroborated through source documents, third-party confirmations, or transactional evidence. The focus is on determining what actually happened, not just what the client says happened.
In damages engagements, client input is frequently used to model lost profits or increased costs. While the expert may use client data such as budgets, forecasts, or operational assumptions, it must be tested for reasonableness and relevance. The expert’s role is to ensure that any reliance is explicitly disclosed and to be prepared to defend those assumptions under scrutiny.
In contrast, business valuation professionals are often permitted to rely more directly on management’s representations, especially when preparing forecasts or assessing intangible assets. Valuation standards allow for reliance on client inputs, provided the expert evaluates them for plausibility and discloses the source of the assumptions.
This course will highlight the practical and ethical considerations in evaluating client representations, including how to communicate limitations, apply professional judgment, and tailor your approach to each engagement type. Attendees will gain clarity on where skepticism is mandatory, where reliance is permissible, and how to defend expert conclusions grounded in client-supplied information.
After completing this course, you will be able to:
- Recognize the appropriate level of skepticism toward client representations across different types of expert engagements
- Identify best practices for verifying and disclosing reliance on client-supplied data
- Recognize and understand how engagement purpose (investigative vs. advisory) shapes the treatment of client input
- Determine assumptions and data sources to strengthen defensibility of expert opinions
For more information regarding refund or concerns, please contact our offices at (800) 677-2009.
The Consultants’ Training Institute (CTI) is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be submitted to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors through its website: www.nasbaregistry.org. |
|
|
