Question

The refusal of a client's attorney to provide a representation on the legality of a particular act committed by the client is generally

1. Sufficient reason to issue a "subject to" qualified opinion.
2. Considered to be a scope limitation.
3. Insufficient reason to modify the auditor's report because of the attorney's obligation of confidentiality.
4. Proper grounds to withdraw from the engagement without further consideration.

Answer 1

An attorney's refusal to provide a statement on a client's actions could imply a scope limitation for an auditor's report, but this also intersects with the attorney's duty of confidentiality. Cases like Strickland v. Washington and Miranda v. Arizona inform broader legal principles regarding effective counsel and rights to representation.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student's question concerns the implications of an attorney's refusal to provide a representation on the legality of a client's actions and how such a refusal affects an auditor's report. In the context of audits and accounting, an attorney's refusal to provide certain information might be seen as a scope limitation, which could lead to a modified report.

However, attorneys are also bound by a duty of confidentiality, which complicates the issue. The specifics of this would depend on professional standards and the legal jurisdiction.

Key cases highlighting the broader aspects of legal representation include Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky, which address the standards for effective legal counsel and the obligations of criminal defense attorneys concerning the risk of deportation for clients.

Furthermore, cases like Glasser v. United States and Miranda v. Arizona are foundational to understanding the rights of defendants to counsel and the challenges therein.