Final answer:
If an auditor's request for information is refused by a lawyer, it is apropos to consider the refusal as a scope limitation, while maintaining respect for the client-lawyer relationship. Seeking information from management may be useful but does not replace the legal insights needed from a lawyer, and failing to resolve a scope limitation may lead to disclosure in the financial statements. Therefore, the correct option is 2.
Step-by-step explanation:
When an auditor encounters a lawyer who refuses to provide corroborating information regarding litigation, claims, and assessments, it is essential to handle the situation effectively. The correct response in this scenario is to consider the refusal to be a scope limitation. This is because the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence, and thus, the scope of their work has been limited. Honoring the confidentiality of the client-lawyer relationship is necessary, but does not resolve the issue of the auditor being unable to complete their work. Seeking corroborating information from management may be an option; however, it may not always provide the auditor with the necessary legal perspective on the matters at hand. Lastly, disclosing this fact in a footnote to the financial statements would be the consequence of not resolving the scope limitation, potentially leading to a qualified opinion or a disclaimer of opinion on the financial statements.