Big Four Audit Split 'Would Spark Major Legal Market Assault'
Market executives believe audit separations would remove the independence issues and restrictions currently faced by the accountancy giants.
May 03, 2019 at 04:26 AM
4 minute read
A separation of the Big Four's audit functions into separate businesses would dramatically speed up their expansion into the legal services market, according to various market executives.
Following the surge of MPs calling for an industry overhaul of the Big Four in the wake of scandals such as BHS and Carillion, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) last month (April 2019) published recommendations for an audit separation. Ernst & Young, Deloitte, KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers could now be forced to hive off their audit function into separate entities, to reduce their market dominance
Since then, the Big Four have published statements saying they welcome the discussions, but have no plans as yet to split their operations, with some firms criticising parts of the CMA's suggestions.
EY is now taking seeking to challenge the competition watchdog's bid, bringing in Slaughter and May for advice.
If splits do occur it would have a dramatic effect on the Big Four's legal arms, market participants believe.
Mark Vorsatz, chief executive of consultants Andersen Global, believes the change would result in a major push by the Big Four, which he describes as "sleeping giants".
He said that up until this point, the Big Four's legal arms have faced limitations due to conflicts of interest from their auditing bodies, but added: "If they truly separate it, they won't have the independence issues or restrictions on scope of practice… and if there's no independence issues, you would see an expansion of legal services, making them more and more just like other law firms."
Vorsatz said his conversations have revealed a new wave of fear among law firms as to how the legal arms may react in the case of audit separation.
Nick Jarret, from law firm consulting company Edge International, said: "The thing about accountancy firms is that they offer a limited range of services. If we look back to the 20th century, they began to take tax advice away from traditional law firms and they've been looking at doing more and more of this. If their audit function is given new restrictions, they'll be even more anxious to diversify their practices."
He said that revenue decline would mean the Big Four would look for other ways to get income: "And this could include all the typical methods, including being more aggressive in their legal function.
"The accountancy firms have the firepower to make a real dent in the market," Jarret said.
Since being granted legal practice licences, the Big Four accounting firms have grown their legal divisions to a combined total of more than 10,500 lawyers in more than 100 countries.
The possibility of expansion represents a real shift in tactics, which law firm competitors are closely eyeing. Eversheds Sutherland co-chief executive officer Lee Ranson said when the Big Four launched, they intended to advise in limited practice areas. He told Legal Week: "Those barriers have been eroded over time and this erosion will now continue even more. I expect they'll start to compete in the M&A [and] transactional spaces if their audits split."
It has not yet been confirmed whether the audit firms will be required to separate or what exactly the nature of the split might be. Currently, the debate is whether it would be a devolved audit arm with far less information-sharing between audit and the rest of the business, or a complete split that would mean the audit functions are an entirely different entity.
But one former Big Four partner doubts an audit split would spark too much of a battle in the legal market, because the accountants' brand would be weakened.
He said: "If the legal arm is freed from the audit practice, then they've got the freedom to compete alongside other law firms alike. But that would also mean they've lost their USP – their strength is that they're embedded within the overall brand. If you separated their legal arms right now and ranked them alongside other law firms, they'd be f*cked."
But Andersen's Vorsatz maintains that while the overall business could face a setback initially, the damage will only lead the legal arms to launch a fresh attack.
He said: "With the resources the Big Four have, if they put in place the financial support to expand then they could expand very rapidly and aggressively.
"If the handcuffs come off, they are not going to hold back."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMoFo Launches in Amsterdam: Exclusive Interview with Global Chair Eric McCrath
2 minute readClifford Chance Boosts Private Credit Offering With Mayer Brown Partner Duo
2 minute readEx-Mayer Brown Corporate Lawyer Leads Race for German Chancellor in Snap Election
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250