The efficacy and necessity of"gatekeeper"interactions provide justification for the supervisory duties of lawyers over financial information.As a unique phenomenon in the scenario involving multiple"gatekeepers,"the interactions and mutual influences among"gatekeepers"can impact the level of prevention against financial information distortion.Therefore,it is inappropriate to view each"gatekeeper"in isolation.If"gatekeeper"interactions are hindered or there is a lack of necessary information flow and communication cooperation,the probability of preventing financial information distortion may decrease,leading to a higher likelihood of simultaneous"gatekeeper"failure,which is illustrated by the case of WU YANG Construction Group.As to the extent to which lawyers should supervise financial information,reactive supervision is preferable to proactive supervision.That is,lawyers should respond to warning signs that may signal accounting fraud or errors,but they are not required to professionally evaluate the decisions made by accountants.Lawyers should continue representation only after ensuring that the warning signs have been addressed through necessary investigations,inquiries with,or even collaborative investigations with accountants.Reactive supervision corrects the prevailing misconception that the general duty of care is equivalent to the"duty of care for ordinary people"and provides a reference object for lawyers'duty of care with a kernel of competence.That is,a lawyer should possess some basic accounting knowledge,professional experience,or sensitivity to these issues.
financial information distortionlawyerreactive supervisionduty of carewarning sign
国家科技期刊平台
NSTL
万方数据
