In this paper, we investigate whether federal judge ideology, ceteris paribus, affects auditor litigation risk and auditor behavior. We find that auditors whose client firms are in jurisdictions dominated by liberal judges are more likely to be sued and make higher payouts to plaintiffs when sued. Furthermore, these client firms are more likely to receive going‐concern opinions and pay higher audit fees. Finally, we find no evidence that the quality of audited financial statements is affected by judge ideology. The evidence documented in this paper indicates that federal judge ideology affects auditor litigation risk and some aspects of auditor behavior.

We develop a measure to capture an audit firm's competitive position in a local audit market based on the transaction costs of changing audit firms included in DeAngelo's (1981) multi-period audit pricing model. Our competition measure reflects the size difference between the largest audit firm in a market specified by client industry at the city level and the other audit firms operating in that market. We find that audit fees of a client decrease as this size difference increases. This result suggests that smaller audit firms charge lower audit fees because of their competitive disadvantage to the local largest firm.