The engagement quality review is a key component of an audit firm's quality control system. This study leverages unique data on individual engagement quality reviewers (EQRs) to examine how previous shared working experience between EQRs and engagement partners affects audit quality. While prior research suggests that within‐firm network ties between predecessor and successor partners facilitate knowledge transfer, we find that prior shared working experience between EQRs and engagement partners is associated with lower audit quality. Mechanism tests indicate that such experience is associated with a higher likelihood of regulatory enforcement actions related to deficiencies in audit procedures, insufficient evidence, and a lack of professional skepticism. We also find that such experience corresponds with higher materiality thresholds, suggesting reduced scrutiny during audit planning and execution. Additional analyses reveal that these adverse effects primarily arise when previous shared working relationships did not produce adverse outcomes, when EQRs are not audit industry leaders, and when they face lower reputational risk. These findings are especially salient given that EQRs’ previous shared working experience with engagement partners appears to weigh heavily in EQR assignments. Overall, our study provides important insights into the implications of EQR independence and the determinants of engagement quality review effectiveness.

This study examines the association between a shared common auditor among suppliers and customers and trade credit. Using hand-collected pairwise trade credit data, we find that a supplier extends more trade credit to a customer audited by a common auditor. This association is robust to alternative design specifications and various sample restrictions to alleviate selection bias. We then interview trade credit managers and executives as a prelude to archival analyses exploring multiple potential mechanisms to explain this association. The collective results are most consistent with the explanation that mutual third parties to a dyadic relationship can foster trust through social connections and increased salience of reputation effects rather than that a common auditor reduces information asymmetry about the rigor of the audit process. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.