A defendant accounting firm sought review of an appellate decision that affirmed a trial court judgment in favor of plaintiff, a community college board of trustees. The action sought damages for the accounting firm's failure to discover and report inappropriate investments as part of the audit reports it prepared. The Supreme Court held that the extension of comparative fault concepts in connection with professional services had a neutral impact on application of the audit interference doctrine, which was properly applied by the trial court. The audit interference doctrine is that contributory negligence cannot be asserted by the auditor when there is no evidence the client has interfered with the audit. Additionally, statements made by the board to the firm in a representation letter were sufficient to support the denial of the board's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of comparative fault, but the firm was entitled to a setoff under the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act. Board of Trustees v. Coopers & Lybrand, No. 94676, 2003 Ill. LEXIS 2610 (Il. S.Ct. Dec. 18, 2003)
