The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants is preparing to clamp down on accountants’ distribution of client information that’s not already publicly available, even if shared on a no-name basis for such noble causes as research and benchmarking. At the same time, however, the AICPA doesn’t want to stand in the way of academic research and professional benchmarking, said Ellen Goria, AICPA senior manager.

The AICPA’s Professional Ethics Executive Committee (PEEC) has proposed revisions to the code of professional conduct, specifically Ethics Ruling No. 2 of ET Section 391, Ethics Rulings on Responsibilities to Clients, to say any sharing of non-public client information without the client’s specific consent is a violation. The PEEC appointed a task force to study the issue in light of concern that there is growing interest in such data from third parties or even accountants themselves benchmarking for the sake of other clients.

In its proposed revisions, PEEC says it’s necessary for accountants to check with their clients before sharing any non-public information because clients may regard it as confidential even if their name is not attached. However, the committee also proposes to provide a more extensive definition about confidential client information to call attention to what might be considered publicly available, and therefore eligible to be shared freely by accountants without seeking permission.

Accountants are inclined to err on the side of conservatism, but the AICPA doesn’t want to impede research and benchmarking, Goria said. “We concluded we want our folks to be able to get information out there,” she said. “If it’s in the public domain, you don’t need to get consent. We’re hoping this will make it easier (for accountants to share public information).”

Information that is already publicly available would include, for example, anything published in a book or periodical, available on commercial databases, released by the client, accessible on an unrestricted Website, or found in regulatory filings. Goria said requests for clarification came largely from the academic community.