In the case of Bob Reves, et al. v. Ernst & Young, 1989, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether an accounting firm could be held liable under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for its role in a client's fraudulent scheme. The court decided that Ernst & Young could indeed be held accountable because they had participated directly in the operation or management of their client's affairs which led to fraudulence. This decision was significant as it expanded potential liability for professional service firms involved with clients engaged in illegal activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Bob Reves, et al. v. Ernst & Young, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to apply a "non-statutory" test in determining whether an accounting firm could be held liable under RICO was incorrect and inconsistent with previous court decisions. He contended that Congress intended for RICO to have broad application and did not limit its reach only to those who participate directly in the operation or management of an enterprise involved in racketeering activity. Instead, he believed anyone who knowingly contributes to such activities should also be held accountable under RICO statutes regardless of their role within the organization. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history rather than statutory text as a basis for their ruling.