A related study by Lawrence and Glover (1998) examines report lag of merged firms and do not find that clients of merged firms have shorter audit report lag than the clients of non-merged firms. Hence, no evidence exists that clients of merged audit firms benefit from the merger. This paper improves on Lawrence and Glover (1998) by examining the issue on an industry basis for two reasons. First, the characteristics of errors and irregularities differ by industry (Beasley, Carcello, Hermanson, & Lapides, 2000; Payne, 2008), and their presence is likely to affect the completion of audit. Second, clients in different industries are subject to different operating conditions and regulatory requirements, and auditors specialize along industry lines to enjoy economies of scale in their operations (Yuan, Cheng, & Ye, 2016). If the operational efficiency of audit firms in audits varies by industry, then a pooled cross-sectional regression of audit report lag will have differential intercept coefficients for different industries. The required evidence is unavailable in Lawrence and Glover (1998), as they only perform univariate t-tests of audit report lag of the clients of merged firms versus those of non-merged firms across all industries.