Can AI mitigate burnouts in accountants and auditors’ offices?

The accounting profession often operates in environments characterised by chronic deadline pressure, high public responsibility, ethical tension, and continuous exposure to financial risk (Ishaque, 2021; Zhang, 2024).

Accounting burnout is very real and the position in Malta is infamously one of the most stressful. It is considered normal for audit partners to sacrifice rest and personal time in the name of profits and in peak periods some work 60-hour weeks. That’s why it’s no surprise that many (if not most) accountants struggle with physical exhaustion, mental health challenges, and chronic stress in employment. For the audit profession January is a month of slow starts and New Year resolutions. Accountants/auditors/tax advisers are only human. They face personal challenges just like everyone else. Ideally, no matter how you’re feeling, there is always someone ready to listen. The effect on “burnout” as a formal clinical measure is less often reported directly, but many studies and vendor/consultant case studies use proxies (for example reduced hours of routine work). For the accountancy profession, it is a relentless sprint. While the “January crunch” is often discussed over coffee in hushed tones, new data suggests that the mental health toll on the industry has moved beyond seasonal stress into the territory of systemic burnout.

According to latest research from Caba, the occupational charity for the ICAEW, ACCA regimes and studies by the Accountancy Today, the true anatomy of the January crunch reveals a perfect storm of professional and personal pressures. The typical January post-holiday backlog reflects a large accumulation of work after the festive period. Institutional reports (EU‑OSHA, OECD) and professional bodies (ACCA, ICAEW) in the UK are seriously reviewing digitalisation and wellbeing to mitigate stress. Consulting‑firm studies and client case studies from Big Four and strategy consultancies (McKinsey, BCG, Deloitte, PwC, KPMG) have documented impacts on workload, cycle times some of which led to staff resignations. The case studies in the UK highlight a significant barrier to seeking help: 63% of accountants would be reluctant to seek support for mental health issues and a staggering 68% would keep quiet about personal financial struggles. Studies show how part of the reasons for this silence are rooted in professional anxiety. The fact that a high proportion of accountants report feelings of burnout in January should be a wake-up call for the audit profession. When burnout is “normalised”, it ceases to be managed as a risk and starts being accepted as a cost of doing business.

In most audit firms employing Gen Z semi seniors, this leads to high turnover, lower productivity, and, ultimately, a talent drain in an already tight labour market. The usual question arises – when the workload cannot be reduced or new staff sourced – can AI come to the rescue? Yes this may be the case with some precaution, although one must limit the AI’s retrieval corpus to up‑to‑date primary law (EUR‑Lex, national consolidation, official guidance, regulator Q&As), approved internal policies, and vetted secondary sources. It is generally advisable to treat AI as a decision‑support tool, and never as an autonomous legal adviser. To prevent increased legal risk, combine AI with strict data governance, curated legal sources, human review by qualified staff, conservative output behaviour (flag uncertainty, cite sources), formal validation and monitoring, and clear operational rules about when to escalate to lawyers or regulators. Use AI for triage, draft summaries, checklists, or extraction of obligations – not as the final legal decision-maker. Monitor metrics such as number of compliance errors traced to AI use, user override rate, and user satisfaction/trust. Train users on what AI can/cannot do, how to read provenance, and the organisation’s policies. Require staff to record when AI was used to develop advice and confirm they obtained necessary legal sign‑off. Ensure the AI environment complies with GDPR and confidentiality rules. Use trusted cloud deployments for sensitive client or personal data and avoid sending confidential documents to public API services without contractual safeguards.

Is there an audit trail and incident response process for AI‑related errors? Has the system been validated against known cases? Have the potential privacy and AI Act/GDPR implications been assessed and appropriately mitigated? As always audit partners must ascertain if any legal/regulatory liability and insurance been clarified. IT is their duty to assess whether the AI system qualifies as “high‑risk” under the EU AI Act and implement required risk‑management measures if so.

Burnout among accountants is a significant issue, with studies suggesting that up to 99% experience some level of burnout due to high workloads and job-related pressures, particularly among auditors, tax consultants, and corporate accountants.

In conclusion, one should consult professional‑liability insurers to confirm whether use of AI changes coverage and adjust disclosures/controls as required. It is recommended to establish an audit trail and an incident response procedure for AI-related errors.