What Verdica's 840 score means for Gilliam Bell Moser LLP
Gilliam Bell Moser LLP's composite score of 840 out of 850 places the firm in Verdica's "excellent" band (800–850), indicating strong regulatory standing and compliance performance. This score is built on data from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) audit findings and Maryland state board registration records—the primary public sources that track accounting firm quality and conduct.
A score in this range reflects a firm with a solid licensing foundation, a clean or near-clean PCAOB inspection history, and minimal disciplinary action on record. For business owners, auditors, and finance leaders evaluating an accounting provider, this score suggests low regulatory risk. However, the score does not measure service quality, pricing, or client satisfaction; it specifically reflects compliance posture and regulatory oversight findings. Readers should view this as one input among several when selecting an accounting partner—alongside references, engagement terms, and industry specialization.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials: 850. This perfect sub-score indicates that Gilliam Bell Moser LLP holds valid, current registration with Maryland's accounting board and meets all credential requirements for the services it provides. In practical terms, the firm is legally authorized to offer accounting and audit services in the state with no licensing defects or lapsed registrations flagged by regulators.
PCAOB Record: 835. The PCAOB conducts regular inspections of accounting firms that audit public companies and broker-dealers. This sub-score reflects the findings from those inspections—typically focused on audit quality, working paper documentation, independence compliance, and financial reporting accuracy. A score of 835 indicates that PCAOB inspectors identified few or no significant deficiencies in the firm's audit procedures or quality control systems during recent reviews. Firms with lower PCAOB scores often have documentation gaps, failed independence checks, or material audit findings that regulators view as systemic weaknesses.
Disciplinary: 834. This score reflects the firm's record with state and federal disciplinary bodies. It covers substantiated complaints, sanctions, license restrictions, and settled enforcement actions. A score of 834 suggests minimal disciplinary history—the firm likely has no active sanctions, no revoked licenses, and few formal complaints on record with regulators. Lower disciplinary scores typically indicate unresolved complaints, ethical violations, or repeated regulatory findings.
What regulators in MD track for accounting providers
Maryland's accounting board oversees initial licensing, continuing education requirements, and professional conduct standards for CPAs and accounting firms. The board maintains a public registry and investigates complaints related to incompetence, dishonesty, or breach of professional standards.
The PCAOB, a federally chartered nonprofit under SEC oversight, inspects registered accounting firms annually or triennially depending on public company client volume. PCAOB inspections examine audit work papers, testing of financial statement assertions, assessment of management fraud risk, and compliance with auditing standards. Common findings include inadequate testing of revenue transactions, weak controls over significant accounts, and insufficient documentation of auditor judgments. Deficiencies are categorized by severity; repeated or systemic issues can trigger enforcement action.
Both regulators publish inspection reports and disciplinary decisions. Verdica aggregates these findings into the sub-scores above. A firm's score can move down if new PCAOB inspection results identify control weaknesses, if a complaint is upheld by state regulators, or if a license condition is imposed.
Bottom line
Gilliam Bell Moser LLP's 840 score signals a compliant, well-regulated accounting provider with strong credentials and a clean disciplinary record. For clients evaluating the firm, this score reduces regulatory risk; however, prospective clients should still verify service scope, industry experience, team qualifications, and fee structure independently before engagement.