NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Arthur Andersen's indictment on federal criminal charges Thursday renewed investor jitters about the reliability of corporate financial statements and left others wondering about the future shape of the accounting industry.

A handful of companies have already decided to sever ties with Andersen, one of the "top five" U.S. accounting firms, indicted by the Justice Department Thursday on obstruction of justice charges for shredding Enron-related documents. Andersen clients hope breaking ties will limit the fallout from a possible conviction. Sara Lee Corp., Brunswick Corp. and Northeast Utilities are just some that dropped Andersen Friday.

Now, experts are debating whether accounting firms should continue to play the dual role of consultant and auditor to the same clients in the future -- a structure many say compromised Andersen's independence when it learned of accounting problems at the now bankrupt energy trader, Enron, one of its biggest clients.

Investigators are examining the accounting practices by Enron executivesin which losses were hidden and profits inflated, leading to the company's rapid collapse and bankruptcy and wiping out the retirement savings of thousands.

"The job of the auditor is to make sure that the business practices of its client are legitimate, and that the financial reporting is legitimate. So there has to be a hard and fast law that you cannot be both a consultant and an auditor at the same time," said former New York City Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who managed the city's nearly $90 billion employee pension fund.

New York's fund lost $49 million as a result of Enron's collapse.

But also at stake is investor confidence in the balance sheets of Andersen's 2,200 clients. Though the Securities and Exchange Commission has granted those companies a 60-day window in which to file unaudited reports, investors are already taking a harder look at the bottom line.

"The market has continued to be troubled by three E's: earnings, economy and Enron-itis," said Alan Ackerman, market strategist at Fahnestock & Co. "Earnings clearly now, following the Enron situation and the indictment of Arthur Andersen, will be questioned not only in terms of numbers that are presented, but how those numbers were arrived at by the accountants."

Hevesi agreed, but noted that Enron and Andersen serve as a reminder to long-term investors of the importance of due diligence, which should always include a look at a firm's track record.

"There's going to be the regular scrutiny and judgment of whether a particular company is worth investing in," Hevesi said. "We don't look at the short-term profitability. We look at the long-term integrity. That has to be part of the mix of any review."

Nevertheless, experts agree some sort of change in the structure of the accounting industry is on the horizon.

Marcel Kahan, a professor of corporate and securities law at New York University Law School, believes the industry is moving toward a separation of consulting and auditing work because the Andersen situation proved that it creates too cozy a relationship between auditor and client.

"People who do the audits are put in the position of selling accounting services," Kahan said. "And you always want to be nice to your client. In the auditor's mind, the client is still management."

Kahan understands the accounting industry's argument that consulting is where the real profits are, rather than auditing, but he rejects that as a reason for combining the two. With just five major accounting firms and more than 10,000 clients among them, auditing offers more than enough profitability for firms to make a living, he said.

However, Art Bowman, publisher of Bowman's Accounting Report newsletter, believes separating auditing and consulting businesses would only cause more confusion.

His answer is to continue to permit accounting firms to do both consulting and auditing work, but with more stringent regulation. Auditors are already familiar with their clients' businesses, he said, which makes it easier for them to double as consultants for some things.

"It's an advantage for the client to have the auditor, who knows more about the business than anyone, to do the consulting," Bowman said. "He already knows the business. Why not do the consulting?"

But companies would have to ante up to make sure enough safeguards are in place to prevent a repeat of Enron, he said.

Nevertheless, Bowman believes an Andersen bankruptcy likely because of lost confidence in the firm. It's now a question of damage control and future improvements.

"The firm still is working, is generating revenue and paying its employees on a regular basis," Bowman said of Andersen. "But with this trend of clients leaving, an SEC investigation, the ongoing indictment and billions of dollars in potential liability, this firm, as we know it, is done. The question is, how do we get from here to there?"

One solution Bowman sees is for industries to set up their own financial services board, that are familiar with the nuances of each particular business. Energy traders, for instance might have their own board while retail might have another.

Whatever form corporate accounting takes in the future, its likely to cost companies more as they install safety measures and protect themselves from liability, said Debra Jeter, an accounting professor at Vanderbilt University.

"I do think it is going to be more costly in the future," Jeter said. "In some sense that's unfortunate. We don't want to see businesses discouraged by high audit fees, but it's going to be a necessary evil in order for audit firms to do their jobs right."

But whatever form the changes take, and whether they are accomplished through legislation or SEC regulation, investors and executives are anxious to move on.

"We are reaching a low point in the history of the profession," Bowman said. "And as we eventually emerge from this it will be with a better profession, and a better financial market."