The factor in the customer relationship that creates a power imbalance in favor of the customer is money. When accounting firm partners are compensated based on the number of clients, they are more likely to be willing to do anything to satisfy their clients. Auditor independence is compromising consulting fees and interpretations of GAAP will be pushed to the limit to meet client needs. Because of this power imbalance in favor of the client, many companies have gone bankrupt, each in companies where financial statement misrepresentations had occurred, billions of dollars in investments and pensions were lost, and the perception that auditors did not were independent from their customers was reduced. format. Finally, in 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes/Oxley Act in response to the massive accounting scandals. Particularly regarding the issue of the unbalanced relationship in favor of the customer, Sarbanes requires that boards of directors are independent of the organization and exercise control over the management and audit function. Additionally, the board of directors through its audit committee is the “client” of the public accounting firm. The audit committee must have at least one person who is a financial expert, the other members must be experts in accounting and financial control and must be composed of "external" directors, not members of management or who have other relationships with the organization. Meanwhile, they have supervisory responsibilities over the internal audit and financial reporting process, are informed of all significant accounting decisions made by management and changes in the system's accounting and control systems. On the audit firm's side, partners on the audit engagement, as well as other partners and managers with significant roles in the audit, must be removed from the engagement every five years. According to the case, evidence gathered by Hope supports the USSC's claim that the cost of changes to the instruments involved are simply communicated by USSC officials. “On May 3, 1982, USSC officials informed Hope that in early 1981 they had directed More, Lacey's general manager, to make some tooling changes that would result in improved efficiency in the production of USSC products. Executives then gave an elaborate and confusing explanation as to why tool changes were charged on a per-unit basis. However, the evidence supports the view that the costs were more general production expenses than non-current assets. According to generally accepted auditing standards, there are two key evaluation criteria that auditors should consider when evaluating audit evidence: general standard and fieldwork standard.