Before the Enron-Arthur Anderson scandal, auditors were generally considered independent and trustworthy professionals. They protected the interests of the individual investor by ensuring that companies presented financial statements that accurately reflected the financial results of operations. The auditor was tasked with presenting the facts as he saw them, regardless of the implications. When events such as the Academy Awards employed the services of a CPA, this was not done because counting ballots was a technically difficult task, but because people believed the CPA could be trusted. The recent problems experienced by many of the nation's major accounting firms "have taken away something important from all accountants: the certainty that practicing or teaching others to practice accounting is an honorable way to spend one's life (Williams 2003) ." Traditional auditing involved many time-consuming practices that increased the likelihood of detecting fraud, such as multi-location site visits, asset observation, and random sampling of non-material levels. Additionally, the audit was closely overseen by senior partners who believed the integrity of their firm was at stake in every engagement. However, as revenues from consulting services grew, the audit function became simply part of a package that accounting firms offered alongside their more profitable consulting services. As the financial benefits from audits diminished, so did the scope and depth of the procedures performed. In recent years, audits have been reduced to computer-based test checks and statistical models. Another development is that junior accountants are often given crucial supervisory roles that have traditionally been filled by senior associates who are now… in the middle of the paper… the company's books and records do not reflect the company's performance .ReferencesBloch , G. (2003, April). The effects of Sarbanes-Oxley on internal revenue controls. The CPA Journal, 73(4), 68.Colson, R. (2003, April). Maintaining public credibility: An interview with Charles D. Niemeier. The CPA Journal, 73(4), 18.Frieswick, K. (2003, July). How audits need to change. CFO, 19(9), 42-44, 46-48, 50.McConnell Jr., D.K., Banks, G.Y. (2003, September). How Sarbanes-Oxley will change the audit process. Journal of Accountancy, 196(3), 48-55. Nyberg, A. (2003, September). The True Cost of Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance. CFO, 19(11), 57.Williams, P. (2003, April). The Association for Integrity in Accounting enters the debate on accounting reforms. The CPA Journal, 73(4), 14.Wolosky, H. (2003, July). Living with Sarbanes-Oxley. The practical accountant, 36(7), 4.