Halvorson & Co., CPAs, was hired as the auditor for Machinetron, Inc., a company that manufactured highprecision, computer-operated lathes. The owner, Al Trent, hired Halvorson to conduct the upcoming audit and assist with an initial public offering registration with the SEC. Because Machinetrons machines were large and complex, they were expensive. Each sale was negotiated individually by Trent, and the sales often transpired over several months. Improper recording of one or two machines could represent a material misstatement of the financial statements. The engagement partner in charge of the Machinetron audit was Bob Lehman, who had significant experience auditing manufacturing companies. He recognized the risk for improper recording of sales, and he insisted that his staff confirm all receivables at year end directly with customers. Lehman conducted his review of the Machinetron audit files the same day that Trent wanted to file the companys registration statement for the initial public stock offering with the SEC. Lehman saw that a receivable for a major sale at year-end was supported by a fax, rather than the usual written confirmation reply. Apparently, relations with this customer were touchy, and Trent had discouraged the audit staff from communicating with the customer. At the end of the day, there was a meeting attended by Lehman, Trent, the underwriter of the stock offering, and the companys attorney. Lehman indicated that a better form of confirmation would be required to support the receivable. After hearing this, Trent blew his stack. Machinetrons attorney offered to write a letter to Halvorson & Co. stating that in his opinion, a fax had legal substance as a valid confirmation reply. Lehman, feeling tremendous pressure, accepted this proposal and signed off on an unmodified audit opinion. Any comments to Lehman?