You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

import of excluding those particular services in relation to the client's particular circumstance. While not required under the ethical rules, the court agrees with the ABA that the consent should be in writing. ABA Handbook 71; Nev. Rule of Prof'l Conduct 1.5 (2011) ("The scope of the representation ... shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing...."). Attorneys protect themselves by putting the agreements in writing. In the absence of an explicit written agreement, a lawyer and client may be left in a "he said, she said" dilemma if there is a dispute about the nature of the unbundling agreement. See ABA Model Rule 1.5 cmt. 2; Struffolino, supra note 17, at 234 (citing Smith v. Statewide Grievance Comm., CV94-053-98-40, 1995 WL 231108, at *1, *4 (Conn.Super.Ct.1995) (<HOLDING>)); see Cal. Ethios PRIMER 4 (malpractice
Holding statements: (A) recognizing an attorneys right to conduct the clients case with a certain degree of privacy (B) holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present (C) holding that attorneyclient privilege did not protect attorneys summaries of clients business transactions (D) holding that the defendants consent to allow the officer to search her purse by way of holding it open for the officer was for consent to a limited view of the purses interior not to surrender possession for an unrestricted search and thus the officer exceeded the scope of the defendants consent (E) holding that the clients did not consent to limited scope representation in a telephone conversation despite the attorneys testimony otherwise
Output:
(E)