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.

irrelevant, a respondent's awareness that his conduct will violate an ethical proscription is not itself material."). Simply because an attorney's conduct is intentional or dishonest does not by itself establish a dishonest or selfish motive. See In re Alcorn, 202 Ariz. 62, 74, 42, 41 P.3d 600, 612 (2002) (respondent violated his ethical duty of candor toward the tribunal, but selfish motive was not an aggravating factor). 43 In the past, we have held that dishonest or selfish motive is an aggravating factor when an attorney received some financial gain or made misrepresentations to cover his or her negligence. These previous holdings of dishonest or selfish motive involved private attorneys, not public sector lawyers. See, e.g., Arrick, 180 Ariz. at 143, 882 P.2d at 950 (<HOLDING>); Shannon, 179 Ariz. at 69, 876 P.2d at 565
Holding statements: (A) holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person (B) holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client (C) holding that lawyer who made deliberate misrepresentations to his client to conceal his negligence and improperly retained a fee from that client had a dishonest or selfish motive (D) holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client (E) holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case
(C)

February 8, 2011 probation extension order failed to extend his probation period because the October 26, 2005 restitution order was improperly delegated to the probation officer, rather than determined by the circuit court as required by Code 19.2-305.1(D), thus any subsequent order is invalid. In relevant part, Code 19.2-305.1(D) states that "[a]t the time of sentencing, the court shall determine the amount to be repaid by the defendant and the terms and conditions thereof." The amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant is within the sole province of the circuit court to determine and that determination may not be delegated to another department of government. See Code 19.2-305.2; see also McCullough v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 811, 815, 568 S.E.2d 449, 451 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the circuit court's October 26,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the sentencing judge could consider the defendants subsequent arrest even though the charges were dismissed during sentencing (B) holding part of the sentencing phase of trial the restitution amount is determined following conviction and is a matter resting within the sole province of the sentencing judge (C) holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase (D) holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount (E) holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses
(B)

the hearing cannot result in a due process violation. Instead, our holding requires weighing a claimant's deprivation of an important private interest, such as unemployment benefits, relative to procedures used in such a deprivation. See Welch v. Thompson, 20 F.3d 636, 639 (5th Cir. 1994) (requiring that if there is a deprivation, "we must determine whether the procedures relative to that deprivation were constitutionally sufficient." (citation and footnote omitted)). {27} In New Mexico, the distinguishing factor used to determine whether there was or was not a violation of due process rights depends on whether the defective notice deprived the claimant of the ability to participate in the proceeding. See Franco v. Carlsbad Mun. Schs., 2001-NMCA-042, 6, 14, 130 N.M. 543, 28 P.3d 531 (<HOLDING>), recognized in Lobato v. N.M. Env't Dep't,
Holding statements: (A) holding that where employee was aware of dissolution abatement of claims provision applied even in absence of written notice because employee had actual notice (B) holding that district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process (C) holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously (D) holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner (E) holding that a notice recommending termination of an employee to the board without notice to the employee of employees right to attend and dispute the claims violated due process
(E)