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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: bar, of rule 32:1.3 for dilatory handling of estates despite notices and inquiries from beneficiaries). Johnson's failure to respond to Neefs phone calls and requests for information, failure to notify Neef of what progress had or had not been made on the case, and failure to provide notice of termination, contact information, return of paperwork, or a return of unearned fees violated rules 32:1.4 (duty to keep client informed) and 32:1.16(d) (duty to protect client's interests upon termination of representation). See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Carpenter, 781 N.W.2d 263, 268 (Iowa 2010) (finding attorney's neglect of client's legal matters and failure to keep clients informed about their cases violated rules 32:1.3, 32:1.4, and 32:1.16(d)); Earley, 774 N.W.2d at 307-08 (<HOLDING>). Johnson also violated rule 32:8.4(c) (duty
Holding statements: (A) holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 13 when he did not prosecute his clients claim after filing a complaint or protect against expiration of the statute of limitation for his clients complaint and caused discovery sanctions to be filed for his failure to respond to discovery requests (B) holding an attorney violated his duty of candor to the tribunal by changing his clients interrogatory answers without the clients knowledge (C) holding attorney violated rules 3214 and 32116d when he failed to keep his clients informed about the status of their cases failed to communicate with his clients after their repeated requests for information and failed to account for or return client money from retainer fees (D) holding that a law firm receiving funds for a client was not an initial transferee because the firms role with respect to the received money was to accept the funds in settlement of its clients case deposit the money in trust keep as fees only what the the clients agreed to and pay the rest to the bank on behalf of the clients in satisfaction of their loan (E) holding that equitable tolling applied when the attorney informed his client there was no such thing as a oneyear filing deadline and consistently lied to his client and the clients wife

Output: holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 13 when he did not prosecute his clients claim after filing a complaint or protect against expiration of the statute of limitation for his clients complaint and caused discovery sanctions to be filed for his failure to respond to discovery requests

Input: Consider Input: n. 7, 713 P.2d at 960 n. 7 (1986) ("Counsel has no right to cast upon the court the burden of searching through a voluminous record to find the ground of an objection. It is counsel's duty to cite accurately the portions of the record supporting counsel's position." (Internal citation omitted.)); Hoang, 93 Hawaii at 336, 3 P.3d at 602 (2000) ("Because the factual basis of [appellant's] alleged point of error is not part of the record on appeal, this court has no basis upon which to rule on the merits of his claim." (Citation omitted.)) Even if Appellants' allegations of fraudulent inducement are taken at face value, they fall short of "clear and convincing" evidence of fraudulent inducement. Honolulu Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Murphy, 7 Haw. App. 196, 202, 753 P.2d 807, 812 (1988) (<HOLDING>). At a more fundamental level, they do not
Holding statements: (A) holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof (B) holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied (C) holding that the standard of proving fraudulent inducement with respect to written contracts is extremely high and a written contract will be cancelled only in a clear ease of fraud supported by clear and convincing evidence citations omitted (D) holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence (E) holding clear and convincing standard to prove fraud or fraudulent intent and preponderance of the evidence to prove other elements under 727

Output: holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof

Input: Consider Input: truthful. Assuming for the sake of argument that the defendant's contention is correct, we nevertheless observe that the trial court found in the four factors noted above ample particularized guarantees of trustworthiness of Bryar's statements to Trottier and Bollerud, and we conclude that this finding was not clearly erroneous. See Cook, 135 N.H. at 662, 610 A.2d at 805. For this reason, we hold that the admission of Bryar's statements incriminating the defendant did not violate the defendant's right of confrontation under part I, article 15 of the State Constitution. Because part I, article 15 affords this defendant at least as much protection from an unconstitutional admission of hearsay as the sixth amendment, cf. White v. Illinois, U.S. , n.8, 112 S. Ct. 736, 742 n.8 (1992) (<HOLDING>), we need not embark on an independent federal
Holding statements: (A) holding that no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception like that for coconspirators under rule 801d2e internal quotation marks omitted (B) holding that statements within a firmly rooted hearsay exception do not violate the confrontation clause (C) holding that rule 8034 hearsay exception is firmly rooted for sixth amendment purposes (D) holding codefendants confession incriminating defendant was not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule under roberts standard (E) holding that the exception is not firmly rooted
Output: holding that no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception like that for coconspirators under rule 801d2e internal quotation marks omitted