With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Seitzinger alleges that the facts of her case fit into Midgley’s second category: namely, that this is an “extraordinary” case where she was prevented from timely asserting her rights because of gross attorney error. The usual rule is that attorney errors will be attributed to their clients. See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 252, 105 S.Ct. 687, 83 L.Ed.2d 622 (1985) (client may be penalized for counsel’s tardy filing of tax return); Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 633, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (client must suffer the consequence of dismissal of his lawsuit where his attorney failed to attend pretrial conference). Nonetheless, some courts have found it appropriate to toll the statute of limitations in cases of attorney mistake. See, e.g., Cantrell, 60 F.3d at 1180 (<HOLDING>). In Burton v. United States Postal Serv., 612

A: holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling
B: holding that where client was abandoned by attorney due to attorneys mental illness equitable tolling may be appropriate
C: holding that 29 cfr  1614105a1 is subject to equitable tolling based on mental illness
D: holding that equitable tolling may be available where the attorneys behavior was outrageous or the attorneys incompetence was extraordinary
B.