With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The appellate level of the State Bar Court of California has also consistently adhered to the "long established principle that it is inappropriate to use the same conduct relied on to establish .a disciplinary Vlolatlon to establish an aggrava- © ting circumstance." In re Silverton, Nos. 95-O-10829, 99-O-13251, 2004 WL 60709, at *16 (Review Dep't of the State Bar Ct. of Cal., Jan. 6, 2004); see also In re Sampson, No. 90-O-17703, 1994 WL 454888, at *12 (Review Dep't of the State Bar Ct. of Cal., Aug. 16, 1994) ("It appears that :the hearing judge used the same conduct constituting the ... violation as a finding in aggravation of the same charge. This is inappropriate."); In re Burckhardt, No. 88-0-15079, 1991 WL 16498, at *6 (Review Dep't of the State Bar Ct. of Cal., Feb. 4, 1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Trillo, No. 85-0-13726, 1990 WL 92610,

A: holding that the filing of frivolous claims could not form the basis for a finding of retaliatory conduct
B: holding that a finding of bad faith is necessary to invoke the spoliation doctrine
C: holding that because a finding of aggravation for conduct involving bad faith dishonesty and concealment reflected the same conduct  that is properly the basis for the finding of the violation the finding in aggravation was duplicative
D: holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
C.