With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". There is in our view no intrinsic or fundamental incompatibility between the strictures currently imposed upon magistrates under R. l:15-l(c) and the more extensive restrictions of the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law. Moreover, there is no reason that the limitations of R. 1:15-1 should be deemed to be the sole and exclusive limitation upon the practice of law by members of the Judiciary. The absence of any expression of preemptive intent in the rules adopted by this Court governing the conduct of attorneys and judges, as well as the long-established policy of judicial acceptance of statutory arrangements touching upon this Court’s constitutional prerogatives, distinguish the situation here from the one involved in Wajert v. State Ethics Commission, 491 Pa. 255, 420 A2d 439 (1980) (<HOLDING>). 9 ln so ruling we acknowledge that it is

A: holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges
B: holding that pennsylvania law applied as the parties did not argue choice of law issue and implied that pennsylvania law applied by focusing their arguments on same
C: holding  1130 to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff
D: holding pennsylvania foreign attachment procedures unconstitutional
A.