With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". violated professional probation; and refused to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings. Respondent has not participated in Minnesota’s disciplinary proceedings, and we therefore deem her misconduct conclusively established. See Roff, 581 N.W.2d at 34-35 (finding that an attorney’s misconduct was conclusively established by another state’s final adjudication where the attorney failed to participate in Minnesota’s disciplinary proceedings). We have held that “misappropriation of client funds is particularly serious misconduct and usually warrants disbarment absent clear and convincing evidence of substantial mitigating factors.” In re Rhodes, 740 N.W.2d 574, 579 (Minn.2007) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord In re Fairbairn, 802 N.W.2d 734, 742-47 (Minn.2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Rooney, 709 N.W.2d 263, 272 (Minn.2006)

A: holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor
B: holding that an attorney should not be disbarred for misappropriation of client funds where there were no aggravating factors the attorneys clients did not suffer actual harm and the attorney established several mitigating factors
C: holding that a client is vicariously liable for an attorneys allegedly intentional tortious conduct if the attorney acted as the clients agent
D: holding that in a case where a suspended attorney commingled funds between his attorney trust account and attorney business account and the funds could not be traced claimants state of new jersey and clients security fund reached an amicable agreement to divide the funds equally
B.