With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that no discovery has been done on these issues and that Mr. Schmidt has not yet been deposed. 7 . We likewise find Mr. Schmidt's reliance on Preis v. Durio, 94-468 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94), 649 So.2d 600, misplaced. In the Preis case, the court held that "[a]n attorney representing a party in a marital dispute where there are children does not owe a legal duty to the adversarial spouse-joint custodian of the children to avoid discussing the case with the children against the will of the adversarial spouse, when the defendant-attorney has the consent of the client spouse who is the other joint custodian of the children.” Preis, 94-468 at p. 6, 649 So.2d at 603. In so holding, the court cited "[t]he [well established] rule that an attorney does not owe a legal duty to his client's 004) (<HOLDING>); City of Fairbanks v. Rice, 20 P.3d 1097, 1107

A: holding statements regarding plaintiffs unsatisfactory job performance not defamatory per se
B: holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment
C: holding that news broadcast which fell within several of the historical categories for per se defamation was not defamatory per se where plaintiffs identity was not shown on its face
D: holding that a statement that plaintiff had engaged in an extramarital affair was defamatory per se under colorado law
D.