With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". forms for them to sign when there was no settlement.” Id. Underwood was suspended for one year. It is clear and convincing that Gex did not tell Cromer the truth about Cromer’s case. There were no actual offers of settlement or releases. In paying Cromer money that supposedly came from the insurance companies, Gex actively misrepresented matters to his client. Like Underwood, Gex also violated rule 8.4(c). III. DOES THE FAILURE TO ALLOW APPELLANT RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION VIOLATE THE 5th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? Gex argues that he was denied his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because he could not confront Cromer at the Tribunal hearing on Cromer’s case. He cites Netterville v. Mississippi State Bar, 397 So.2d 878 (Miss.1981), (<HOLDING>) in support. The Bar argues that Rule 5.6 of

A: holding that while the investigatory hearing is not a full evidentiary hearing it nevertheless must be expanded to permit the accused attorney to cross examine witnesses
B: holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources
C: holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses
D: holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue
A.