With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court order that found him to have committed “ethical violations.” Other than making the finding of attorney misconduct, this order neither expressly identified itself as a reprimand nor imposed any sanction, monetary or otherwise. The order was, however, mailed to every court in which Butler had been admitted to practice. Thus, the injury Butler may claim is the damage widely done to his professional reputation. The question of whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, therefore, distills to the question of when, if ever, an order thus affecting an attorney’s professional reputation imposes a legally sufficient injury to support appellate jurisdiction. For the reasons detailed below, we hold that it does. Heretofore we have not directly addressed this question. See id. at 1040 (<HOLDING>). Instead, we have held that damage to an

A: recognizing that we have not decided whether an attorney is directly aggrieved by an order simply finding misconduct and declining to decide the question
B: holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct
C: holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order
D: holding that the question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction and therefore may be assumed without being decided
A.