With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Senate receded because the “provision is not intended to create a new cause of action,” but “is merely intended-to provide protection for Department of Defense lawyers similar to [the medical malpractice protection] provided for [government] doctors in [10 U.S.C. § 1089].” Id.; United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 170 n. 11, 111 S.Ct. 1180, 113 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991) (explaining that § 1054 “was enacted to shield Defense Department attorneys from [personal liability for] claims of legal malpractice”). It is thus clear that § 1054 allows injured parties to pursue certain legal malpractice claims against the government without running afoul of the FTCA’s exception for claims premised on negligent or wrongful misrepresentations. See Devlin v. United States, 352 F.3d 525, 536 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Mossow by Mossow v. United States, 987 F.2d

A: holding that the constitution can limit the discretion of federal officials such that the ftcas discretionary function exception will not apply
B: recognizing that  1054 exempts legal malpractice claims from the ftcas misrepresentation exception
C: holding that there would be no exception to american rule on attorney fees for legal malpractice claims
D: holding that legal malpractice claims are not assignable
B.