With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". productive life and has not engaged in any professional misconduct. The affiants speak at length about Otis’s ethical behavior and his caring and responsible nature. There is no evidence that Otis has engaged in any misconduct since changing medications. The facts surrounding Otis’s mitigation have significantly changed since the time the New Hampshire Supreme Court disbarred him. Two doctors agree that Otis’s seizure disorder caused his misconduct. Otis’s misconduct has ceased since he started taking new medication in 1991, and it does not appear likely to recur. Otis continues to take his medication and sees a psychiatrist on a regular basis in Arizona. Therefore, at this time disbarment is not necessary to protect the public. See, e.g., In re Kimmel 322 N.W.2d 224,224-26 (Minn.1982) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Otis has expressed remorse for

A: holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error
B: holding defendant who pled guilty to embezzling 957000 was not precluded from contesting damages in the civil action because the amount was not a material fact of the indictment on which the guilty plea was based
C: holding that in conjunction an information with a narrow charge and an abstract of judgment indicating that a defendant pled guilty to that charge prove the precise elements of the offense to which the defendant pled guilty
D: holding that disbarment was not necessary to protect the public from an attorney who pled guilty to felonious sexual conduct involving a minor
D.