With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had not filed the complaint he drafted in April. Concerned about the statute of limitations, which in fact had expired, Moak signed Renee’s name to the second complaint naming Jacob and Pender as defendants and filed it on August 13, 1999. Renee was unaware of his action and had not given Moak permission to sign her name or to file the complaint. In addition, Moak had not received permission from Jacob to file a complaint against him. Moak later explained that he believed Renee would not object to his actions and that signing and filing the onsent and forging her name to the verification, Moak disregarded duties owed to his client and made false statements to the court. See Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. 42, ERs 3.3, 4.2, and 8.4(e), (d); In re Shannon, 179 Ariz. 52, 63, 876 P.2d 548, 559 (1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Mahoney, 59 Wash.2d 255, 367 P.2d 148,

A: holding that the attorney violated mlrpc 13 when he did not prosecute his clients claim after filing a complaint or protect against expiration of the statute of limitation for his clients complaint and caused discovery sanctions to be filed for his failure to respond to discovery requests
B: holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 84d by faffing to inform his client of the dismissal of his clients complaint
C: holding an attorney violated his duty of candor to the tribunal by changing his clients interrogatory answers without the clients knowledge
D: holding attorney must have express authority to settle a clients claims
C.