With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Lightning Park, Inc. v. Wise Lerman & Katz, P.C., 197 A.D.2d 52, 609 N.Y.S.2d 904, 906 (App.Div.1994). However, disqualification may be appropriate when the two matters are merely similar when “disqualification is predicated on the extensiveness of the attorney’s exposure during the prior representation to particular practices that are similar to those underlying the subsequent litigation.” Bennett Silvershein Assoc. v. Furman, 776 F.Supp. 800, 804 (S.D.N.Y.1991). See also United States Football League v. Nat’l Football League, 605 F.Supp. 1448, 1459-60 (S.D.N.Y.1985). A more general representation will only be relevant to a later litigation if “the later litigation fairly puts in issue the entire background of the movant.” United States Football, 605 F.Supp. at 1460 (<HOLDING>). The test in such circumstances “should focus

A: holding that employees claims against firm were not subject to mandatory arbitration because they did not arise out of business activities of either employee or firm but instead arose out of divorce agreement
B: holding that a law firm could intervene in a former clients action to protect its interest in its contingency fee
C: holding that a firm could be disqualified from bringing an antitrust action against a former client for which the firm had worked on various corporate and tax matters during the relevant period in question
D: holding that disbarment was proper where the attorney misappropriated payments from clients of his firm for his own use and took steps to conceal his conduct from his firm
C.