With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Respondent nevertheless engaged in the practice of law in this state. We agree with the Hearing Panel’s consideration of aggravating factors, namely Respondent’s lack of cooperation in the disciplinary investigation, failure to answer the formal charges, failure to appear at the disciplinary hearing, and prior disciplinary history. In re Hall, 333 S.C. 247, 251, 509 S.E.2d 266, 268 (1998) (“An attorney’s failure to answer charges or appear to defend or explain alleged misconduct indicates an obvious disinterest in the practice of law. Such an attorney is likely to face the most severe sanctions because a central purpose of the disciplinary process is to protect the public from unscrupulous and indifferent lawyers.”); In re Jacobsen, 386 S.C. 598, 607, 690 S.E.2d 560, 564 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Respondent presented no mitigating evidence.

A: recognizing disciplinary history is an appropriate consideration in imposing sanctions
B: holding that clear and convincing evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to impose sanctions in disciplinary proceedings
C: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history
D: holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time
A.