With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in a matter in which neither alone could serve the client as proficiently. Id. 1.5 emt. The referral agreement between Hollender and Eggen complied, at least in part, with Minn.R.Prof. Conduct 1.5(e). The record demonstrates: (1) Hollender met with the client, evaluated internal reports from an expert witness, referred the medical malpractice case to Eggen, and consulted on the case; (2) by letter to Eggen, Hollender confirmed his entitlement to a referral fee of one-third the amount of Eggen’s fees; (3) Eggen advised the client in writing that he would be consulting with Hollender on the ease, and that he and Hollender would share the attorneys’ portion of any recovery; (4) the client did not object to the fee as a complete defense in a civil suit. See Minn.R.Prof. Conduct Scope (<HOLDING>). While the professional rules may evidence

A: holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability
B: recognizing professional rules do not augment substantive legal duties or extradisciplinary consequences
C: recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings
D: recognizing professional rules are not intended to run to personal benefit of attorneys adversaries
B.