With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". BOE that relators’ attorney fees would be paid for if the charges against relators did not result in convictions. Additionally, there is evidence in the record alleging that an assistant county prosecutor told the BOE that “the county would only pay the indicted employees’ legal fees if they were found not guilty.” {¶ 34} We do not go so far as to find that pursuant to R.C. 305.14(A), the prosecutor and board of commissioners automatically have a duty to file an application in the trial court when a conflict of interest exists. Rather, we follow the Ohio Supreme Court’s guidance on this issue, and hold that failure to make the application pursuant to R.C. 305.14(A), under the facts of the instant case, constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Stamps, 42 Ohio St.3d at 167, 538 N.E.2d 105 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 35} Respondents have a clear legal duty

A: holding that trial counsel did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance where appellant failed to specify the evidence which might have been revealed if the continuance had been granted and counsel had been afforded the opportunity to investigate further
B: holding that notwithstanding language of statute authorizing appointment of a county architect by the board of commissioners of cook county such appointee is not an officer where he has no stated salary but is employed on a commission basis and where his work is generally casual and not continuous even though he is frequently referred to in the records of the county board as an officer
C: holding that the seminatore court did not find that the prosecutor and board of county commissioners had a duty to apply for appointment of special counsel under the statute    thus while it does not find a duty on the prosecutors part seminatore does recognize mandamus as a means to compel an application for special counsel where an abuse of discretion has been shown emphasis sic
D: holding that an indigent litigants right to appointed counsel has been recognized to exist only where she may be deprived of her physical liberty that the constitution does not require the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in every parentalstatus termination proceeding and that the decision whether due process calls for the appointment of counsel is to be answered in the first instance by the trial court subject to appellate review
C.