With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3.370(9), this Court adopts the recommendation of the Board given: 1) the severity of Reinhart’s violations, 2) his prior disciplinary record, and 3) the fact that he has failed to respond to any prior correspondence. Further, this Court has imposed disbarment for similar infractions. See Kentucky Bar Association v. Kessen, 311 S.W.3d 249 (Ky.2010) (adopting Board’s recommendation for permanent disbarment for converting $7,650 in payment from a client when those checks should have been delivered to his law firm); Kentucky Bar Association v. Mathews, 308 S.W.3d 194 (Ky.2010) (disbarring attorney for promising to set up annuity for client from settlement proceeds but instead retaining funds and failing to respond to the KBA); Kentucky Bar Association v. Watson, 875 S.W.2d 96 (Ky.1994) (<HOLDING>). Agreeing that the Board’s recommended

A: holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorneys repeated material misrepresentations
B: holding that permanent disbarment was appropriate for failure to remit 2000 in settlement funds to client and failing to answer the charges
C: holding that a lawyers knowing misappropriation of funds whether belonging to a client or a third party warrants disbarment except in the presence of extraordinary factors in mitigation
D: holding that suspension for fortyfive days with requirement of paying restitution of 47950 to client plus costs was appropriate disciplinary sanction for attorneys conduct relating to representation of client in divorce action in failing to act with diligence failing to keep client informed failing to adequately explain matters to client and failing to return unearned advancefee upon termination of representation and for attorneys conduct in failing to respond to two letters from office of bar counsel seeking explanation of inconsistencies in attorneys response to bar complaint
B.