With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fla. Bar v. Heptner, 887 So.2d 1036 (Fla.2004) (lawyer found guilty of violating rule 3-5.1(g)). With regard to counts IV and V, D’Am-brosio violated rule 4 — 1.5(f)(1) (written contingency fee agreement). Appelman’s testimony reveals that there was no written contingency agreement in either the mortgage foreclosure case or the personal injury case. Thus, the referee’s finding that D’Ambrosio violated rule 4 — 1.5(f)(1), which requires a contingency fee agreement to be in writing, is supported. In addition to these rule violations, the referee found four aggravating factors: (1) a pattern of misconduct; (2) multiple offenses; (3) a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; and (4) previous disciplinary offenses. See Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555 (Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). Further, the referee specifically found that

A: recognizing that the court sanctions more harshly for cumulative misconduct than for isolated misconduct
B: recognizing that the district court is not limited to only convictions when deciding whether to depart it may consider uncharged misconduct provided that there is sufficient proof of the misconduct
C: holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct
D: holding that something more than a mere error of law is required to constitute misconduct
A.