Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
.4 (providing for fines and imprisonment for acting as an attorney without authority). The fourth and final factor concerns the nexus between the lack of license and the contract at issue. In the present case, there is an undeniably direct connection. The performance for which Bergantzel seeks compensation is the unauthorized practice of law, conduct that she was prohibited by law from performing. In other words, the unlicensed conduct is not a collateral matter. Weighing all the factors, we conclude that the interest in refusing to enforce the contract must prevail. The fact that Ber-gantzel has already performed and, in that sense, Mlynarik will receive a windfall, simply does not outweigh the strong public policy against the unauthorized practice of law. See Meunier, 170 So. at 578 . Accordingly, we conclude that the contract is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction
B. holding that adjuster who had fully performed could not recover his contractual contingent fee due to the strong public policy against the practice of law by laypersons
C. holding that public policy considerations require that the burden be placed on the attorney to provide for allocation of courtawarded attorneys fees in the contingent fee agreement
D. holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice
E. holding that aln attorney who is employed under a contingent fee contract and discharged pri or to the occurrence of the contingency is limited to quantum meruit recovery for the reasonable value of the services rendered to the client and may not recover the full amount of the agreed contingent fee
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.