Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on the grounds that the non-diverse employees of a diverse defendant had not been negligent). In this case, any finding of fraudulent joinder as to Pierce & Associates is necessarily dispositive, in part or, more likely, in whole, of the liability of U.S. Bank, because Plaintiffs allege the law firm acted at all times as the agent of Firstar, U.S. Bank’s predecessor in inter est. See Complaint ¶ 22. See also United States v. 7108 West Grand Ave., Chicago, Ill, 15 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir.1994) (“[A]n attorney’s errors and misconduct are attributed to his clients. The clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds.”); Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 212 Ill.2d 1, 287 Ill.Dec. 510, 816 N.E.2d 272, 279 (2004) . Given that the alleged misconduct of Pierce &
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a client is vicariously liable for an attorneys allegedly intentional tortious conduct if the attorney acted as the clients agent
B. holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client
C. holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case
D. holding that licensed agent is in privity with principal for purpose of establishing identity of parties record establishes classic employeremployee relationship in which corporation is vicariously liable for conduct of agent
E. holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.