Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence available to prove such intent. See id. at 578 (noting the problems associated with allowing extrinsic evidence to prove testator intent). In cases involving depletion of the decedent’s estate due to negligent tax planning, however, the personal representative need not prove how the decedent intended to distribute the estate; rather, the representative need only demonstrate that the decedent intended to minimize tax liability for the estate as a whole. Additionally, while the interests of the decedent and a potential beneficiary may conflict, a decedent’s interests should mirror those of his estate. Thus, the conflicts that concerned us in Barcelo are not present in malpractice suits brought on behalf of the estate. See Nevin v. Union Trust Co., 726 A.2d 694, 701 (Me.1999) . We note, however, that beneficiaries often
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the better rule is to allow only personal representatives not beneficiaries to sue for estateplanning malpractice because what may be good for one beneficiary is not necessarily good for the estate as a whole
B. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause
C. holding forbearance to sue is a good consideration for a promise founded thereon and it is only essential that the claim be asserted in good faith
D. holding that a legal malpractice claim arising from errors by an attorney in rendering estateplanning services is properly brought by the personal representative of the estate when excess estate taxes are paid by the estate in contravention of the decedents intended estate plan
E. holding that beneficiaries could not sue attorneys of the trust for legal malpractice because beneficiaries are not direct recipients of the attorneys services
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.