Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Appendix at 200. On the other hand, if the arbitrator determines that the March 2002 claim qualifies as a “controver sy or claim arising out of or relating to services ... hereafter provided by us to you or at your request,” resolution of the claim is governed by the ADR provision. Id. In the event that the mediation required under the ADR provision is unsuccessful and the parties proceed with arbitration, the arbitrator will be required to rule upon Parkevich’s claims related to the March 2002 sale of the property. In doing so, the arbitrator would have to rule upon Parkevich’s claims, if they are presented, that the Engagement Letter violated the Ind. Rules of Professional Conduct and is against public policy. See, e.g., Trotter v. Nelson, 684 N.E.2d 1150, 1153 n. 4 (Ind. 1997) ; W.R. Grace and Co. v. Local Union 759,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy
B. holding that the disciplinary rules of the code of professional responsibility are not laws of the state of texas for purposes of statute which excludes the admission of evidence obtained in violation of law
C. holding that an agreement in violation of explicit judicial declarations of indiana public policy in the rules of professional conduct are akin to contravening a statute and such agreements are unenforceable
D. holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements
E. holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.