Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that a nonspeculative reduction in the attorney’s income would result from the implementation of a new Social Security regulation. In each of these cases it would be anomalous for the attorney to be able to bring suit to challenge the statute or regulation, instead of a person protected by the constitutional provision or law asserted as the basis for the challenge — the injured worker, the medical malpractice plaintiff, or the Social Security claimant. Of course it may be harder for such a person to bring suit than for a lawyer to bring suit, since lawyers are often better off than their potential clients, and they are after all lawyers. But it still can’t be that lawyers would generally have standing in such situations. See Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 1408-09 (3d Cir.1997)  Cf. Lambert v. Turner, 525 F.2d 1101, 1102-03
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
B. holding that attorney and law firm lacked prudential standing to challenge a state statute which provided that a wrongful death action could only be brought on behalf of a fetus if the fetus was born alive and noting that we can not help but wonder how the lawyer and law firm plaintiffs can seriously challenge the district courts ruling as to their lack of standing
C. holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing
D. holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant
E. holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.