Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
we have focused on whether the members of the district attorney's office would stand to receive personal benefit or detriment from the outcome of a case in order to determine whether the office was "interested" in the case in such a way as to require disqualification. Id. at 711. Examples of such a level of "interest" would be a case in which attorneys in the office were material witnesses in a case, Pease v. Dist. Court, 708 P.2d 800, 802 (Colo.1985), or a case in which an attorney in the office had an attorney-client relationship with the defendant prior to the attorney's employment as a prosecutor. People v. Stevens, 642 P.2d 39, 40 (Colo. App. 1981). An "appearance of impropriety" can also be the basis for disqualification. People v. Garcia, 698 P.2d 801, 806 (Colo. 1985) ; People v. County Court, 854 P.2d 1341, 1344
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel
B. holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case
C. holding that a trial court may disqualify the district attorney where a member of his staffs testimony in a criminal case created an appearance of impropriety
D. holding that trial court erred in sanctioning attorney under rule 13 when only pleading motion or other paper attorney signed was his notice of appearance which was not challenged as sanctionable by opposing parties
E. holding a person who is not a member of the bar of any court  may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in the district court or in this court as counsel for others
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.