Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for a limited reach. The statute provides for a two-year statute of limitations not merely for ‘an act or omission of the attorney’ ... but rather for ‘an act or omission in the performance of professional services.’” Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the court held that a plaintiffs claims against a law firm for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with economic expectancy, inducement of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of assets, and conspiracy to breach a fiduciary duty were not subject to the two-year limitations period under 735 ILCS 5/13-214.3(b) where the law firm had never undertaken to render professional services to the plaintiff. See 2004 WL 526739, at **3-4. Cf. Sinclair v. Bloom, No. 94 C 4465, 1995 WL 348127, at *4 (N.D.Ill. June 8, 1995) . Finally, in Polsky v. BDO Seidman the court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an attorney for a debtor owes a general fiduciary duty to preserve the bankruptcy estate
B. holding that an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for one of the parties in a pending case is final and therefore immediately appealable by the attorney
C. holding that an attorney is a fiduciary under section 523a4
D. holding that claims against an attorney for undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty were governed by the twoyear limitations period under 735 ilcs 513  2143b where the defendant was acting as an attorney for the plaintiffs when the misconduct at issue occurred
E. holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.