Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
relations cases are allowed to file separate common law contract actions to recover attorney fees, however, they can file actions against their former clients as long as 10 years after the domestic relations matters were resolved. (See 735 ILCS 5/13 — 206 (West 1992).) Plainly, if attorneys are allowed to file separate common law contract actions to recover attorney fees, it thwarts the purpose and intent of section 508 to have all issues involving attorney fees in domestic relations cases decided promptly. We must also bear in mind that before section 508 was enacted, generally an attorney could not seek or obtain a judgment for attorney fees against her own client in a pending domestic relations case. (Cf. Seniuta v. Seniuta (1977), 49 Ill. App. 3d 329, 331, 364 N.E.2d 327, 328 .) Section 508 made an utter change. Section
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case
B. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider an award of sanctions entered against attorney because the notice of appeal did not provide that attorney was appealing in his own name
C. holding that an attorney could obtain a judgment for attorney fees against his own client in the divorce division of the circuit court of cook county where there was no objection
D. holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term
E. recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.