Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
improved his handling of client matters, and that returning him to the practice of law with fewer organizational resources would act to the detriment, rather than the benefit, of the public. We cannot agree. This Court has cited approvingly the recommendation of the ABA Standards that a suspension should generally have a duration of at least six months. See In re Rosenfeld, 157 Vt. 537, 547, 601 A.2d 972, 978 (1991). “The rationale is that ‘short-term suspensions with automatic reinstatement are not an effective means of protecting the public’ because rehabilitation cannot be shown in less than six months and a six-month duration is needed to protect client interests.” Id. (quoting ABA Standards 2.3, Commentary). But see In re McCarty, 164 Vt. 604, 605, 665 A.2d 885, 887 (1995) (mem.) . Given respondent’s previous disciplinary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that periods of suspension of less than six months are appropriate in some circumstances
B. recognizing that fiduciary duties may arise in the insurance context where circumstances are appropriate
C. recognizing that in some circumstances an afterthefact remedy under state law may be adequate
D. recognizing special circumstances exception
E. recognizing contribution in the appropriate case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.