After the circumstances set forth in Question 12, (1) Jennifer sent a new confidential memo to the partners stating that all new clients were required to sign an engagement letter acknowledging that any securities opinion had to be countersigned by Jennifer, (2) a new client, XYZ Corporation, signed such a letter, and (3) Herschel, another securities litigation partner, later incorrectly advised XYZ Corporation that such counter-signature was not required. This time, Herschel has not only given an incorrect opinion to a client, without Jennifer's review, that certain activities in promoting the business will not violate Section 5 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, but, in Jennifer's absence, also told the client incorrectly that he had the power to countermand the engagement letter. What is the most likely outcome in a dispute with the client over whether the firm is bound to the opinion? A. Firm wins, because Herschel violated his fiduciary obligation to his partners. B. Firm wins, because it has taken reasonable efforts to advise the client of Herschel's lack of authority. C. Firm wins, because Herschel had no apparent authority in light of the engagement letter. D. XYZ Corporation wins, because Herschel had apparent authority with respect to the terms of the engagement. E. XYZ Corporation wins, because Herschel was negligent in not having the opinion reviewed by Jennifer