A company's board of directors discovered evidence that someone had embezzled $30,000 from the company's treasury. The board members believed that the likely embezzler was an officer and that the officer was about to transfer the money and flee the country. However, the board recognized that there was also evidence that the embezzler was the officer's secretary who might have stolen the funds without the officer's knowledge. The company asked its attorney to obtain an emergency court order to freeze the officer's bank account until responsibility for the embezzlement could be conclusively determined. In accordance with the state's procedural rules on emergency orders, the attorney sought the court order and appeared in court without giving notice to the officer. The attorney then presented the evidence supporting the theory that the officer embezzled the money. The attorney did not present the evidence that the secretary may have been responsible. The court granted the emergency motion. Is the attorney subject to discipline? Group of answer choices Yes, because the attorney failed to disclose evidence indicating that the secretary, acting alone, may have embezzled the money on her own. No, because the attorney's duty to present contrary evidence was superseded by the company's right to confidentiality. Yes, because the attorney communicated with the court without including the opposing party. No, because the attorney has no duty to present evidence that is adverse to