by the relationship and not by the RPCs. Id. at 260-62. ¶26 The Hizey decision, however, addressed application of the RPCs only in the legal malpractice setting. The court did not answer whether the court would also separate the ethics and potential civil liability in other suits, such as fee disgorgement, breach of contract, or disqualification motions. Indeed, the court noted that other courts had “relied on the CPR [Code of Professional Responsibility] and RPC for reasons other than to find malpractice liability and our holding today does not alter or affect such use.” Hizey, 119 Wn.2d at 264 (citing Singleton v. Frost, 108 Wn.2d 723, 742 P.2d 1224 (1987) (relying on disciplinary rule to determine reasonableness of attorney fees); Eriks v. Denver, 118 Wn.2d 451, 824 P.2d 1207 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Walsh v. Brousseau, 62 Wn. App. 739, 815 P.2d
holding that first aid does not include cpr or any other skilled treatment that requires training holding violation of cpr is a question of law not fact holding it is a question of fact holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury