the “lawyer and investigator had no authority ... to allow the vehicle to be destroyed, or to abandon a potential products liability claim.” Whether and to what extent an attorney-client relationship is present is a question of fact. See Dietz v. Doe, 131 Wash.2d 835, 935 P.2d 611, 615 (1997); Admiral Merchants Motor Freight Inc. v. O’Connor & Hannan, 494 N.W.2d 261, 265 (Minn.1992). In identifying the conduct of the first attorney and the investigator as a basis of its order, the circuit court implicitly found that an attorney-client relationship, or some other fiduciary relation, existed between Stender and her first attorney and that the relationship included representation with respect to the accident. See generally Otaka, Inc. v. Klein, 71 Haw. 376, 382, 791 P.2d 713, 717 (1990) (<HOLDING>). We review circuit court findings of fact
recognizing special trust and confidence that must exist between attorney and client citations omitted holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 holding that there is no right to a meaningful attorneyclient relationship holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify recognizing that where there is no express attorneyclient relationship there may exist nevertheless a fiduciary obligation or an implied professional relation citations brackets and ellipsis omitted