the attorney-client relationship. And that right cannot be burdened by any claim from the lawyer for compensation or other damages. See Lawler v. Dunn, 145 Minn. 281, 284, 176 N.W. 989, 990 (1920) (“[Because] the client has the right to terminate the relation of attorney and client at any time[,] ... it follows as a natural consequence that [the client] cannot be compelled to pay damages for exercising that right .... ”); cf. Perl v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 345 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Minn.1984) (“The law treats a client’s right to an attorney’s loyalty as a kind of ‘absolute’ right in the sense that if the attorney breaches his or her fiduciary duty to the client, the client is deemed injured even if no actual loss results.”); Rice v. Perl, 320 N.W.2d 407, 411 (Minn.1982) (<HOLDING>). But see Gilchrist v. Perl, 387 N.W.2d 412,
holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm