the client cannot afford new counsel satisfies the coercion statute element of "withhold[ing] testimony or information with respect to a person's legal claim -or defense.” AS 11.41.530(a)(6). 67 . ^ AS 11.41.530(a). 68 . Timothy would also have to know that Jackie was in some way dependent on him. There is no ambiguity in the record that Timothy knew Jackie was dependent on him because she could not afford a new attorney. 69 . See Mapco Express, Inc. v. Faulk, 24 P.3d 531, 538 (Alaska 2001) (electing not to remand for an explicit finding because "it [was] obvious how the trial court resolved [the] conflict" between testimony and purportedly contradictory evidence, accepting the former as credible despite the conflict); Frontier Saloon, Inc. v. Short, 557 P.2d 779, 781 (Alaska 1976) (<HOLDING>). 70 . Price v. Eastham, 128 P.3d 725, 727
holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that remand for explicit findings was not necessary where it was readily apparent that the trial  court accepted one partys testimony and rejected the other partys holding that the trial courts exclusion of evidence about a partys damages was at best harmless error because the partys method of calculating damages contravened indiana law and was without merit holding that one partys economic status may cause it to forego certain rights it would otherwise have against the other party holding that the tax court would be remiss not to consider the partys bad conduct in other cases