Hotz .... The Court sent the issue of breach, not the existence of the relationship, to the jury. Id. at 459, 578 S.E.2d at 715-16 (emphasis added). Thus, to the extent the Court of Appeals states in Spence III that a question of fact exists as to whether a fiduciary duty is owed in the current matter, this was error. However, we find the Court of Appeals was correct in determining summary judgment should be reversed because a question of fact exists as to whether Wingate breached a fiduciary duty to Mrs. Spence. It is undisputed that attorneys owe fiduciary duties to existing clients. In addition, fiduciary duties created by an attorney-client relationship may be breached even though the formal representation has ended. See, e.g., Burnett v. Sharp, 328 S.W.3d 594 (Tex.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals cited Rule 1.9(a) of the
holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim holding the plaintiffs claim against a former attorney for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to return the unearned portion of a retainer fee constituted a viable claim even though the attorneys representation had ended holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba