Hawaii’s] policy to foster amicable, efficient, and inexpensive resolutions of disputes.” Id. at 566, 825 P.2d at 1056-57. “In turn, it is advantageous to judicial administration and thus to government and citizens as a whole.” Id. at 566, 825 P.2d at 1057. The Oklahoma approach outlined in Young, by contrast, runs counter to Hawaii’s public policy of favoring settlement. Having determined the appropriate rule, the court applies the rule to the facts before it. The court finds that Deer Creek has not met its burden of establishing that the dismissal of Jaress & Leong with prejudice was the result of a settlement. “The determination of the reasons underlying dismissal is a question of fact.” Haight, 244 Cal.Rptr. at 490; see also Frey v. Stoneman, 150 Ariz. 106, 722 P.2d 274, 279 (1986) (<HOLDING>). There is no admissible evidence in the record
recognizing the conflict holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion recognizing conflict recognizing an exception to the conflict rule where the conflict arose after the award of the contract holding that sjhould a conflict arise as to the circumstances explaining the dismissal the trier of fact must exercise its traditional role in deciding the conflict