With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim
C: 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
D: 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
D.