delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The People sought review of the court of appeals' judgment affirming two in limine evidentiary rulings of the district court in a prosecution for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. See People v. Gabriesheski, 205 P.3d 441 (Colo.App.2008). Following the district court's exclusion of testimony concerning the recantation of the defendant's stepdaughter, the alleged child-sexual-assault victim, the prosecutor conceded her inability to go forward, and the case was dismissed. The court of appeals concluded that section 16-12-102(1), C.R.S. *655(2010), gave it jurisdiction to entertain the People's appeal, but it affirmed both of the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
With regard to the exclusion of testimony by the guardian ad litem appointed in a parallel dependency and neglect proceeding, the court of appeals held that the child's communications with the guardian fell within the attorney-client privilege, as set out at section 13-90-107(1)(b), C.R.S. (2010). With regard to the exclusion of testimony by a social worker also involved in the dependency and neglect proceeding, the court found her to be both a professional who could not be examined in a criminal case without the consent of the parent-respondent, as dictated by section 19-3-207, C.R.S. (2010), and a licensed professional who could not be examined without the consent of her client, according to section 13-90-107(1)(g), C.R.S. (2010).
We conclude that the court of appeals did have jurisdiction to entertain the People's appeal, but we disapprove of its conclusions with regard to both of the trial court's evi-dentiary rulings. Because a child who is the subject of a dependency and neglect proceeding is not the client of a court-appointed guardian ad litem, neither the statutory attorney-client privilege nor ethical rules governing an attorney's obligations of confidentiality to a client strictly apply to communications by the child. Because the trial court apparently understood section 19-3-207 to bar the examination of the social worker in the defendant's criminal case as long as she qualified as a professional involved in the dependency and neglect proceeding, it failed to make sufficient findings to satisfy the additional statutory requirement that the statements at issue be ones made in compliance with court treatment orders, or to demonstrate the applicability of section 13-90-107, which is limited by its own terms to communications made by a client in the course of professional employment or psychotherapy.
The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part.
I.
Mark Gabriesheski was charged with two counts of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. The charges arose from allegations by the defendant's sixteen year-old stepdaughter to the effect that he had fondled her breasts and digitally penetrated her vagina on approximately fifteen occasions. A Petition in Dependency and Neglect was then filed in the juvenile court, designating the child's mother as the Respondent and the defendant as a Special Respondent. A guardian ad litem was appointed by the juvenile court, as required by statute.
Prior to trial the child recanted her accusations, and the prosecution gave notice of its intention to call as witnesses the guardian ad litem and a social worker who had apparently been assigned to act as caseworker in the juvenile proceeding. According to the prosecution's offer of proof, the guardian ad litem and social worker were crucial witnesses because they had knowledge of attempts by the mother to pressure her daughter to recant. The prosecutor indicated that the guardian would testify concerning a discussion with the child during which the child said it would make things easier for her if she admitted to lying about the sexual abuse and that it would make her mother happy if she simply said the abuse never occurred. The prosecutor represented that the social worker would testify regarding her own conversation with the mother, in which the mother asserted that the child made up the allegations in order to get back at her and the child's stepfather, and that the mother had a long talk with the child, in which she became angry and called the child a liar, and based on that discussion the child admitted to her, the mother, that she had fabricated the allegations.
The defense objected on the grounds that all communications between the child and guardian ad litem and all communications between the child and social worker were confidential and inadmissible in the absence of appropriate consent or waiver. The defense specifically argued that communications between the child and guardian ad litem were protected by the statutory *656attorney-client privilege and duty of confidentiality imposed on attorneys by rule 1.6(a) of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. It asserted that communications between the social worker and mother were privileged - under - subsections - 13-90-107(1)(g), which prohibits the examination of certain enumerated treatment professionals concerning communications or advice given to clients in the course of professional employment, and were further made inadmissible by section 19-8-207(2), which prohibits the examination in a criminal case of professionals as to certain statements made by respondents in dependency and neglect proceedings.
The trial court ruled that neither the guardian ad litem nor the social worker would be permitted to testify at trial It concluded that Colo. R.P.C. 1.6, in conjunction with Chief Justice Directive 04-06, imposed a duty of confidentiality on the guardian ad litem, which could only be waived by the child. Although it did not address Ga-briesheski's assertion of a social worker client privilege, the trial court also concluded that the social worker could not be examined in the criminal case without the consent of the child's mother for the separate reason that the social worker was a qualifying professional within the prohibition of subsection 19-8-207(2). In light of the trial court's rulings, the prosecution conceded its inability to go forward, and the court dismissed the charges, without prejudice. Following the dismissal of all charges, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal in the court of appeals, challenging the validity of both of the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
After rejecting the defendant's contention that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the People's appeal, the appellate court affirmed both of the trial court's evidentiary rulings. With regard to the guardian ad litem, it upheld the trial court's ruling that communications by the child fell within the statutory attorney-client privilege. It reasoned that because Chief Justice Directive 04-06 subjects guardians ad litem to "all of the rules and standards of the legal profession," it necessarily establishes an attorney-client relationship between the guardian and the minor child. With regard to the social worker, the appellate court upheld the trial court's finding that section 19-3-207 barred any examination of her in the criminal case but also found, despite the issue not having been addressed by the trial court, that the social worker-client privilege of section 13-90-107(1)(g), supported the conclusion that she could not testify without the consent of the child or her mother.
The People petitioned for a writ of certio-rari, challenging the appellate court's conclusion concerning both evidentiary rulings. Although the defendant did not cross-petition with regard to the question of jurisdiction, in conjunction with granting the People's petition, we ordered the parties to brief the question whether the People's direct appeal following dismissal was authorized as the appeal of a question of law pursuant to section 16-12-102(1).
II.
Public prosecutors in this jurisdiction are granted uncommonly broad authority to appeal decisions of trial courts in eriminal cases upon questions of law. $ 16-12-1021), C.R.S. (2010) 1; People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049, 1050 (Colo.2009). Because this statutory authority, however, expressly requires that appeals under section 16-12-102(1) be filed and prosecuted as provided by the applicable rules of this court, we have previously made clear that appeals by the prosecution pursuant to this subsection are nevertheless subject to the final judgment requirement of CAR. 1. See Guatney, 214 P.3d at 1050; Ellsworth v. People, 987 P.2d 264, 266 (Colo. 1999); People v. Gallegos, 946 P.2d 946, 950 (Colo.1997). Although the statute expressly permits an immediate appeal of an order declaring a death penalty inoperative, regardless of any statute or court rule to the contrary, and specifically designates as suffi*657ciently final for immediate appeal certain kinds of court orders, including orders dismissing a charge or granting a new trial, the finality requirement of C.A.R. 1 is satisfied with regard to any ruling or order of a district court onee the action in which it was entered has produced a final judgment.
Although CAR. 1 makes no attempt to comprehensively describe what would constitute a final judgment for every kind of action, we have construed the term generally to refer to a judgment that ends the particular action in which it is entered, leaving nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the proceeding. See Bye v. Dist. Court, TOL P.2d 56, 61 (Colo.1985) (citing D.H. v. People, 192 Colo. 542, 544, 561 P.2d 5, 6 (1977), People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684 (1971)). For criminal cases, we have consistently held that a judgment comes when "the defendant is acquitted, the charges are dismissed, or the defendant is convicted and sentence is imposed." Guatney, 214 P.3d at 1051; accord Samoff v. People, 187 P.3d 576, 577 (Colo.2008); Gallegos, 946 P.2d at 950. The dismissal of all charges in a eriminal prosecution clearly ends the particular action in which the order of dismissal is entered and therefore constitutes a final judgment for purposes of the appellate review of any ruling in the case.
In People v. Frye, - P.3d - (Colo. App.2010), a different division of the court of appeals reached the opposite conclusion with regard to dismissals resulting from the failure of the prosecution to proceed. Largely by conflating finality for purposes of appellate review with limitations on any future prosecution of the defendant for the same conduct, the Frye division held that even a complete dismissal, as long as it results from either the unwillingness or inability of the prosecution to proceed to trial, does not constitute a final judgment from which an appeal of a question of law could be taken pursuant to section 16-12-102(1). Id. at --. Relying largely on isolated language from an ancient treatise concerning the dismissal of charges at common law by a course of action formerly referred to as molle prosequi, the division misinterpreted a statement of this court that a nolle prosequi was not a final disposition of the case, in the sense that it would not bar future prosecution for the same offense, to mean that because the dismissal of charges at the request of the prosecution does not bar reinstatement of charges at some future date, it cannot produce a final judgment for purposes of appellate review. Id. at -; see Lawson v. People, 63 Colo. 270, 274-75, 165 P. 771, 772-78 (1917) (quoting 10 Encyclopedia of Pleading and Practice 558 (1898)).
In fact, a careful reading of our reasoning in Lawson reveals that it is to precisely the opposite effect. There we held that a criminal defendant in a reinstituted prosecution had not already used up his limited statutory right to move for disqualification of the judge because "(when the nolle prosequi was entered (initially dismissing all charges), that case was at an end," and upon refiling, a new case, in which the defendant had not yet exercised his right to seek disqualification, had begun. Id., 68 Colo. at 275, 165 P. at TIB. While we were not there concerned with the finality of a judgment for purposes of appellate review, we clearly held that refiled charges did not constitute a continuation of the earlier action against the defendant, an action which came to an end upon the dismissal of all charges in that case. Id. Similarly, in People v. Smail, also relied on by the Frye division, we quoted the same passage to the effect that the "original indictment became a nullity upon its dismissal without prejudice," and at least where the prosecution acted in keeping with its duty to avoid putting the defendant in jeopardy on the basis of insufficient evidence, the reinsti-tution of identical criminal charges after acquiring new evidence did not amount to a continuation of the same action and therefore did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. 681 P.2d 148, 154-55 (Colo.1981).
The requirement of the appellate rules for a final judgment is applicable to prosecutor appeals only to the same extent that it applies to all other appeals not expressly singled out by statute or rule. To conclude that the "finality" of a particular action turns on the moving party's motives or ability to initi*658ate some further action against the nonmov-ing party would not only significantly depart from the accepted meaning of the term itself but would - thwart the legislature's clear purpose in expressly permitting prosecutors to seek the judicial resolution of legal questions, without regard to the continued jeopardy of the defendant. Under such a regime, eviden-tiary rulings so injurious as to bar further ethical prosecution would not simply become immediately unreviewable. They would become unreviewable at any time.
Nor does our failure to read greater limitations into the final judgment requirement empower prosecutors to dangerously manipulate the courts and seek interlocutory appellate review at will, as feared by the Frye court. Quite apart from the ethical considerations involved in arguing for dismissal without prejudice due to the prosecution's inability to proceed, moving to dismiss as the result of an adverse evidentiary ruling will virtually always entail substantial risk that the defendant may never be prosecuted for the offense. Unless a public prosecutor feels that he can no longer prove the case against the defendant, and therefore can no longer ethically proceed, moving to dismiss a criminal prosecution is not an action to be taken lightly.
Although jeopardy will not yet have attached at the time of pre-trial rulings, the dismissal of all charges nevertheless precludes reliance on those charges for any continued infringement on the defendant's liberty. In addition to the practical problems associated with again acquiring jurisdiction over both the defendant and necessary witnesses within the applicable statutory limitations period, delay long enough for appellate review risks violating the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial by the loss of witnesses or other evidence important to his defense. See Smail, 681 P.2d at 155-57. Depending upon the timing and actual impact of such an evidentiary ruling on the prosecutor's case, his bona fides in dismissing and refiling may well be challenged on due process grounds as an attempt to cireumvent statutory speedy trial limitations or the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance. See People v. McClure, 756 P2d 1008 (Colo.1988)(and cases cited therein); see also People v. Allen, 885 P.2d 207 (Colo.1994). In any event, however, the defendant's susceptibility to further prosecution can only be determined when, and if, the prosecutor succeeds in reacquiring a right to the disputed evidence or otherwise acquires sufficient evidence for, and actually attempts, a second prosecution.
In addition, finality is far from the only limitation imposed on appeals by a prosecutor. The appeals authorized by section 16-12-102(1) are limited to questions of law implicated by actual decisions of criminal courts. See People v. Ware, 187 Colo. 28, 528 P.2d 224 (1974). While in limine evidentiary rulings may involve the construction of statutes or rules, or some similar question of law, a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is not, in and of itself, an appealable question of law; and as this case demonstrates, resolution of even a properly postured question of law is unlikely to fully resolve the ultimate question of the admissibility of particular evidence.
Whether or not the issues presented by the prosecutor to the court of appeals below might also have been appealable according to different provisions of this statute, or according to different statutes or rules altogether, it is enough here that they posed questions of law and arose from decisions of a criminal court that had become final, within the contemplation of section 16-12-102(1) and C.A.R. 1.
IIL
Although a lawyer's ethical obligations not to reveal information relating to the representation of a client are governed in this jurisdiction by the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, see Colo. R.P.C. 1.6, the rules themselves expressly contemplate that external principles of substantive law must determine, in the first instance, whether an attorney-client relationship exists. See Colo. R.P.C., Preamble and Seope, para. 14. Similarly, while the evidentiary privilege protecting communications between attorney and client relating to legal advice is codified in this jurisdiction by statute rather than court rule, see § 18-90-107(1)(b), C.R.S. *659(2010); Wesp v. Everson, 38 P.3d 191, 196 (Colo.2001); Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106, 1123 (Colo.2000), that statute makes no attempt to define the attorney-client relationship itself. Instead, we have held generally that a client is a person who employs or retains an attorney for advice or assistance on a matter relating to legal business, People v. Morley, T25 P.2d 510, 517 (Colo.1986), and an attorney-client relationship is established when it is shown that the client seeks and receives the advice of the lawyer on the legal consequences of the client's past or contemplated actions. People v. Bennett, 810 P.2d 661, 664 (Colo.1991); Morley, 725 P.2d at 517.
With regard in particular to the guardian ad litem and child for whom his appointment is statutorily dictated in all dependency and neglect proceedings, the statutes are equally silent as to the existence of an attorney-client relationship. See §§ 19-1-111 and 19-3-203, C.R.S. (2010). While all guardians ad litem appointed to serve in dependency and neglect proceedings must be credentialed as attorneys licensed to practice in the jurisdiction, § 19-1-103(59), and are statutorily assigned obligations usually associated with legal representation, like the examination of witnesses, they are ultimately tasked with acting on behalf of the child's health, safety, and welfare. See § 19-38-2088. Rather than representing the interests of either the petitioner or respondents in the litigation, or even the demands or wishes of the child, the legal responsibility for whom is at issue in the proceedings, the guardian ad litem is statutorily tasked with assessing and making recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child. See id.
The Children's Code's general provision for the appointment of guardians ad litem delegates to the Chief Justice the authority to establish their duties and responsibilities in legal matters affecting children. See § 19-1-111(6). And while the applicable Chief Justice Directive clearly contemplates that such guardians ad litem may be performing functions touching on their professional obligations as lawyers, and therefore requiring their adherence to the Rules of Professional Conduct, see, eg., CJD 04-06 V. F., no more than the statutes themselves does it purport to designate an attorney client relationship between a guardian ad litem in dependency and neglect proceedings and the child who is the subject of those proceedings. Even assuming that a directive of the Chief Justice, which is authorized under the Supreme Court's general superintending power over the state court system, see Office of the State Court Admin. v. Background Info. Servs., Inc., 994 P.2d 420, 480-81 (Colo.1999); Bye v. Dist. Court, 701 P.2d 56, 59 (Colo.1985), might under some cireum-stance be an appropriate vehicle for creating an evidentiary privilege, CJD 04-06 nowhere suggests any intent to do so.
' Nothing in the term "guardian ad litem," which on its face indicates merely a guardian for purposes of specific proceedings or litigation, suggests an advocate to serve as counsel for the child as distinguished from a guard-ion, charged with representing the child's best interests. See generally Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (quoting from Homer H. Clark, Jr. & Ann Laquer Estin, Domestic Relations: Cases and Problems 1078 (6th ed. 2000). From the distinction between the two flow a series of important consequences, id., implicating delicate policy choices potentially affecting, as this case clearly demonstrates, not only the best interests of the child but the criminal lability of others as well. In the absence of some clearer expression of legislative intent to do so, we are unwilling to impute to the statutory guardian ad litem-child relationship the legislatively-imposed, evidentiary consequences of an attorney-client relationship.2
For similar reasons, a number of other jurisdictions following a best-interests-of-the-*660child model have Hikewise declined to extend the attorney-client privilege and duties of confidence to this unique guardian ad litem-child relationship. See, eg., R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16.2(c)(1)(iv)-(v) (2010) (communications between guardian ad litem and child not privileged, but still identifying child's best interests as focus of court's determination and guardian ad litem's duties); In re Guardianship of Mabry, 281 Ill. App.3d 76, 216 Ill.Dec. 848, 666 N.E.2d 16, 24 (1996) (citing child representation statute and holding no attorney-client privilege exists between guardian ad litem and ward because guardian ad litem's duty it to serve ward's best interests); Ross v. Gadwah, 181 NH. 391, 554 A.2d 1284, 1285 (1988) (noting guardian ad litem represents child's interests and holding, "Communications between a guardian ad litem and a minor child are not privileged"); Alaska Bar Ass'n Ethics Comm., Ethics Op. 85-4 (1985) ("[The attorney is not bound by the normal duty of confidentiality, but rather should act within the context of the proceeding and be responsive to the reason for his appointment, namely the best interest of the child."); Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order 15, Attorney Qualifications and Standards § 5(g) ("An attorney ad litem shall not be prevented by any privilege, including the lawyer-client privilege, from sharing with the court all information relevant to the best interest of the child."); Mass. Prob. & Family Ct. Standing Order 1-05, Standards for Guardians Ad Litem/Inves-tigators §§ 1.8(c), 1.5 & emt. (making clear child's best interests control and guardian ad litem should adhere to professional standards, but also that "[tlhere is no attorney-client confidentiality").
Unlike the court of appeals, we therefore disapprove the trial court's ruling excluding the proffered testimony of the guardian ad litem as privileged pursuant to section 13-90-107(1)(b).
IV.
We also agreed to review that portion of the court of appeals judgment approving the trial court's exclusion of any testimony by the social worker involved in parallel dependency and neglect proceedings. The trial court excluded the social worker's testimony solely for the reason that it understood seetion 19-8-207 to bar the examination, in any criminal case, of any professional involved in a dependency and neglect proceeding, unless the respondent in that proceeding consented.3 Making clear that it considered a caseworker covered by the statute and that the respondent had not consented to the social worker's testimony, the court ruled that it would not permit the social worker to testify in the eriminal case or permit any reference to her in the prosecutor's opening statement.
It appears that the trial court simply misread the applicable statute. On its face, section 19-8-207 bars no more than the examination of certain professionals without the consent of the respondent "as to statements made pursuant to compliance with court treatment orders. ..." The trial court's understanding of the statute was clearly mistaken, and its evidentiary ruling was therefore not supported by its articulated rationale. Quite apart from questions about the credentials of the caseworker in this case, the trial court failed to make any findings from which a reviewing court could determine whether the statements in question were made "pursuant to compliance with" treatment orders of the juvenile court.
By the same token, because the trial court did not rely on the licensed social worker client privilege of section 18-90-107(1)(g) at all, it made no findings from which a social worker-client relationship between the social worker and the child, much less between the social worker and the declarant in this case, could be determined. In addition to addressing a question of law that was never the subject of a decision by the trial court, the court of appeals therefore presumed a factual predicate not established in the record.
Unlike the court of appeals, we therefore disapprove the trial court's reliance on seetion 19-8-207 as a basis for prohibiting examination of the social worker in the pros*661ecution of the step-father. Should the mother's statements to the social worker become relevant in some future criminal prosecution, additional findings concerning their relation to the treatment orders of the juvenile court would be required to determine the applicability of section 19-3-207.
v.
The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Justice MARTINEZ dissents, and Chief Justice BENDER joins in the dissent.. As relevant here, subsection 16-12-102(1) provides:
The prosecution may appeal any decision of a court in a criminal case upon any question of law.... The procedure to be followed in filing and prosecuting appeals under this section shall be as provided by applicable rule of the supreme court of Colorado.
. Contrary to the assertion of amici, our holding in In re Marriage of Hartley, 886 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1994), implies nothing to the contrary. Although we used the term "guardian ad litem" in reference to an attorney and his ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct in that proceeding under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, we made clear that we did so only to avoid confusion, where the parties had referred to the attorney by that term in their brief ing. See id. at 667 n. 2. The attorney at issue in that case was clearly not a statutorily designated guardian ad litem under the Children's Code or any other statute of this jurisdiction.
. "And I think that is why 19-3-207 was enacted by the legislature and especially under subpara-graph (2), it is pretty precise what it says: No professional shall be examined in any criminal case without the consent of the respondent.?" R. at 17.