Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Professional Responsibility (2)
- Attorney Discipline (1)
- Attorney Suspension (1)
- Compliance (1)
- Controlled Substance (1)
-
- Discipline (1)
- Felony (1)
- Good Cause Exception (1)
- Legal malpractice exception (1)
- Litigation Privilege (1)
- Nevada Bar (1)
- Possession (1)
- Professional Responsibility; Conflicts of Interest (1)
- Self-Incrimination (1)
- State Bar (1)
- Subpoena (1)
- Supreme Court Rules (1)
- Suspension (1)
- WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE: ADOPTING THE COMMON INTEREST RULE (1)
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Law
Beavor V. Tomsheck, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nov. 10, 2022), Genell Maggiacomo
Beavor V. Tomsheck, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Nov. 10, 2022), Genell Maggiacomo
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In an opinion written by Justice Hardesty, the Nevada Supreme Court evaluated whether assignment of proceeds towards an opponent in the same litigation where the legal malpractice arose is valid. The Nevada Supreme Court held that it is invalid because of the violation of public policy. The Court followed the precedent set out in Tower Homes, LLC v. Heaton, which held that assignments for legal malpractice claims prohibited public policy. The Court held that the district court ruled correctly by invalidating the assignment. However, an invalid assignment would not preclude an injured client from pursuing a legal malpractice claim where …
In Re: Discipline Of James Colin, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Sep. 19, 2019), Jose Tafoya
In Re: Discipline Of James Colin, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 43 (Sep. 19, 2019), Jose Tafoya
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court found James Colin made statements he knew were false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Colin also engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court suspended him for six months and one day.
Cotter, Jr. V. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (May 3, 2018) (En Banc), Paloma Guerrero
Cotter, Jr. V. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (May 3, 2018) (En Banc), Paloma Guerrero
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court adopted the common interest rule as an exception to waiver of the work-product privilege. The common interest rule requires that the “transferor and transferee [must] anticipate litigation against a common adversary on the same issue or issues” and to “have strong common interests in sharing the fruit of the preparation efforts.”
Agwara V. State Bar Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 96 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Lucy Crow
Agwara V. State Bar Of Nev., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 96 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Lucy Crow
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court adopted the three-prong test in Grosso v. United States, and held that an attorney cannot assert the privilege against self-incrimination to withhold client trust documentation sought in a State Bar investigation. However, the State Bar must have a compelling reason to force disclosure of tax records.
In Re Discipline Of Reade, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 16, 2017), Ronald Evans
In Re Discipline Of Reade, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 16, 2017), Ronald Evans
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that, in this instance, an attorney should be suspended for four years after said attorney violated RPC 8.4(b). The Court further held that SRC 102 does not permit the Court to impose financial sanctions on an attorney when the Court is already suspending said attorney.
In Re Discipline Of Timothy Treffinger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (May 11, 2017), Julia Barker
In Re Discipline Of Timothy Treffinger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 22 (May 11, 2017), Julia Barker
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) when a licensed Nevada attorney pleads guilty to a felony, Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 111 requires an interim suspension of the attorney’s law license and a referral to the Nevada State Bar for formal discipline; and (2) the “good cause” exception to stay an interim suspension requires the court to consider whether the attorney’s crime poses a danger to his clients, the court, and the public.
New Horizon Kids Quest Iii, Inc., V. The Eighth Judicial District Court Of The State Of Nevada, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 409 (Apr. 6, 2017), Andrew Clark
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under the Nev. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(b), an attorney whose former firm represented a now adverse client, may be disqualified only when the attorney actually obtained confidential, adverse information while employed by the former firm.
Summary Of Greenberg Traurig, Llp V. Frias Holding Company, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 67, Tom Stewart
Summary Of Greenberg Traurig, Llp V. Frias Holding Company, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 67, Tom Stewart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court adopted an exception to the common law litigation privilege for legal malpractice and professional negligence actions. A client can pursue malpractice and professional negligence actions against an attorney, and support those actions with communications made in the course of litigation.
Summary Of State Of Nevada V. Eight Jud. Dist. Ct. (Zogheib), 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 18, Brian Vasek
Summary Of State Of Nevada V. Eight Jud. Dist. Ct. (Zogheib), 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 18, Brian Vasek
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court was asked to decide the appropriate standard for determining when the entire Clark County District Attorney’s office should be disqualified for an individual prosecutor’s conflict – an appearance-of-impropriety standard or if a more appropriate standard exists.
Summary Of In Re Discipline Of Serota, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, Keivan Roebuck
Summary Of In Re Discipline Of Serota, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, Keivan Roebuck
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court determined whether an attorney’s misappropriation of $319,000 of a client’s funds warrants disbarment from the practice of law.
Summary Of Moon V. Mcdonald Carano Wilson, Llp, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, David Rothenberg
Summary Of Moon V. Mcdonald Carano Wilson, Llp, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 56, David Rothenberg
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Appeal from a district court judgment in a legal malpractice action claiming the statute of limitations to file suit had not run and that the litigation-tolling rule should apply. The Court determined that McDonald Carano Wilson, LLP did not represent appellant during litigation and litigation-tolling rule did not apply. The Court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Summary Of Ivey V. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 16, David H. Rigdon
Summary Of Ivey V. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 16, David H. Rigdon
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order denying a request to recuse a district court judge in a family law action. Petitioner asserted that campaign contributions to the reelection campaign of the judge assigned to the case, provided by her ex-husband, his lawyers, and others connected to the divorce, required recusal under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as N.R.S. 1.230 and the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct.
Summary Of Deboer V. Sr. Bridges Of Sparks Family Hospital, Inc., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 38, Bryan Schwartz
Summary Of Deboer V. Sr. Bridges Of Sparks Family Hospital, Inc., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 38, Bryan Schwartz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered, on appeal, what duty of care is owed by a medical facility when it performs nonmedical functions.
Summary Of Liapis V. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 39, Rami Hernandez
Summary Of Liapis V. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 39, Rami Hernandez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An interlocutory writ of mandamus from a district court order disqualifying an attorney from representing his father in his parents’ divorce case.
Summary Of Merits Incentives V. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 63, Patrick C. Mcdonnell
Summary Of Merits Incentives V. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 63, Patrick C. Mcdonnell
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An original petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court’s denial of a motion to disqualify counsel who had reviewed confidential documents sent to him, unsolicited, from an anonymous source.
Summary Of Waid V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Chris Orme
Summary Of Waid V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Chris Orme
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Vestin Funds sought compensation on a loan from the guarantors of the loan Frederick Waid and M. Nafees. Waid and Nafees retained Noel Gage as their attorney. Gage, however, had previously represented the CEO of Vestin in previous litigation. Nevada prohibits a lawyer from representing a party that is adverse to the interests the lawyer’s current client if the matters are substantially related. To determine “substantially related” the court adopted a three-part test from the Seventh Circuit and applied it to Gage. The court upheld the decision of the lower court.