Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility
University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.