By Milan Chatterjee | Founding Attorney, Milan Legal |
The legal process in Nevada has two halves, and most people only ever hear about one of them. The visible half is court procedure: filings, deadlines, hearings. The other half is the relationship between you and your lawyer, and Nevada regulates that in far more detail than clients are usually told.
This guide covers the second half. Who decides what, what your lawyer is actually required to tell you, the difference between confidentiality and privilege, and what you are owed if the relationship ends. The court side is covered separately and linked at the end.
The Legal Process in Nevada Starts With Who Decides What
The division of authority is set by rule, not by custom, and it is more favorable to the client than most people assume.
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) splits the decisions in two. The objectives of the representation belong to the client, and the lawyer shall abide by that decision. The means of pursuing them belong to the lawyer, who shall consult with the client about them.
Two decisions are named in the rule as the client’s, because they are objectives rather than tactics: whether to settle, and in a criminal matter the plea and whether to waive a jury trial.
That split is where most friction in a legal matter comes from. What you are trying to achieve is yours. Which motion to file, which argument to lead with and which witness to call are tactical judgments the lawyer makes, though the rule still requires consultation about them.
The settlement line is the one worth remembering. No lawyer may accept or reject an offer on your behalf as a matter of their own judgment. That decision is yours, which is also why you are entitled to hear about offers when they arrive.
What Your Lawyer Is Required to Tell You
This is a list of duties, not a description of good practice.
Rule 1.4 requires a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required; to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and to consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows the client expects assistance that the Rules do not permit.
The rule adds a general obligation: a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Read that last sentence against how legal advice is often delivered. The standard is not that the lawyer explained it. It is that the explanation was sufficient for you to decide. If you cannot make the decision in front of you, the explanation has not yet met the rule, and asking for more is not an imposition.
Silence is the most common complaint clients have about lawyers, and “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information” is the provision that addresses it directly.
Expect to Be Asked, Not Just Told
Taken together, RPC 1.2 and RPC 1.4 describe a relationship in which the significant decisions are yours and the lawyer’s job is to put you in a position to make them. A process in which things simply happen and you are informed afterwards is not the arrangement the rules contemplate.
Confidentiality and Privilege Are Not the Same Thing
These two are routinely treated as one idea. They are separate protections, with different scopes and different exceptions, and knowing which is which changes what you can safely assume.
The ethical duty, which is the broader one
Rule 1.6(a) provides that a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by the rule.
Note the breadth. It is not limited to what you said to the lawyer. It covers information relating to the representation, from any source.
Rule 1.6(b) then permits disclosure to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm; to prevent the client committing a criminal or fraudulent act in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services; to prevent, mitigate or rectify the consequences of such an act; to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s own compliance with the Rules; to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between the lawyer and the client or to respond to allegations about the representation; to comply with other law or a court order; and to detect and resolve conflicts arising from a change of employment or a change in a firm’s composition or ownership.
The evidentiary privilege, which is narrower
The privilege is statutory. NRS 49.095 gives a client the privilege to refuse to disclose confidential communications made to facilitate legal services: between the client or the client’s representative and the lawyer or the lawyer’s representative, between the lawyer and the lawyer’s representative, and by the client or the lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest.
Under NRS 49.105 the privilege may be claimed by the client, a guardian, the personal representative of a deceased client or a successor to a corporate client, and by the lawyer on the client’s behalf.
NRS 49.115 sets out the exceptions. There is no privilege where the services were sought to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud; in disputes between parties claiming through the same deceased client; on an issue of breach of duty between lawyer and client; as to a communication relevant to an attested document where the lawyer is an attesting witness; or as to a matter of common interest between clients who are later in dispute with one another.
Why the difference matters to you
The ethical duty governs what your lawyer may say to anyone, at any time. The privilege governs what a court can compel. The ethical duty is wider, so information can be confidential without being privileged, which means it is protected from casual disclosure but not necessarily from a subpoena.
Two practical consequences follow. The crime-fraud exception in NRS 49.115 means advice sought in order to commit a crime or fraud was never privileged in the first place. And bringing a third party into a conversation who is not covered by NRS 49.095 can remove the privilege from that conversation while leaving the lawyer’s ethical duty intact, which is a distinction worth understanding before inviting a friend or a business partner to sit in.
When the Relationship Ends
Representation can end by your decision, by the lawyer’s, or because the rules require it, and each is treated differently.
Under Rule 1.16(a) a lawyer must withdraw where continuing would result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, where the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs their ability to represent the client, or where the client discharges the lawyer. That last one is unqualified: you may discharge your lawyer, and the rule treats it as mandatory grounds for withdrawal rather than something to be negotiated.
Rule 1.16(b) covers permissive withdrawal, which is available where it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client’s interests, and in defined circumstances including client misconduct and other good cause.
Rule 1.16(d) is the provision clients should know. On termination, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, and surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled.
Papers and property is the operative phrase. Changing lawyers does not mean starting from nothing, and a request for the file is a request the rule anticipates rather than an unusual demand.
What This Looks Like in the First Few Weeks
Expect to be asked what outcome you are aiming for, in terms specific enough to act on, because under RPC 1.2(a) that is your decision and the lawyer has to abide by it.
Expect to be told what the difficulties are rather than only what is possible, because RPC 1.4 requires an explanation sufficient for you to make informed decisions, and a one-sided account does not meet that standard.
Expect a stated arrangement for updates, including what happens during quiet periods. Long gaps are normal in legal matters. Unexplained long gaps are a process failure, and the rule gives you a basis for raising it.
And expect to be consulted before anything that would change the objectives of the matter rather than the tactics, since that is the line the rules draw.
Where the Court Process Picks Up
Everything above governs the relationship whether or not a case is ever filed. If a matter does reach court, a separate set of rules takes over, with deadlines that run from service rather than from readiness and a value threshold that decides which track the case follows. Those are set out in the Nevada litigation process.
If you have not yet engaged anyone, the checks worth doing first, including what a specialist claim has to be backed by in Nevada, are at how to choose an attorney in Nevada.
The Milan Legal Perspective
The rules above describe a floor, not a standard. A lawyer who does only what RPC 1.4 requires has complied with it. The difference between compliance and useful representation usually shows up in the first meeting rather than later.
Clients who get the most out of a legal relationship tend to do three things. They arrive with the documents rather than the summary, because the documents are what the analysis actually runs on. They state the objective in terms concrete enough to act on, which is harder than it sounds and is the one input RPC 1.2(a) makes theirs alone. And they ask what would change the answer, which is the question that reveals whether the matter turns on a fact still in dispute or on a rule already settled.
Milan Chatterjee is a UCLA School of Law graduate and former Associate Compliance Counsel at a Fortune 500 company, where the work involved advising on compliance programs, internal investigations and policy. That is employer-side and in-house experience, which shapes how Milan Legal approaches a matter: an understanding of how decisions get made and documented inside an organization, and of what a record looks like before anyone is thinking about a dispute.
Related Practice Areas
Understanding the legal process is valuable across many areas of law. Depending on your circumstances, you may also find these Milan Legal practice areas helpful:
- Outside General Counsel
- Business Formation
- Employment Law
- Contract Drafting & Review
- Business Litigation
- Real Estate Law
- HOA Disputes
- Personal Injury
- Medical Malpractice
Need Trusted Legal Guidance?
Whether you’re facing a business matter, planning for the future, or navigating a legal dispute, understanding the legal process is the first step toward making informed decisions.
Schedule a confidential consultation with Milan Legal to discuss your legal matter and explore your options with confidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Two things running in parallel. Court procedure, which has its own deadlines and tracks, and the lawyer-client relationship, which is governed by the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. The second decides who makes which decisions, what your lawyer must tell you, what is confidential, and what you are owed if the representation ends.
You do. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) requires a lawyer to abide by the client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation and to respect the client’s decision on settlement. In a criminal matter the client also decides the plea and whether to waive a jury trial.
Under Rule 1.4, a lawyer must promptly inform you of any decision or circumstance requiring your informed consent, reasonably consult with you about the means of achieving your objectives, keep you reasonably informed about the status of the matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and consult with you about any limitation on what the Rules permit them to do. The lawyer must also explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary for you to make informed decisions.
Not necessarily, and confidentiality and privilege are different protections. The ethical duty in Rule 1.6 covers information relating to the representation from any source and governs what the lawyer may reveal. The evidentiary privilege in NRS 49.095 is narrower, covers confidential communications made to facilitate legal services, and governs what a court can compel.
Rule 1.6(b) permits disclosure where reasonably necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, to prevent or rectify a client’s criminal or fraudulent act in which the lawyer’s services were used, to get advice about the lawyer’s own compliance with the Rules, to establish a claim or defense in a dispute with the client, to comply with other law or a court order, or to resolve conflicts arising from a change of employment or firm ownership.
NRS 49.115 lists five. Services sought to enable or aid a crime or fraud the client knew or should have known about; disputes between parties claiming through the same deceased client; an issue of breach of duty between lawyer and client; communications relevant to an attested document where the lawyer is an attesting witness; and matters of common interest between clients later in dispute with each other.
Sometimes they must and sometimes they may. Rule 1.16(a) requires withdrawal where continuing would violate the Rules or other law, where the lawyer’s condition materially impairs their ability to act, or where the client discharges them. Rule 1.16(b) permits withdrawal where it can be done without material adverse effect on the client, and for defined reasons including client misconduct and other good cause.
Rule 1.16(d) requires the lawyer to take reasonably practicable steps to protect your interests on termination, including giving reasonable notice, allowing time to find other counsel, and surrendering papers and property to which you are entitled.
Conclusion
The legal process in Nevada is usually described as a sequence of court steps, which leaves out the part that governs almost every day of a legal matter. The Rules of Professional Conduct allocate the decisions, and the significant ones are the client’s. RPC 1.4 turns communication from a courtesy into five specific obligations. RPC 1.6 and NRS 49.095 protect what you say in two different ways, with two different sets of exceptions. And RPC 1.16 decides how the relationship can end and what leaves with you.
None of that depends on the type of matter, and all of it applies from the first meeting. Knowing it changes what you can reasonably ask for, which is the practical difference between being represented and being kept informed.
Move Forward With Confidence
If something in a current or past matter does not match what is set out above, that is a reasonable thing to raise directly, and a reasonable thing to ask about before engaging anyone new.
