|
Ethics Opinions
Standing
Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal
Advisory Opinions
OPINION 40-
4/24/07 An
attorney who is admitted to practice in another state may
represent claimants before the Social Security Administration
in the State of Nevada.
(Complete opinion, this site)
(Complete opinion, PDF)
OPINION 39-
4/24/08 An attorney who personally and substantially
participated in a matter can not be screened to avoid imputed
disqualification of the new firm. The result would be the same
in firm mergers and multi-city firms.
(Complete opinion, this site)
(Complete opinion, PDF)
OPINION 38-02/01/07
A lawyer who sits on the board of directors of a company may not
render estate planning services to a client who is interested in
identifying this same company as a beneficiary. The lawyer must
also disclose his relationship with the company to the estate
planning client. (Complete opinion, this site)
(Complete opinion, PDF)
OPINION 37-02/01/07
An attorney may take a security interest
in a client’s real property to secure payment for the attorney’s
fees so long as the attorney complies with S.C.R. 158(1).
(Complete
opinion, this site)
(Complete Opinion, PDF)
OPINION 36-01/08/07 An
attorney may ethically borrow funds from a third-party lending
institution for the purpose of obtaining funds for use in paying
litigation costs. The attorney must agree to be responsible for
the repayment of the loan, interest, and associated reasonable
fees irrespective of the outcome of the litigation. Repayment of
the loan may not be contingent on the success of the litigation
for which the loan is obtained.
(complete
opinion, this site)
(Complete opinion, PDF)
OPINION 35-12/11/06
It is unethical pursuant to RPC 1.2(a) for an attorney to
include in a fee agreement a provision granting the attorney
full and absolute discretion and authority to settle the case
upon terms decided by the attorney.
(Complete
opinion, this site)
(Complete opinion, PDF)
OPINION 34-
OPINION TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWN 10/24/07
On 10/24/07, the
Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility
requested that this opinion be notated "withdrawn" to allow for
further deliberation and possible revision in light of recent
developments.
12/11/06
In-depth analysis of ghost-lawyering including definitions,
remedies, and application in non-litigation settings. Concludes,
inter alia, that ghost-lawyering is unethical unless the
lawyer’s assistance and identity are disclosed to the court by
the signature of the ghost-lawyer under Rule 11 upon every paper
filed with the court for which the ghost-lawyer gives
substantial assistance to the pro se litigant by drafting or
otherwise.
(complete opinion, this site)
(Complete opinion, PDF)
OPINION 33-02/09/06 A
lawyer may, without client consent, store client files in an
electronic format or on a server or other device that is not
exclusively in the lawyer's control provided the lawyer acts
competently and reasonably safeguards the information from
inadvertent and unauthorized disclosure (similar to storing hard
copy files in a third-party owned storage facility). SCR 156. (complete
opinion, this site) (complete
opinion, pdf)
OPINION 32-03/25/05
Formation of the attorney-client relationship: (1) An
attorney-client relationship generally cannot be created as the
result of the unilateral act of the prospective client, but the
analysis changes if the unilateral act is in response to an
advertisement or is transmitted by email to an attorney’s
website; and (2) unsolicited information from a person having no
reasonable expectation that the attorney desires to create an
attorney-client relationship does not trigger SCR 156, but
reasonable expectation may trigger confidentiality duties.
(complete opinion, this site)
(complete opinion pdf)
OPINION 31-03/25/05
Under SCR 165, if a third person has an interest in personal
injury settlement funds, the lawyer has three ethical
obligations with respect to those funds: (1) promptly notify the
client and third party upon receipt; (2) promptly deliver to the
client and third party funds to which they are entitled; and (3)
upon request by the client or third party, promptly render a
full accounting regarding the funds.
(complete opinion, this site)
(complete opinion pdf)
OPINION 30-03/25/05
Addresses potential conflict questions regarding a non-profit
legal services lawyer’s dual duties under Nevada Supreme Court
Rules and the Nevada statutory reporting requirements in cases
of child abuse and neglect, specifically NRS 432.B.220 and SCR
156.
(complete
opinion, this site) (complete
opinion pdf)
OPINION 29 - 08/07/03 It
is ethically proper for an attorney to refer a client having a
personal injury claim to a company that will advance the money
to the client during the pendency of the claim, with repayment
being made from the settlement. Supreme Court Rule 158; Supreme
Court Rule 156; Supreme Court Rule 157; Supreme Court Rule 181;
Supreme Court Rule 154; Supreme Court Rule 165, Achrem v.
Expressway Plaza Limited Partnership, 112 Nev. 727, 917
P.2d 447 (1996); Cal. State Bar Formal Op. No. 2002-159; Ohio S.
Ct. Ethics Op. 2002-2; Ariz. State Bar Op. No. 91-22; Md. State
Bar Assn. Pof'l Guidance Comm., Guidance Op. No. 91-9; Felicia
Galati, Assistant Bar Counsel, Getting Involved in
Getting Money for your Civil Litigation Clients: An Ethical
Quagmire, Nevada Lawyer, March 2002 at 15; In
Re: Discipline of Joe M. Laub, January 9, 2002, Nev. S.
Ct. Appeal No. 36322.
(complete opinion)
OPINION 28
-
originally issued 11/19/02, conclusion amended 9/24/07. After conclusion of a matter, case
files are the property of the insured, not the insurance company
which defended the claim. Counsel should retain original file.
Retainer agreement may have provision to assess charge for copy
file to client, otherwise no copy charge may attach. Counsel and
client may agree to contract for file destruction in less that
seven years set forth by SCR 165, but does not protect counsel
from ethics violation.
(complete opinion)
OPINION 27 - 05/25/05 (Originally issued 9-10-01,
revised and reissued 5-25-05.) Opposing counsel may make ex
parte contact with lower level employees of a corporate
defendant when the corporation is represented by counsel within
limits. Supreme Court Rule 182. Official comment to Model Rule
4.2. Palmer vs. Pioneer Hotel, 59 P.3d 1237 (Nev. 2002).
(complete opinion, this site)
(complete opinion pdf)
OPINION 26 - 03/20/01 It is improper for an insurance company to
demand information from the law firm it hires to represent the
insured, relating to the case, when that information might be
used by the insurance company to deny benefits to the names
insured.
(complete opinion)
OPINION 26-
originally issued 3/20/01, conclusion amended 9/24/07.
QUESTION What are the ethical and
professional responsibilities of an attorney who discovers
subsequent to offering advice to a former client that the former
client used the attorney's services to perpetrate a fraudulent
act in a State or Federal Court? ANSWER An attorney may at the
attorney's own discretion disclose information relating to the
representation of the client. The attorney should first try to
persuade the former client to correct the fraud before revealing
such fraud. If the former client does not do so, the attorney
may reveal the information to the former client's current
attorney. If the former client still does not rectify the fraud,
the attorney may disclose to the court such information.
(complete opinion)
OPINION 24 - 06/18/97 A lawyer may not accept an ongoing
referral fee from an investment advisor/broker where the fee
payments are disclosed in advance to the existing client, the
lawyer monitors the account, and the investment advisor/broker
has exclusive responsibility for managing the account because
the conflict of interest in this situation is not waivable. The
lawyer cannot continue to act as the client's lawyer once he
assumes the role and responsibilities of a broker. NV Rules of
Professional Conduct (SCR) 157.2, 158.6, 167 and 188; Annotated
Rules of Professional Conduct, A.B.A., 1992; New Hampshire Bar
Ethics Committee Opinion #1994/95-2 ABA Informal Op. 1482
(1982); In re Singer, 109 Nev. 1117, 865 P.2d 315 (1993);
Louisiana State Bar Assn., v. Drury, 455 So. 2d 1387 (La 1984)
cert denied, 470 U.S. 1004 (1985); Attorneys' Conflicts of
Interest in the Investment Company Industry, 6 U. Mich. J.L Ref.
58. [Conflict of interest]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 23 - 10/25/95 A criminal defense lawyer may not
discourage a victim from testifying or urge her to be
uncooperative with the prosecuting attorney, and must avoid
providing any legal advice or counsel to the victim.
Specifically, addresses domestic battery, but may be applied to
all cases, whether criminal or civil. SCR 173, ARA Model Rule
3.4; SCR 203(d); ARA Model Rule 8.4(d); SCR 203; ABA Model Rule
8.4; North Carolina State Bar v. Graves, 274 S,.E.2d 396 (N.C.
App. 1981); People v. Kenelly 648 P.2d 1065 (Col. 1982); Nev.
Rev. Stat. §§ 199.305, 193.330; SCR 157; ABA Model Rule 1.7; and
People v. Stewart, 511 N.Y. S2d 715 (1987). [Concealment of
evidence; influence of witnesses]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 22 - 07/28/95 NAC 616.085 authorizes and appears
to require the employer to directly communicate to the employee
in writing an offer of employment at light duty. NAC 616.085
does not authorize an employer's counsel to contact a
represented employee, as that constitutes a violation of SCR
182. SCR 182, NAC 616.085(1); Holiday Inn vs. Barnett, 103 Nev.
60, 732 P.2d 1376 (1987); Annotated Model Rules of Professional
Conduct (2nd Ed.) A.B.A. 1992, A.B.A. Comm. on Ethics Informal
Opinion 1373 (1976), A.B.A. Informal Decision 570 (1962), In re
Marrietta, 569 P.2d 921 (1977), Crane v. State Bar of Cal., 635
P.2d 163 (1981), NRCP 5. [Communications with persons
represented by counsel]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 21 - 03/31/95 The restrictions in the RPA compact
regarding the applicability of the state law to the regulation
of the TRPA, and the rules set forth in the NAC and the ABA
comments regarding Model Rule 5.5 (a) clearly support the
conclusion that a California attorney may represent Nevada
resident in front of the TRPA concerning land use issues
involving property located in Nevada. SCR 189; Florez v. City of
Glendale, 463 P.2d 67 (Ariz. 1969); Denver Bar Association v.
Public Utility Commission, 391 P.2d 467, 471 (Colo. 1964);
Nevada A.G.O. No. 87-9 (May 11, 1987); Nevada A.G.O. No. 83014
(October 27, 1983); People v. City of South Lake Tahoe, 466
F.Supp. 527, 537 (E.D. Cal 1978); Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Compact, Articles III(d), X(b); Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
v. McKay, 590 F.Supp. 1071, 1074 (D.Nev. 1984); Nevada
Administrative Code § 278.800 et seq.; ABA Model Rule 5.5(a).
[Territorial limitations]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 20 - 02/20/95 An attorney who is licensed to
practice in States A and B but lives in Nevada, where the
attorney is not licensed and does not practice law, may not have
as his letterhead "John Doe, Attorney and Counselor at Law, NV
Address, Admitted in States A and B" unless that attorney
discloses that s/he is not licensed to practice in Nevada on the
letterhead. SCR 199, Rule 7.5(b) of ABA Model Rules of
Professional Conduct, Pioneer Title v. State Bar, 74 Nev. 186,
189 (1958), N.Y. County Lawyers Assn'n, Comm. On Professional
Ethics, Op. 683 (1990), In re Waters, 84 Nev. 712 (1968)
[Letterhead / Business Cards]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 19 - 06/16/94 The legitimate interests of the
Nevada courts and Nevada clients which support SCR 42 cannot be
served by a nonresident attorney who uses as an office in this
state a space located within the confines of another client's
business, which is staffed by persons who are not employed
directly by the attorney, but by the client. SCR 42, 156;
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 105 S.Ct.
1272, 84 L.Ed. 2d 205 (1985); Supreme Court of Virginia v.
Friedman, 487 U.S. 59, 108 S.Ct. 2260, 101 L.Ed. 2d 56 (1988);
Barnard v. Thorstenn, 489 U.S. 546, 109 S.Ct. 1294; 103 L.Ed 2d
559 (1989); Archer v. Ogden, 600 P.2d 1223 (Okla. 1979); Dyche
v. Crawford, 327 P.2d 1047 (Kan. 1958); Taylor v. Taylor, 342
P.2d 192 (Kan. 1959); Naimo v. Fleming, 95 Nev. 13, 588 P.2d
1025 (1979). [Nonresident attorney office requirements]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 18 - 04/29/94 A discharged attorney is entitled
to recovery in quantum meruit when the discharge occurs after an
initial offer of settlement has been made. SCR 155, 166.4, NRS
18.015, FO #4 and #17, In re Kaufman, 93 Nev. 452, 567 P.2d 957
(1977), ABA Informal Op. 86-1521 (1986), Hayes v. Secretary of
Health and Human Services, 923 F.2d 418 (6th Cir. 1991), G.
Hazard and W. Hodes, The Law of Lawyering; A Handbook on the
Model Rules of Professional Conduct, (1985); R. Aronson,
Professional Responsibility in a Nutshell (1990). [Fee
agreements]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 17 02/25/94 SCR 198 prohibits the advertising of
more than three designated areas of practice. SCR 151, 195, 198;
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of
Illinois, 4446 U.S. 91 (1990) [Advertising, specialty areas of
practice]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 16 - 10/22/93 Even though a divorce decree has
already been entered, a lawyer may not represent one spouse on a
contingency fee basis in a subsequent independent action seeking
to alter or otherwise attack a property settlement agreement
related to the original divorce action. SCR 155, Daniel v.
Baker, 106 Nev. 412, 794 P.2d 345 (1990); Gilbert v. Warren, 95
Nev. 296, 594 P.2d 696 (1979); Meyers v. Handlon, 479 N.E.2d 106
(Ind.Ct.App. 1985); Stepp, Groce, Pinales & Cosgrove v.
Thompson, 392S.E.2d 315 (NC App. 1984) [Contingency fee
agreement re divorce action]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 15 - 08/20/93 While non-refundable retainer
agreements are not FO #4 and #17, In re Kaufman, 93 Nev. 452,
567 P.2d 957 (1977), ABA Informal Op. 86-1521 (1986), Hayes v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 923 F.2d 418 (6th Cir.
1991), G. Hazard and W. Hodes, The Law of Lawyering; A Handbook
on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, (1985); R. Aronson,
Professional Responsibility in a Nutshell (1990). [Fee
agreements]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 14 - 10/08/93 A lawyer who is admitted to the
state bar association in states where he/she is currently
inactive may list the states on his/her letterhead so long as a
qualification is included indicating the inactive status. SCR
195, FO13, SCR 196.5, Peck v. Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990); In re
R.M.J., 455 U.S. 196 (1981) [Letterhead/business cards]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 13 - 05/28/93 A lawyer who has been certified as
a Certified Bankruptcy Attorney by the American Board of
Certification may list this certification on his/her letterhead
and business cards so long as the disclaimer found in SCR 196(4)
which states that: "The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any
lawyer as a specialist or expert" (fn1)
is also included. SCR 195,
196, 196.5, 198 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350
(1977); In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191 (1981); Gary E. Peel v.
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois,
496 U.S. 91 (1990); Ex parte Howell, 487 S. 2d 848 (Ala. 1986)
[Specialty certification, letterhead/business cards]
(complete opinion)
(fn1) NOTICE: THIS DISCLAIMER IS NO
LONGER REQUIRED. SCR 196(4) amended effective Jan. 18, 2004,
under the Specialization Initiative. See this website "Attorney
Specialization" – Office of Bar Counsel
OPINION 12-
05/10/92
A
private attorney or law firm may write to companies engaged in
international business and offer legal services in the areas of
import/export and customs law if the attorney or firm possesses
no information indicating that any recipient of the letter needs
specific legal services in a specific matter, the attorney or an
attorney in the firm devoted at least 300 hours each year for
the preceding two years to the area of practice, the attorney
complied with the other requirements of SCR 198, and the
communication of the particular area of practice is not false or
misleading. SCR 197 **see SCR 197, AMENDED 04/93**, 198 (1987)
[Solicitation] (Complete
Opinion)
OPINION 11-
05/10/89
A law firm which otherwise
complies with SCR 199 may show the firm’s affiliation with an
out-of-state law firm on its letterhead. SCR 199 (1988)
(Letterhead/business cards) (Complete
Opinion)
OPINION 10 -
06/03/88
A lawyer who takes possession of the proceeds of a crime from
his client must surrender them to law enforcement official with
jurisdiction, with identification of right owner if known;
attorney should not disclose client’s communications surrounding
the attorney’s receipt of the funds. SCR 152, 156, In re
January, 534 F.2d, 719 (7th Cir. 1976); In re Ryder, 163 F.Supp.
360 (E.D. Va. 1967) aff’d 381 F.2d 713 (4th Cir. 1967); People
v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 32, 237 Cal. Rptr. 612, 613
P.2d 46 (1981); Morrell v. State, 575 P.2d 1200 (Alaska 1978);
Anderson v. State, 297 So.2d 871 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974);
State v. Olwell, 394 P.2d 681 (Wash. 1964) (Fruits of crime) (Complete
Opinion)
OPINION 9 -
originally issued on 4/21/88, conclusion amended 9/24/07.
Attorney hired by insurance company
re communications from insured as a potential fraud of client in
obtaining coverage: insured is client, not carrier; information
communicated by client is confidential communication subject of SCR 156, attorney not prohibited under SCR 158 from accepting
compensation from carrier so long as there is no interference
with independence of professional judgment or with
attorney/client relationship; related conflicts of interest
question. SCR 152, 154, 156, 157, 158, 166, 167, 172, 181, NRS
49.035, 49.115 (1971) [Conflict of interest, client]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 8 - 02/18/87 A lawyer personally involved in a
dispute with nonlawyers may not communicate directly with the
nonlawyers about the dispute after having been asked to
communicate only through counsel. SCR 1871(1), 182, 184, 203(1)
(1986); ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct, 71:303
(1984); United States v. Jamil, 546 F.Supp. 646, 6542, 654 (E.D.N.Y.
1982); Kleiner v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 102 F..R.D.
754, 769 (N.D. Ga. 1983); United States v. Dennis, 645 F.2d 517,
523 (5th Cir. 1981) [Communications with person represented by
counsel]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 7 - 10/15/87 Proposed direct mail solicitation of
specific persons known to presently require legal services would
be improper under SCR 197 absent the lawyer having a family or
prior professional relationship with the person. SCR 197, **SEE
SCR 197 Amended 04/93** Adams v. Attorney Registration &
Disciplinary Com'n, 617 F. Supp. 449 (D.C. Ill. 1985) aff'd 801
F.2d 968 (7th Cir. 1986), IL DR 2-103, Spencer v. Honorable
Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 579 F.Supp. 880 (E.D.
pa. 1984) aff'd 760 F.2d 261 (3d Cir. 1985), PA DR 2-103(a),
104(a); Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 726 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Ky.
1987); State v. Moses, 642 P. 2d 1004, 1007 (Kan. 1982); In re
Frank, 440 N.E.2d 676, 677 (Ind. 1982) [Solicitation]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 6 - 09/24/87 A lawyer should not operate
collateral business for placing temporary legal clerical help
absent measures to ensure avoiding conflicts of interest,
assuring preservation of client confidences, users of service
are told owner is active lawyer. SCR 156, 187, 203(1) (1987)
[Supervision of nonlaywer assistants, conflict of interest]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 5 - 06/16/87 An attorney may not, in conjunction
with fund-raising efforts of a church which attorney is a
member, mail a letter to all church members and sponsors
informing them that the attorney will waive one-half of his
normal fee for preparation of wills and trusts, if the client
will agree to donate the one-half saved to the church. NRS 7.045
(1985), SCR 167, 188, 195, 196, 197 (1986). [Sharing fees with
nonlawyers, fee splitting]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 4 - 06/16/87 Subject proposed combination
fixed/contingent fee contract does not violate NV Rules of Prof
Conduct so long as fee does not appear at the conclusion of the
representation to be unreasonably high. Division of fees with
out of state counsel proposed is permissible, provided SRC
155(5) requirements are met. SCR 154, 155, 157, 158, 189 (1986),
Thorton, Sperry & Jensen, Ltd. v. Anderson, 352 N.W.2d 467,
468-9 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); Oregon State Bar Legal Ethics Comm.
Op. 154 (June 30, 1967)….[Fee agreement, reasonable fee, fee
splitting]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 3 - 05/22/87 A non-profit legal services
corporation may not as part of its retainer agreement contract
with its clients to receive all money in trust fund accounts not
claimed by the client within 3-year period. BUT it may provide
that any amounts less than $1 remaining in trust fund account
when a file is closed become property of corporation. SCR 155,
158 (1986). [Fee agreement, reasonable fee]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 2 - 05/23/86 Attorney may write to person who
client says owed client money, demand payment and threaten to
sue if person does not pay WHEN attorney reasonably believes the
claim and intention to sue is legitimate and subject to other
restrictions. DR 7-105(a) (1980)); NRS 73.040 (1985), SCR
150(1), 181(1), 182, 184, 202(2), 203 (1986) [Demand letters,
threats of criminal prosecution]
(complete opinion)
OPINION 1 - 04/23/86 A private attorney who has formed a
partnership for the practice of law with a deputy DA for a rural
Nevada county may not defend any person charged with a violation
of any Nevada ordinance or law in any Nevada court. NRS 7.105
(1985), NRS 252.120 (1985), SCR 157, 160, NV A.G. Op 126
(04/25/73) [Conflict of interest, employment]
(complete opinion
Top
Ethics Opinions Prior to 1986
SUMMARY.
(
For
full text of opinions 1-8, click here.
)
OPINION 8 - 10/21/77 It is improper for a lawyer to use
the word "attorney" or "lawyer" in connection with public
service announcements. ABA DR 2-101, 102. [Advertising,
solicitation]
OPINION 7 - 11/01/77 It is improper for an attorney to
use a firm name without stating the names of the attorneys. SCR
202, 202.1 [Letterhead/business cards, advertising]
OPINION 6 - 12/16/76 Circumstances under which a former
Gaming Control Board/Commission member may act as attorney for a
licensee in a matter before the Board/Commission where licensee
charged with regard to a transaction occurring prior to the
attorney's resignation from the Board/Commission. DR 9-101B.
[Employment, conflict of interest]
OPINION 5 - 10/5/76 It is professionally improper for the
Nevada Indian Legal Services, Inc. to represent an individual
Indian against a tribe or tribal organization except with the
consent of all parties concerned. Legal Services Corporate Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2996 et seq.), SCR 167, 169, ABA Canon 6
[Conflict of interest]
OPINION 4 -12/19/75 Re district attorney acting as
defense counsel after retirement: gives the appearance of
impropriety even if none exists. ABA Canon 9, ABA FO 132, Canon
36, FO 37, 135, ABA EC 9-3, SCR 167, 179. [Employment,
impropriety]
OPINION 3 -3/19/75 It is improper for attorney admitted
in California who is not admitted in Nevada but who resides in
Nevada and is employed by a Nevada law firm to have a business
card indicating he is with Nevada firm but only licensed to
practice in California unless the card also clearly states the
nature of employment. SCR 42 [Letterhead/business cards,
nonlawyer status]
OPINION 2 - 3/19/75 Filing defensive pleading by
insurance lawyer on behalf of uninsured motorist not improper;
intervention by insurance company suggested. Cod of Prof Resp
Canon 5, ABA IO 1065, DR-2103 (a), DR2-104(a) (1); NRS 49.074 et
seq., State Farm Ins Company v Wharton, 495 P.2d 358. [Conflict
of interest]
OPINION 1 -
08/22/74 It is professionally improper for any member of a law
firm in which one of the partners is employed as a full time
city attorney to represent criminal defendants in city and state
criminal proceedings, SCR 170, ABA Ops. 16, 30, 33, 49, 72, 186,
ABA Canon 6. [Employment, conflict of interest]
Top
Published as a public service by the State Bar of Nevada
Produced and edited by the Publications Committee of the State
Bar of Nevada ©2008
|
