Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

NRS 49.115

Exceptions

Applied in 7 court decisions — leading case Clark v. Second Judicial District Court (1985)

Most recently applied in Seibel v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (November 2022)

(Added to NRS by 1971, 783)

How often courts cite this section

19851990200020102020202210
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

There is no privilege under NRS 49.095 or 49.105:

1. If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.

2. As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction.

3. As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client or by the client to his or her lawyer.

4. As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness.

5. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the clients.

Official source: Nevada Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nevada statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.