Can a nonresident Nevada-licensed lawyer use space in a client's business as a Nevada office instead of associating local counsel?

Plain-English summary

A nonresident attorney admitted to the State Bar of Nevada asked whether he could maintain a general litigation practice without associating local counsel by using space inside a Nevada client's place of business as his Nevada office. He proposed three variations: (1) using whatever space the client made available during visits, not designated as a law office; (2) using a designated area with a client employee acting as receptionist but sharing the client's phone number; and (3) using a designated area with interior and exterior signage, his own phone line through the client's switchboard, and a client employee receiving his mail, messages, and service of process.

The Committee analyzed SCR 42(10), which requires a Nevada-admitted attorney who does not maintain a Nevada office to associate or designate a local attorney for service when filing pleadings (and provides that a post office box is not an office). Drawing on the U.S. Supreme Court's nonresident-admission cases (Piper, Friedman, Barnard), the Committee identified the rule's legitimate purposes: assuring the lawyer is accessible to the courts and able to appear on short notice, and assuring the lawyer's commitment to the bar. It also surveyed Kansas and Oklahoma decisions and the lone Nevada case, Naimo v. Fleming.

Applying those purposes, the Committee found the first arrangement worse than a mail drop, since it gave the lawyer only a place to sit during irregular visits. The second and third fared no better: even with a phone line and someone to receive mail, an attorney who only irregularly appears in Nevada is not assured available to the courts. The Committee added a confidentiality concern under SCR 156: a receptionist employed and paid by a non-lawyer client would owe primary loyalty to that employer, might receive confidential client communications without understanding the duty to protect them, and could confuse courts, counsel, and clients about whose office it was.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, before Nevada's 2006 adoption of the current Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (the renumbered Rules 1.0 et seq. that replaced the former Supreme Court Rules) and the related Ethics 2000-based revisions. The multijurisdictional-practice principles now appear in Rule 5.5, and confidentiality in Rule 1.6; SCR 42 governing nonresident practice and local-counsel association has since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a nonresident Nevada lawyer use a client's office as their Nevada office to avoid associating local counsel?

A: No. The opinion concluded that using space inside a client's Nevada business, staffed by the client's employees, does not satisfy SCR 42's office requirement because it does not assure the lawyer's availability to the courts.

Q: Does adding a phone line and a receptionist fix the problem?

A: No. Per the opinion, a phone line and someone to receive mail is only a marginal improvement over a post office box and still does not assure that an attorney who appears only irregularly in Nevada will be available to the courts.

Q: Why is a client's employee acting as receptionist a confidentiality concern?

A: The opinion reasoned under SCR 156 that a receptionist employed and paid by a non-lawyer client owes primary loyalty to that employer and may receive confidential client communications without a strong inducement to keep them confidential.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former SCR 42 (regulation of practice by nonresident and non-admitted attorneys, including SCR 42(10)'s local-office-or-local-counsel requirement, now reflected in Rule 5.5) together with former SCR 156 (confidentiality, Model Rule 1.6), reading the office requirement against the U.S. Supreme Court's nonresident-admission decisions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 5.5 / former Nev. SCR 42 (regulation of nonresident practice; local-counsel requirement)
• Model Rule 1.6 / former Nev. SCR 156 (confidentiality of information)

Cases:

• Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) (nonresident bar admission; less-restrictive local-counsel alternative)
• Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988) (office requirement as alternative to residency)
• Naimo v. Fleming, 95 Nev. 13, 558 P.2d 1025 (1979) (dismissal for failure to associate local counsel under SCR 42(10))

See also

• NV Ethics Op. 20: letterhead of a lawyer who lives in Nevada but is licensed elsewhere
• NV Ethics Op. 21: out-of-state lawyer before the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Source

• Landing page: https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/opinion_19.pdf