Can a California-licensed lawyer represent Nevada clients before the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency?

Plain-English summary

The Committee considered whether a California-licensed attorney may represent Nevada residents before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) on land-use issues involving Nevada property. It concluded the attorney may.

The Committee first determined that obtaining permits and advising on land-use matters before the TRPA constitutes the practice of law, citing authorities defining practice before administrative agencies (such as Florez v. City of Glendale and Denver Bar Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission) and Nevada Attorney General opinions. But it then held that SCR 189 (Nevada's unauthorized-practice rule, modeled on ABA Model Rule 5.5(a)) does not automatically apply, because the TRPA is a bi-state agency established by an interstate compact codified at NRS 277.200, with a governing body of seven Nevada and seven California members and jurisdiction over the Lake Tahoe basin in both states.

A bi-state agency is not subject to the laws of either state unless the compact reserves that authority, and the TRPA Compact does not authorize either state to regulate the licensing of attorneys appearing before the Agency (the Committee contrasted the compact's express provision making Nevada's stricter open-meeting law applicable, as in TRPA v. McKay). The Committee read its earlier authority requiring Nevada licensure to appear before a "purely state agency" as limited to such agencies, not a bi-state body. Quoting the ABA's discussion of Model Rule 5.5(a) on discouraging unreasonable territorial limitations on a client's choice of counsel, the Committee concluded that requiring Nevada licensure here would unreasonably burden both California attorneys and Tahoe-basin landowners' choice of counsel, so a California attorney may represent Nevada residents before the TRPA.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 unauthorized-practice and multijurisdictional-practice rule is now Rule 5.5, which the 2002 Ethics 2000 revisions substantially expanded to address temporary and cross-border practice. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a California lawyer handle a Nevada client's matter before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that because the TRPA is a bi-state agency not subject to either state's attorney-licensing rules, a California-licensed attorney may represent Nevada residents before it without violating SCR 189.

Q: Isn't appearing before the TRPA the practice of law?

A: Yes, the opinion treated it as the practice of law, but it held that SCR 189's unauthorized-practice bar does not reach a bi-state compact agency that neither state is authorized to regulate as to attorney licensing.

Q: Would the answer differ for a purely Nevada state agency?

A: Yes. The opinion limited the Nevada Attorney General opinions requiring Nevada licensure to "purely state" agencies, distinguishing the bi-state TRPA.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former SCR 189 (unauthorized practice of law, modeled on ABA Model Rule 5.5(a), now Rule 5.5) against the bi-state structure of the TRPA Compact (codified at NRS 277.200) and the rule that an interstate-compact agency is not subject to a single state's laws absent a reservation in the compact.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 5.5(a) / former Nev. SCR 189 (unauthorized practice of law)

Statutes:

• Nev. Rev. Stat. 277.200 (Tahoe Regional Planning Compact); Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Compact, Articles III(d), X(b)

Cases:

• People v. City of South Lake Tahoe, 466 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Cal. 1978) (bi-state agency not subject to one state's law absent reservation)
• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. McKay, 590 F. Supp. 1071 (D. Nev. 1984) (compact making Nevada's stricter open-meeting law applicable)
• Florez v. City of Glendale, 463 P.2d 67 (Ariz. 1969) (practice of law before administrative agencies)

See also

• NV Ethics Op. 19: a nonresident lawyer's office inside a client's business
• NV Ethics Op. 20: letterhead of a lawyer who lives in Nevada but is licensed elsewhere

Source

• Landing page: https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/opinion_21.pdf