Does a nonresident Nevada-licensed attorney who uses a coworking space in Nevada 'maintain an office' under SCR 42.1, and must that address be filed as advertising?

Plain-English summary

The Committee addressed two questions about a Nevada-licensed attorney who lives outside Nevada and wants to use a "coworking" office space in Nevada: whether that arrangement counts as maintaining an office under Supreme Court Rule 42.1, and whether the coworking address listed on cards, letterhead, and a website triggers the advertising filing requirement of NRPC 7.2A.

On the first question, the Committee answers yes. SCR 42.1 requires Nevada attorneys who do not maintain a Nevada office to associate or designate a local attorney for service when filing papers, but the rule does not define "maintain an office" beyond excluding a post office box or mail drop. Revisiting its 1994 Formal Opinion 19 (which found that using space inside a client's business was not maintaining an office), the Committee concludes that the concerns behind Opinion 19, availability for in-person hearings, client confidentiality, familiarity with local rules, and service of process, are now either resolved or sufficiently mitigated for a coworking space designed for the legal industry, given remote-appearance technology, e-service, and trained coworking staff who do not work for any client. The Committee notes the trend follows ABA Formal Opinions 495 and 498 and similar opinions from other states. It cautions that the attorney must actually use the space (not merely hold access to dodge SCR 42.1(2)), and that the opinion does not apply to a multijurisdictional firm trying to satisfy NRPC 7.5A's permanent-office certification through a coworking space.

The opinion then lists ethics conditions the attorney must address: confidentiality under NRPC 1.6 (guard against overheard conversations, unopened mail, shared files, and insecure IT); conflicts under NRPC 1.7 principles (tell clients the attorney is not associated with other lawyers sharing the space); communication under NRPC 1.4 and 7.1 (disclose limited physical presence and that meetings are by appointment); supervision of coworking staff under NRPC 5.3; safekeeping of property under NRPC 1.15 using a Nevada-approved trust bank; and unauthorized-practice concerns under NRPC 5.5 in the attorney's home jurisdiction.

On the second question, the Committee answers no: NRPC 7.2A's filing requirement excludes websites by its own terms, and business cards and letterhead are outside its scope. Paid advertisements or marketing materials that include the coworking address remain subject to the filing requirement, and must indicate that in-person meetings are by appointment only.

In practice

Under this opinion, a nonresident Nevada attorney may use a Nevada coworking office space to satisfy the "maintain an office in Nevada" requirement of SCR 42.1, which avoids the associate-or-designate step in SCR 42.1(2), provided the attorney actually uses the space and meets the ethics conditions the Committee identifies. Per the opinion, the attorney must safeguard confidentiality in a shared environment, disclose to clients that the attorney is not affiliated with other lawyers in the space and is present only by appointment, supervise coworking staff under NRPC 5.3, use a Nevada-approved trust account under NRPC 1.15 and SCR 78, and confirm that working remotely from the home jurisdiction is not unauthorized practice there. Cards, letterhead, and a website do not require an NRPC 7.2A filing, but paid advertising listing the address does and must state that meetings are by appointment only.

Common questions

Q: Can a Nevada lawyer who lives out of state use a coworking space to meet the SCR 42.1 office requirement?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes that using a Nevada coworking office space constitutes maintaining an office in Nevada under SCR 42.1, subject to the conditions it sets out, which lets the attorney avoid the associate-or-designate requirement of SCR 42.1(2).

Q: Do I have to file my business cards, letterhead, or website with the bar as advertising?

A: No. The opinion concludes that websites are excluded by the text of NRPC 7.2A and that business cards and letterhead fall outside the filing requirement; paid advertisements that list the coworking address do require filing.

Q: What confidentiality steps does the opinion expect in a shared space?

A: Per the opinion: prevent others from overhearing client conversations, keep mail unopened by non-employees, avoid leaving files in shared areas, train staff to take minimal caller information, and use secure IT (VPN, encryption, no public Wi-Fi for client work).

Q: Does the opinion cover multijurisdictional firms opening a Nevada office?

A: No. The opinion states that a multijurisdictional firm cannot satisfy NRPC 7.5A's requirement of a permanent Nevada office and a resident member solely by having access to a coworking space, particularly where the Nevada attorney is not a Nevada resident.

Background and rules framework

The opinion centers on Nevada Supreme Court Rule 42.1 (maintaining an office in Nevada; associate-or-designate requirement for nonresident-office attorneys) and NRPC 7.2A (filing of advertisements). It applies the duties of confidentiality (NRPC 1.6), communication (NRPC 1.4, 7.1), supervision of nonlawyers (NRPC 5.3), safekeeping of property (NRPC 1.15, with SCR 78), and limits on multijurisdictional and unauthorized practice (NRPC 5.5, 7.5A), which correspond to Model Rules 1.6, 1.4, 5.3, 1.15, 5.5, and 7.2. It situates the conclusion within ABA Formal Opinions 495 and 498 on remote and virtual practice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Nevada RPC 7.2A / Model Rule 7.2 (filing of advertisements)
• Nevada RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
• Nevada RPC 5.3 / Model Rule 5.3 (supervision of nonlawyer assistants)
• Nevada RPC 1.15 / Model Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property; trust accounts)
• Nevada RPC 5.5 / Model Rule 5.5 (unauthorized and multijurisdictional practice)
• Nevada RPC 1.4, 7.1, 7.5A (communication; truthful communications; multijurisdictional firm registration)

Court rules:

• Nevada S.C.R. 42.1 (maintaining an office in Nevada)
• Nevada S.C.R. 78 (approved trust-account institutions)

Cases:

• Ryan v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 123 Nev. 419, 168 P.3d 703 (2007), duty to avoid conflicts
• State v. Eighth Judicial District Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev. 158, 321 P.3d 882 (2014), imputation of conflicts

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 495 (2020) and Formal Op. 498 (2021): remote and virtual practice
• NV Formal Op. 19 (1994) and Formal Op. 41 (2009); Ohio Adv. Op. 2017-05; PA Formal Op. 2010-200; WA Adv. Op. 201601; Maine Formal Op. 189; KY E-417; DC Op. 303

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 495: Lawyers Working Remotely
• ABA Formal Op. 498: Virtual Practice
• NJ ACPE Op. 742: Non-NJ Lawyers Working Remotely from a NJ Home
• CA COPRAC Op. 2023-208: Remote Practice

Source

• Landing page: https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Opinion-59-Co-working-space-for-practice-of-attorneys-admitted-in-NV-but-not-maintaining-NV-office-3-11-22-FINAL.pdf