DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE

STATE OF NEVADA

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Nevada ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Nevada

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Professional / Firm Name]
[Professional Liability Insurance Carrier]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date(s) of Negligent Service: [Date or Date Range]
Professional(s): [Professional Name(s) and License Type]
Matter/Project: [Description]
Claim Number: [If assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with the professional malpractice committed by [Professional/Firm Name] in [his/her/their] provision of [type of professional services] services. This letter constitutes formal notice of our client's claim and our demand for settlement.

I. NEVADA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Governing Law

Professional malpractice claims in Nevada are governed by common law negligence principles and Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 11. Key precedents include Semenza v. Caughlin Crafted Homes, 111 Nev. 1089 (1995) and Clark v. Lubritz, 113 Nev. 1089 (1997).

B. Statute of Limitations

Professional Malpractice: Under Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 11.190(4)(b), actions for professional malpractice must be commenced within four (4) years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim.

Discovery Rule: Nevada applies the discovery rule. The limitations period may be tolled until the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the facts constituting the claim. However, the plaintiff must bring the action within two (2) years from the date of discovery. Petersen v. Bruen, 106 Nev. 271 (1990).

Legal Malpractice: The statute runs from the date of the negligent act or from the date of discovery. Clark v. Lubritz, 113 Nev. 1089 (1997).

Relevant Dates in This Matter:
- Date(s) of negligent services: [Date(s)]
- Date of discovery: [Date]
- Four-year limitations period expires: [Date]
- Two-year discovery period expires: [Date]

C. Comparative Negligence

Nevada follows a modified comparative negligence system under Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 41.141. A plaintiff may recover damages only if their negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of all defendants. If the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, recovery is completely barred. If less than 51%, damages are reduced proportionally.

D. Standard of Care Under Nevada Law

Under Nevada law, a professional must exercise the skill and care that a reasonably competent practitioner in that field would exercise under similar circumstances. Semenza v. Caughlin Crafted Homes, 111 Nev. 1089 (1995).

Key Case Law:

• Attorneys: Must possess the skill, prudence, and diligence that lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and exercise. Clark v. Lubritz, 113 Nev. 1089 (1997).
• Accountants: Must perform services in accordance with GAAP and GAAS standards. FDIC v. Deloitte & Touche, 834 F. Supp. 1129 (D. Nev. 1993).
• Engineers/Architects: Must exercise the skill and care customarily used by practitioners in the profession. Reyburn Lawn & Landscape Designers, Inc. v. Plaster Dev. Co., 127 Nev. 331 (2011).

E. Expert Witness Requirements

Expert testimony is generally required in professional malpractice cases to establish:
1. The applicable standard of care;
2. That the defendant breached that standard; and
3. That the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages.

Semenza v. Caughlin Crafted Homes, 111 Nev. 1089 (1995).

Exception: Expert testimony is not required when the professional's negligence is so obvious that laypersons can recognize it.

Certification: We have retained a qualified expert who has reviewed the relevant documents and has concluded that the applicable standard of care was breached and that such breach proximately caused our client's damages.

F. Damage Caps

Nevada does not impose statutory caps on damages in professional malpractice cases.

G. Privity and Third-Party Claims

Legal Malpractice: Generally requires an attorney-client relationship. Clark v. Lubritz, 113 Nev. 1089 (1997). Nevada recognizes limited exceptions for intended third-party beneficiaries.

Accountant Malpractice: Third parties may recover where the accountant knew the work would be relied upon by identifiable third parties.

H. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Nevada recognizes breach of fiduciary duty as a separate cause of action. Klein v. First Edina Nat'l Bank, 196 Nev. 621 (1980). Professionals owing fiduciary duties may be liable for their breach.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to services provided to [Client Name], including but not limited to:

• Complete client file (paper and electronic)
• All correspondence and communications
• Work product, drafts, and notes
• Billing records and time entries
• Engagement letters and contracts
• Emails and electronic communications
• Calendar entries and scheduling records
• Internal memoranda and analysis
• Research materials
• Any recorded statements
• Professional liability insurance policies
• Quality control and review documentation

Modification, destruction, or concealment of any records will result in claims for spoliation, sanctions, and adverse inference instructions under Nevada law. Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442 (2006).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Engagement and Relationship

[Client Name] engaged [Professional/Firm Name] on or about [Date] to provide [type of professional services]:

Nature of Engagement:
- [Description of services to be provided]
- [Scope of representation/engagement]
- [Key objectives]

Fee Arrangement:
- [Description of fee arrangement]
- [Total fees paid: $Amount]

B. Chronology of Negligent Services

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

[Date]: [Describe what occurred]

C. The Professional Error(s)

[Describe specifically what the professional(s) did wrong]

D. Discovery of Malpractice

Our client [did not discover / could not have reasonably discovered] the malpractice until [Date], when [describe discovery circumstances].

IV. STANDARD OF CARE VIOLATIONS

A. Applicable Standard of Care

Under Nevada law, [Defendant Professional] was required to exercise the skill and care that a reasonably competent [profession type] would exercise under similar circumstances.

Based on our expert's analysis, the applicable standard of care required [Defendant] to:

1. [Standard 1]
2. [Standard 2]
3. [Standard 3]

B. Breaches of the Standard of Care

Breach 1: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 2: [Detailed description of breach]

Breach 3: [Detailed description of breach]

C. Expert Opinion

We have retained [Expert Name], a [licensed/certified] [profession] with [number] years of experience in [relevant area]. [Expert Name] has concluded that:

1. [Defendant Professional] breached the applicable standard of care;
2. These breaches were a direct and proximate cause of [Client Name]'s damages; and
3. Had appropriate professional services been rendered, [describe avoided outcome].

V. CAUSATION

A. "But For" Causation

But for the defendant's breach of the standard of care, our client would not have suffered the damages described herein. This claim satisfies the "but for" test for actual causation.

B. Proximate Causation

The defendant's professional negligence was a proximate cause of our client's damages. The harm suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of duty.

C. Case-Within-A-Case (If Applicable to Legal Malpractice)

[If legal malpractice:] We are prepared to prove that but for counsel's negligence, the underlying matter would have resulted in a more favorable outcome for our client. Clark v. Lubritz, 113 Nev. 1089 (1997).

VI. DAMAGES

A. Direct Financial Losses

As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's professional negligence, our client has suffered:

Primary Damages:
- [Loss 1]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 2]: $[Amount]
- [Loss 3]: $[Amount]

B. Consequential Damages

C. Professional Fees Paid

D. Interest and Incidental Costs

• Prejudgment interest per Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 17.130
• Court costs and filing fees
• Expert witness fees

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear breach of professional standards, the extent of our client's damages, and the strength of liability evidence, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on [Expiration Date].

VIII. RESPONSE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

Please provide:

1. All professional liability insurance policies applicable to this claim
2. Policy limits for each applicable policy
3. Any self-insured retention amounts
4. Excess/umbrella coverage information
5. Consent to extend statute of limitations during settlement discussions

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Engagement agreement/retainer
• Correspondence between client and professional
• Work product demonstrating errors
• Documentation of damages
• Expert curriculum vitae
• Chronology of events

X. CONCLUSION

This case presents clear professional negligence that caused significant financial harm to our client. The defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care required of [profession type] in Nevada.

We are prepared to litigate this matter in the [District Court/Justice Court] of [County] County, Nevada if necessary. However, we believe early resolution serves all parties' interests.

Please respond by the deadline stated above.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Nevada State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

NEVADA PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE PRACTICE NOTES

• Dual Limitations Periods: 4 years from act/omission OR 2 years from discovery.

• Discovery Rule: Limitations period may be tolled until discovery, but 2-year discovery period applies.

• Modified Comparative Fault: Recovery barred if plaintiff is 51% or more at fault.

• Expert Testimony Required: Expert witness is generally necessary except for obvious negligence.

• No Damage Caps: No statutory limits on professional malpractice damages.

• Prejudgment Interest: Prime rate plus 2% per Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 17.130.

• Short Trial Rule: Nevada courts may offer expedited trial procedures.

• Venue: District Court in county where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.

• Attorney Fees: Generally not recoverable unless contractual or statutory basis.

• Mandatory Arbitration: May be required for certain claim amounts.

This template is specific to Nevada law. Professional malpractice claims require careful attention to limitations periods and expert requirements. Always verify current law and consult with qualified Nevada counsel.