USA – NEVADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Leon F Mead, Mead Law Group
While the Rules of Professional Responsibility have largely been rewritten in the three decades since this guidance was written, the concerns of the Nevada Bar over outside counsel have not diminished. Individual judges can also become frustrated by the lack of involvement of local counsel, which could impact client strategy. It is therefore critical that local counsel is involved in a client’s overall strategy. Additionally, Nevada’s state courts are divided into eleven “districts”, broken up by region and county. Each district has its own unique local rules and manner of applying the civil procedure rules. In addition, judges within a single district may have a variety of preferences and practices that are crucial to understand. Because of this, obtaining local counsel is important at the coun- ty level, as well as at the state level. In the rural counties of Nevada, even bringing in Nevada-licensed counsel from larger cities such as Las Vegas or Reno may not be sufficient. In many cases, it makes more sense to select local counsel from the rural county or surrounding counties instead. Indeed, practitioners from the larger Nevada cities will employ local counsel in more rural courts to address this very issue. Selection of local counsel, therefore, should be undertaken in every case a client has in Nevada. Federal Procedure Rules and Evidence Rules Generally Followed (With Some Quirks) As noted earlier, Nevada’s procedure and evi- dence rules mirror the federal rules of evidence and the federal rules of civil procedure, with limited exception. Despite this equivalency, the decisions issued by federal courts regarding the applicability of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- dure (FRCP) are only advisory and do not con- stitute binding authority upon Nevada courts. Although this is a commonly understood princi-
ple of jurisdiction throughout the USA, Nevada courts ‒ in practice ‒ do not shy away from dis- regarding a federal court’s interpretation of a federal procedure or evidence rule that mirrors Nevada’s rules. Nevada courts will review and complete their own interpretation of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) and the Nevada Rules of Evidence and only rely upon federal court decisions regarding the FRCP when the Nevada Supreme Court has not interpreted a specific rule and there is nothing else to rely upon. As such, there are many important distinctions that must be considered when practising before Nevada courts (and which demonstrate the val- ue of obtaining local counsel). Initial disclosure and early case conference reports Rule 16.1 of the NRCP is a critical rule to under- stand for litigation counsel practising in Nevada. This rule mandates a number of pre-trial discov- ery requirements that all counsel in a case must adhere to throughout the litigation process. Ini- tially, counsel must hold a pre-trial early case conference within 30 days of the initial answer being filed in an action. At that early case confer- ence, the parties must prepare a discovery plan and proposed case management schedule for review and approval by the court. After the conference is held, each party must provide a disclosure document within 14 days of the date of the early case conference. This doc- ument must include the names and addresses of all known individuals who are likely to have information that may be discoverable under the provisions of Rule 26 of the NRCP, including impeachment or rebuttal information (and the subjects of that information). This disclosure must include a copy ‒ or a description by catego-
1496 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook