Nevada
Western reach, one standard of preparation throughout
Overview
Three States, Two Attorneys, One Docket
The legal landscape of Nevada litigation
Nevada's court system follows a three-tier structure. Trial courts of general jurisdiction are organized as District Courts across the state's 11 judicial districts, hearing felonies, civil actions above limited-jurisdiction thresholds, and family law matters. Justice Courts and Municipal Courts handle smaller civil claims, misdemeanors, and traffic matters at the county and city level. Intermediate appellate review runs through the Nevada Court of Appeals, established by constitutional amendment in 2014 with sessions in both Carson City and Las Vegas. The Supreme Court of Nevada serves as the court of last resort with seven justices, sitting primarily in Carson City. Clark County's District Court operates a Business Court calendar that provides specialized case management for complex commercial disputes, similar in function to New York's Commercial Division and Cook County's Commercial Calendar Section.
Civil procedure operates under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP), which closely track the Federal Rules. Nevada follows a modified comparative fault framework under NRS 41.141, which permits recovery when a plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of the defendants, a structure similar to Texas's 51-percent bar. Statutes of limitations under NRS 11.190 set two years for personal injury, six years for written contracts, four years for oral contracts, and three years for fraud claims. Nevada maintains a False Claims Act framework under NRS Chapter 357 (enacted 1999), which provides a broad qui tam structure for fraud against state programs and operates with scope similar to New Mexico's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act rather than Colorado's Medicaid-only framework.
Federal practice, the Ninth Circuit, and Nevada's distinctive industries
Nevada has one federal judicial district, the District of Nevada, with primary courthouses in Las Vegas (the Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse) and Reno (the Bruce R. Thompson United States Courthouse). The District of Nevada's docket includes significant activity in commercial litigation, gaming and hospitality matters, securities fraud, and qui tam actions. Federal appeals route through the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco, which reviews Nevada appeals alongside those from California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific territories. The Ninth Circuit's shared coverage of California and Nevada makes appellate work originating in either state operationally accessible from the same appellate jurisdiction.
Nevada's economy and federal court docket are shaped by industries that distinguish the state from its Western neighbors. Las Vegas hosts the country's largest commercial gaming industry, with associated litigation across employment, premises liability, intellectual property, and complex commercial disputes. The Reno metropolitan area has emerged as a significant technology and manufacturing center with operations from Tesla, Apple, Switch, and other major companies, generating commercial and intellectual property activity that increasingly mirrors Silicon Valley patterns. Nevada also handles a substantial volume of cross-border California-Nevada matters arising from the heavy commercial and personal traffic across state lines, where matters can be filed in either jurisdiction depending on venue analysis and forum strategy.
The firm's Nevada bar admissions and cross-jurisdictional Western practice
Holdsworth & Inkwell maintains two attorneys admitted to the State Bar of Nevada, both currently based at the Austin office: Partner Mickey Haller and Associate Maggie McPherson. Both attorneys hold California, Texas, and Nevada bar admissions, providing the firm with cross-state Western capability across the three jurisdictions and giving each attorney direct appearance rights in matters that move between California, Nevada, and Texas venues. Mickey Haller brings broad commercial litigation experience across multiple Western markets, while Maggie McPherson focuses on first-party property and business interruption Insurance Recovery practice. The combined three-state admission depth allows the firm to coordinate matters that cross state lines without resorting to pro hac vice procedures.
The firm does not maintain a physical office in Nevada. Nevada matters are handled from the Austin office through admitted-attorney direct appearance and pro hac vice for non-Nevada-barred attorneys joining complex teams. Travel between Austin and Las Vegas or Reno supports hearings, depositions, and trial appearances as cases require. The Nevada admission depth at the Austin office complements the firm's broader Western practice, with the same attorneys handling Texas Insurance Recovery work also positioned to support Nevada policyholder-side property and business interruption matters when they arise.
Bar Admission
The Nevada Bar
State Bar of Nevada
Attorneys practicing law in Nevada are licensed and disciplined by the State Bar of Nevada, a public corporation operating under the supervision of the Nevada Supreme Court and Nevada Supreme Court Rules. The State Bar of Nevada has governed the legal profession in the state since 1928. Unlike jurisdictions with a voluntary bar association separate from the licensing authority, the State Bar of Nevada is a mandatory, or integrated, bar: membership is required for anyone practicing law in the state, and the organization itself carries out both admission and discipline under the Supreme Court's oversight.
Admission to the State Bar of Nevada requires a J.D. or equivalent degree from an ABA-approved law school, passage of the Nevada bar examination, a character-and-fitness review, and a demonstration of good moral character and fitness to practice, all administered under rules set by the Nevada Supreme Court.
The State Bar of Nevada maintains a public attorney directory and disciplinary records, and clients are encouraged to independently verify the license status and standing of any attorney before engaging counsel. Details of Holdsworth & Inkwell's own attorney credentials are available on our credentials page.
The Holdsworth & Inkwell attorneys practicing Nevada matters hold active admission to the State Bar of Nevada.
Procedural Notes
Where Procedure Differs by Venue
Procedure varies by jurisdiction. A rule that holds in one venue does not necessarily hold in another. The notes below set out procedural specifics relevant to Nevada matters: filing requirements, local rules, and other practice realities that shape how litigation proceeds here. Where the firm has identified a jurisdiction-specific note for this service area, it appears below.
Personal injury and wrongful death claims must be filed within two years of accrual under NRS 11.190(4)(e). The two-year tort framework aligns Nevada with the catalog's two-year-PI majority (CO, GA, IL, TX, AZ, FL post-HB 837). Property damage claims operate under a three-year period under NRS 11.190(3)(c). The discovery rule applies to latent injury claims where the plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered the injury within the standard period.
Medical malpractice operates under a distinctive framework at NRS 41A.097: three years from the date of injury or one year from when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first. The 'whichever occurs first' framing is more defense-favorable than most med mal frameworks in the catalog (which use 'whichever is later' or independent discovery-plus-repose structures). A late-discovered injury triggers only a one-year filing window from the date of discovery, with the three-year repose operating as an absolute outside maximum regardless of when discovery occurred.
Defamation (libel and slander) operates under a two-year period under NRS 11.190(4)(c). Nevada's two-year defamation period is longer than the one-year periods in most catalog states (NY, CA, DC, GA, IL, CO, TX) and aligned with Florida's two-year framework post-HB 837. The longer period provides more time for defamation matters to develop and is plaintiff-favorable compared to most catalog states.
Written contract claims must be filed within six years of breach under NRS 11.190(1)(b). Oral contract claims must be filed within four years of breach under NRS 11.190(2)(c). Nevada's six-year written contract period aligns with the catalog majority including New York and Massachusetts, and provides more flexibility than Florida's five-year, Colorado's three-year, or Texas's four-year periods. UCC sale-of-goods claims follow a four-year period from breach under NRS 104.2725.
Fraud claims must be filed within three years of accrual under NRS 11.190(3)(d), with the discovery rule providing that accrual is delayed until the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the fraud through reasonable diligence. The three-year fraud period is operationally aligned with most other catalog states and provides more flexibility than the two-year fraud periods in some jurisdictions.
Nevada Tort Claims Procedure requirements under NRS 41.036 (covered separately) impose additional procedural filings that operate alongside these SOL periods when claims against the State or political subdivisions are involved. The two-year filing period under NRS 41.036(2) aligns with the personal injury SOL, but the filing must be made with the State Board of Examiners (for state claims) or the governing body (for political subdivisions), not by direct court filing. Missing the Tort Claims Procedure deadline bars the claim independently of the SOL period.
Nevada applies a modified comparative fault framework under NRS 41.141. A plaintiff whose fault is greater than 50 percent of the combined fault of the named defendants is barred from recovery. A plaintiff whose fault is 50 percent or less recovers damages reduced by their proportionate share of fault. The 51-percent bar framework parallels Texas (Chapter 33), Illinois (§ 2-1116), Florida (post-HB 837 § 768.81), Massachusetts (G.L. c. 231 § 85), and New York (CPLR Article 16 several liability).
Several liability is the default rule under NRS 41.141(4). Each defendant is liable only for the percentage of damages attributable to that defendant's fault as determined by the trier of fact. The several-only framework parallels Texas's Chapter 33 framework and Florida's post-HB 837 § 768.81 framework, making Nevada significantly defense-favorable on damages allocation.
Under NRS 41.141, fault may be allocated to settling parties, immune parties, and parties not named in the lawsuit. The framework requires defendants to identify and develop evidence about other potentially responsible parties to maximize the allocation of fault away from named defendants. The non-party allocation is less aggressive than Georgia's OCGA § 51-12-33 framework (which expressly contemplates the apportionment of fault to non-parties as a complete component of the analysis), but provides meaningful defense flexibility.
Joint and several liability is preserved under NRS 41.141(5) in specific statutory categories: (1) hazardous waste claims, (2) intentional torts, (3) strict liability product defects, and (4) breach of trust or fiduciary duty. In these categories, defendants remain jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages, regardless of the comparative fault allocation. The narrow preservation of joint liability operates as a substantive exception to the otherwise broad several-only framework, requiring careful claim characterization at the outset of litigation.
Nevada adopted modified comparative fault by statute in 1973, replacing the prior contributory negligence rule. The statutory adoption was part of the broader 1970s nationwide trend toward comparative fault frameworks. The Nevada approach (statutory modified comparative with several-only default) differs from California (judicial pure comparative in Li v. Yellow Cab, 1975), New Mexico (judicial pure comparative in Bartlett, 1982), and Tennessee (judicial modified comparative in McIntyre v. Balentine, 1992). Subsequent legislative refinements have addressed the joint liability exceptions and the procedural mechanics of fault allocation.
Nevada's Tort Claims Procedure under NRS 41.036 requires claims against the State of Nevada to be filed with the State Board of Examiners before suit may be filed in court. The Board of Examiners filing requirement is a distinctive Nevada framework: most catalog states use written notice or presentment procedures (CA Government Claims Act, GA Ante Litem notice, FL § 768.28(6)(a), MA MTCA § 4), but Nevada uses a formal administrative claim filing with a statewide body.
The State Board of Examiners is composed of the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State under NRS 353.020. The Board reviews claims and either approves payment within its authority or refers larger claims to the Legislature for further action. The administrative review framework provides an opportunity for resolution before litigation, but is operationally distinct from the more typical notice-of-claim frameworks found in other catalog states.
The filing must be made within two years of the date the cause of action accrues under NRS 41.036(2). The two-year filing period aligns with the personal injury SOL under NRS 11.190(4)(e), but operates as a separate procedural deadline independent of the SOL. The filing with the Board of Examiners must include specific information about the claim, including the date and circumstances of the incident, the nature of the alleged wrongful conduct, the damages sought, and supporting documentation.
After filing with the Board of Examiners, the claim is either approved, denied, or referred to the Legislature. If the Board denies the claim or fails to act within six months, the claimant may file suit in court. The administrative review framework operates as a condition precedent to suit: missing the Board of Examiners filing deadline bars the claim regardless of compliance with the underlying SOL. The framework requires careful coordination between the administrative deadline and the SOL deadline to preserve the right to sue.
NRS 41.035 imposes a $200,000 cap on damages recoverable per claimant against the State of Nevada and its political subdivisions, exclusive of interest. The per-claimant cap aligns with Florida's $200,000 per-person cap under § 768.28(5), though Florida adds a separate $300,000 per-incident ceiling that Nevada does not impose. NRS 41.035 also bars punitive damages against the State and political subdivisions, eliminating an entire category of potential recovery for governmental tort claims.
The combined Board of Examiners filing requirement, two-year deadline, and statutory $200,000 cap (with no punitive damages) shape Nevada governmental tort practice substantially. The administrative framework adds procedural complexity, the deadlines operate strictly, and the damages caps significantly limit recovery even where the underlying damages are substantial. Practitioners evaluating Nevada governmental tort claims must understand both the procedural Board of Examiners framework and the substantive damages limitations under NRS 41.035.
For claims against political subdivisions (counties, cities, school districts, special districts), the filing is made with the governing body of the political subdivision under NRS 41.036(3) rather than with the State Board of Examiners. The same two-year filing period applies. The governing body has six months to act on the claim, and silence operates as denial. The $200,000 per-claimant cap and punitive damages bar under NRS 41.035 apply to political subdivisions as well, providing consistent damages limitations across state and political subdivision claims.
Attorneys are licensed only in the jurisdictions listed in their individual credentials. Admission to practice varies by attorney and by court; nothing on this page implies licensure in any jurisdiction not expressly stated.
Locations
The Team Behind Nevada Matters
Holdsworth & Inkwell operates as one firm, not a set of separate offices with their own standards. A matter in Nevada draws on the same preparation, judgment, and trial capability the firm brings to any matter, anywhere it practices. The lawyers assigned here are chosen for what the matter requires, not for which office happens to be closest. That is simply how the firm works, drawing on the same bench that stands behind every office.
headquarters
Sacramento
The firm's founding office and headquarters since 1962, located one block from the California State Capitol.
regional
Atlanta
Southeast office opened 2008 near the Georgia State Capitol, anchoring the firm's False Claims Act practice in the Eleventh Circuit.
regional
Austin
Texas office opened 2014 near the State Capitol, anchoring insurance recovery for Texas and Oklahoma severe weather events.
regional
Denver
Mountain West office opened 2019 near the Colorado State Capitol, covering wildfire litigation and Tenth Circuit federal practice.
Attorneys
Counsel Admitted in Nevada
Every attorney listed here holds admission to the State Bar of Nevada and carries direct appearance rights in Nevada's courts. That admission, not the office an attorney happens to sit in, is what determines who can stand for you in this jurisdiction. Browse their backgrounds below to see who brings the right experience to your matter.
Matters
The Record
These are matters our admitted Nevada attorneys have actually handled, not a summary of firm capability. Our Nevada practice runs on bar admission rather than a local office. This record builds as matters arise, sometimes at length, sometimes just beginning. Each entry describes a matter as it happened, not a preview of what comes next.
Defended State Contractor Through Board of Examiners Process
dispute-resolution2026NevadaWon Summary Judgment in Nevada Insurance Bad Faith Action
summary-judgment2025Nevada
Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.
Western reach, one point of contact
Discuss a Nevada Matter
Get in touch to talk through what's ahead. For a closer look at the attorneys handling this cross-state Western work, visit our attorneys.