Legal Opinion

Marquis & Aurbach v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Clark

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 2006No. 43501PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*1150OPINION

By the Court,

Hardesty, J.:

These original petitions for writs of mandamus involve proceedings that began in the State Bar of Nevada’s fee dispute arbitration program, which resolves fee disputes between attorneys and clients. In the fee dispute arbitration proceeding, the client challenged her contingency fee agreement with a firm as violating a professional conduct rule, SCR 155(4)(a).1 This rule, in relevant part, prohibits contingency fee agreements if the payment or amount of the fee “is contingent . . . upon the amount of alimony or support, or property settlement in lieu thereof.”…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Pan v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of ClarkNevada Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Smith v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Round Hill General Improvement District v. NewmanNevada Supreme Court · 1981
  4. TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Hilton Hotels Corp.Nevada Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 2004

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Cote v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Westpark Owners' Ass'n v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Gonski v. Second Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of WashoeNevada Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Clark County District Attorney v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2007

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API