Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 11 - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.207 (2026)

Malpractice actions against attorneys and veterinarians

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 11.207  Malpractice actions against attorneys and veterinarians.

      1.  An action against an attorney or veterinarian to recover damages for malpractice, whether based on a breach of duty or contract, must be commenced within 4 years after the plaintiff sustains damage or within 2 years after the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the material facts which constitute the cause of action, whichever occurs earlier.

      2.  This time limitation is tolled for any period during which the attorney or veterinarian conceals any act, error or omission upon which the action is founded and which is known or through the use of reasonable diligence should have been known to the attorney or veterinarian.

      (Added to NRS by 1981, 1023; A 1997, 478)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Stalk v. Mushkin, 199 P.3d 838 (Nev. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stalk v. Mushkin, 199 P.3d 838 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 8× “Thus, NRS 11.207, which sets forth the statute of limitations for “[m]alpractice actions against attorneys,” is applicable to legal malpractice claims, whether based on breach of contractual obligations or breach of fiduciary duties: An action against an attorney .”
Moon v. McDonald, Carano & Wilson, L.L.P., 306 P.3d 406 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 9× “NRS 11.207(1). The statutory limitation period for a claim of legal malpractice involving the representation of a client during litigation does not commence until the underlying litigation is concluded.”
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Gerrard, 432 P.3d 736 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 7× “Nevada follows the rule that a litigation malpractice claim does not accrue, and the two-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.207(1) does not start to run, until the client's damages are no longer contingent on the outcome of an appeal.”
Gonzales v. Stewart Title, 905 P.2d 176 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 8× “NRS 11.207(1) provides that a malpractice action against an attorney must be initiated within four years after the plaintiff suffers damages and discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the material facts constituting the cause of action.”
Kopicko v. Young, 971 P.2d 789 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 8× “On February 8, 1996, Young filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Kopickos' claim was barred under the four-year limitation period of NRS 11.207(1). [2] The district court ordered the case dismissed on these grounds, concluding that the statute began to run on…”
Kim v. Dickinson Wright, PLLC, 442 P.3d 1070 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 5× “C § 1367(d) tolled the statute of limitations on any state action against Damus until September 4, 2015, when the federal action was dismissed, so Kim could have brought suit then as advised by Dickinson Wright; 3 (2) under Nevada's litigation malpractice tolling rule, Kim's…”
Oak Grove Investors v. Bell & Gossett Co., 668 P.2d 1075 (Nev. 1983). · cites it 2× “This rule was adopted legislatively in 1981, when NRS 11.207 was enacted to limit actions against attorneys, accountants, and veterinarians to a four-year period “after the plaintiff sustains damage and discovers or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have…”
Clark v. Robison, 944 P.2d 788 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 2× “In determining whether a statute of limitations has run against an action, the time must be computed from the day the cause of action accrued.”
K.J.B., Inc. v. Drakulich, 811 P.2d 1305 (Nev. 1991). · cites it 3× “Semenza did not specifically determine whether the statute of limitations would be tolled against a cause of action for attorney malpractice pending the outcome of the underlying lawsuit in' which the malpractice allegedly occurred.”
Charleson v. Hardesty, 839 P.2d 1303 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 2× “NRS 11.207(1) states that [n]o action against any .”
Brady Vorwerck v. New Albertson's, 2014 NV 68 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 92× “207, as revised by the Nevada Legislature in 1997, is tolled against an action for attorney malpractice, pending the outcome of the underlying suit in which the malpractice allegedly occurred.' United States District Court of the District of Nevada; Gloria M.”
Metro. Water Dist. v. State, 665 P.2d 262 (Nev. 1983). “205, by NRS 11.207, or by or pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, can only be commenced as follows: 3.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.207(1) — 23 cases
Stalk v. Mushkin, 199 P.3d 838 (Nev. 2009). “Thus, NRS 11.207, which sets forth the statute of limitations for “[m]alpractice actions against attorneys,” is applicable to legal malpractice claims, whether based on breach of contractual obligations or breach of fiduciary duties: An action against an attorney .”
Moon v. McDonald, Carano & Wilson, L.L.P., 306 P.3d 406 (Nev. 2013). “NRS 11.207(1). The statutory limitation period for a claim of legal malpractice involving the representation of a client during litigation does not commence until the underlying litigation is concluded.”
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Gerrard, 432 P.3d 736 (Nev. 2018). “Nevada follows the rule that a litigation malpractice claim does not accrue, and the two-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.207(1) does not start to run, until the client's damages are no longer contingent on the outcome of an appeal.”
Gonzales v. Stewart Title, 905 P.2d 176 (Nev. 1995). “NRS 11.207(1) provides that a malpractice action against an attorney must be initiated within four years after the plaintiff suffers damages and discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the material facts constituting the cause of action.”
Kopicko v. Young, 971 P.2d 789 (Nev. 1998). “On February 8, 1996, Young filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Kopickos' claim was barred under the four-year limitation period of NRS 11.207(1). [2] The district court ordered the case dismissed on these grounds, concluding that the statute began to run on…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.207(2) — 4 cases
Mahon Vs. Howard & Howard Attorneys, Pllc C/W 81468 (Nev. 2021).
Mahon Vs. Howard & Howard Attorneys, Pllc C/W 81468 (Nev. 2021).
Brady Vorwerck v. New Albertson's, 2014 NV 68 (Nev. 2014). “207, as revised by the Nevada Legislature in 1997, is tolled against an action for attorney malpractice, pending the outcome of the underlying suit in which the malpractice allegedly occurred.' United States District Court of the District of Nevada; Gloria M.”
Mullins v. Cavallera (Nev. 2013).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.207(l) — 1 case
Stalk v. Mushkin, 199 P.3d 838 (Nev. 2009). “Thus, NRS 11.207, which sets forth the statute of limitations for “[m]alpractice actions against attorneys,” is applicable to legal malpractice claims, whether based on breach of contractual obligations or breach of fiduciary duties: An action against an attorney .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.