Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 162.310 (2026)

Limitation on duty of attorney representing fiduciary with respect to principal

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 162.310 Limitation on duty of attorney representing fiduciary with respect to principal.

1. An attorney who represents a fiduciary does not, solely as a result of such attorney-client relationship, assume a corresponding duty of care or other fiduciary duty to a principal.

2. Nothing in this section limits a principal, fiduciary or successor fiduciary’s ability to assert appropriate claims against the attorney resulting from the negligent or intentional acts of the attorney.

3. As used in this section:

(a) “Fiduciary” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 162.020.

(b) “Principal” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 162.020.

(Added to NRS by 2011, 1465)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Canarelli Vs. Dist. Ct. (canarelli), 2020 NV 29 (Nev. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Canarelli Vs. Dist. Ct. (canarelli), 2020 NV 29 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 6× “See NRS 162.310(1)3 ("An attorney who represents a fiduciary does not, solely as a result of such attorney-client relationship, assume a corresponding duty of care or other fiduciary duty to a principal.”

Bernstein v. Morris (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 72 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 5× “In that case, our supreme court—relying on NRS 162.310(1)4—held that “an attorney representing a trustee as a fiduciary does not result in an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and the beneficiary,” for the purpose of establishing attorney-client privilege.”

Bernstein v. Morris (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 72 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 5× “In that case, our supreme court—relying on NRS 162.310(1)4—held that "an attorney representing a trustee as a fiduciary does not result in an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and the beneficiary," for the purpose of establishing attorney-client privilege.”

In Re: Laprade Fam. Trust (Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “Since the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we do not recount them further except as necessary for our disposition. • . continued duty of care or other fiduciary duty to a principal.”

Pompei v. Clarkson (Nev. 2016). “2d 1303 , 1306- 07 (1992), in 2011, the Legislature enacted NRS 162.310, which states that "[a]n attorney who represents a fiduciary does not, solely as a result of such attorney-client relationship, assume a corresponding duty of care or other fiduciary duty to a principal,"…”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 162.310(1) — 4 cases

Canarelli Vs. Dist. Ct. (canarelli), 2020 NV 29 (Nev. 2020). “See NRS 162.310(1)3 ("An attorney who represents a fiduciary does not, solely as a result of such attorney-client relationship, assume a corresponding duty of care or other fiduciary duty to a principal.”

Bernstein v. Morris (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 72 (Nev. 2025). “In that case, our supreme court—relying on NRS 162.310(1)4—held that “an attorney representing a trustee as a fiduciary does not result in an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and the beneficiary,” for the purpose of establishing attorney-client privilege.”

Bernstein v. Morris (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 72 (Nev. 2025). “In that case, our supreme court—relying on NRS 162.310(1)4—held that "an attorney representing a trustee as a fiduciary does not result in an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and the beneficiary," for the purpose of establishing attorney-client privilege.”

In Re: Laprade Fam. Trust (Nev. 2016). “Since the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we do not recount them further except as necessary for our disposition. • . continued duty of care or other fiduciary duty to a principal.”

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.