Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 49 - PRIVILEGES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.105 (2026)

Who may claim privilege

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 49.105  Who may claim privilege.

      1.  The privilege may be claimed by the client, the client’s guardian or conservator, the personal representative of a deceased client, or the successor, trustee or similar representative of a corporation, association or other organization, whether or not in existence.

      2.  The person who was the lawyer at the time of the communication may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the client. The person’s authority to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 783)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Manley v. State, 979 P.2d 703 (Nev. 1999). · cites it 2× “095 (client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent anyone else from disclosing, confidential communications between the client and the lawyer made to facilitate giving legal services to the client); NRS 49.105 (client may claim privilege, or lawyer may do so on…”
Wardleigh v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 891 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1995). “Because the Association is a non-profit corporation, the homeowners are analogous to corporate shareholders (NRS 49.105(1)), and the Association and its members must therefore be treated like a corporation and shareholders, respectively, for purposes of evaluating the…”
Waid v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 119 P.3d 1219 (Nev. 2005). “NRS 49.105(1); U.S. v. Nabisco, Inc., 117 F.”
Clark v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 692 P.2d 512 (Nev. 1985). “NRS 49.105(1) provides that the “privilege may be claimed” not only by the client, but also by “the personal representative of a deceased client.”
Waid v. Dist. Ct., 119 P.3d 1219 (Nev. 2005). “[12] NRS 49.105(1); U.S. v. Nabisco, Inc., 117 F.”
Valley Health Sys., L.L.C. v. Dist. Ct. (Bellavance) (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “NRS 49.105 states who may claim the privilege.”
Wardleigh v. 2nd Jud. Dist. Ct. of State, 891 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1995). “Because the Association is a non-profit corporation, the homeowners are analogous to corporate shareholders (NRS 49.105(1)), and the Association and its members must therefore be treated like a corporation and shareholders, respectively, for purposes of evaluating the…”
Woods, Jr. (Virgil) v. State (Nev. 2017). “" NRS 49.105(2). The attorney-client privilege generally survives the termination of the relationship and the death of the client.”
Gibbs v. State, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 13 (Nev. 2024). “NRS 49.105(1). The analysis focuses entirely on whether the client intended— either explicitly or implicitly—to waive the attorney-client privilege.”
Lafrieda v. Black Eagle Consulting (Nev. 2014). “We assume, without deciding, that the letter referenced privileged communications between previous counsel and the experts, and that the letter was itself a privileged communication between previous counsel and withdrawal counsel.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.105(1) — 6 cases
Wardleigh v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 891 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1995). “Because the Association is a non-profit corporation, the homeowners are analogous to corporate shareholders (NRS 49.105(1)), and the Association and its members must therefore be treated like a corporation and shareholders, respectively, for purposes of evaluating the…”
Waid v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 119 P.3d 1219 (Nev. 2005). “NRS 49.105(1); U.S. v. Nabisco, Inc., 117 F.”
Clark v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 692 P.2d 512 (Nev. 1985). “NRS 49.105(1) provides that the “privilege may be claimed” not only by the client, but also by “the personal representative of a deceased client.”
Waid v. Dist. Ct., 119 P.3d 1219 (Nev. 2005). “[12] NRS 49.105(1); U.S. v. Nabisco, Inc., 117 F.”
Wardleigh v. 2nd Jud. Dist. Ct. of State, 891 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1995). “Because the Association is a non-profit corporation, the homeowners are analogous to corporate shareholders (NRS 49.105(1)), and the Association and its members must therefore be treated like a corporation and shareholders, respectively, for purposes of evaluating the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.105(2) — 1 case
Woods, Jr. (Virgil) v. State (Nev. 2017). “" NRS 49.105(2). The attorney-client privilege generally survives the termination of the relationship and the death of the client.”
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.