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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.115 (2026)

Exceptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 49.115  Exceptions.  There is no privilege under NRS 49.095 or 49.105:

      1.  If the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud.

      2.  As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate succession or by inter vivos transaction.

      3.  As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client or by the client to his or her lawyer.

      4.  As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness.

      5.  As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the clients.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 783)

PROCEEDINGS OF REVIEW COMMITTEE

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Montgomery v. eTreppid Tech., LLc, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Nev. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Montgomery v. eTreppid Tech., LLc, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Nev. 2008). “See NRS 49.115(5) ("There is no privilege ...”
Clark v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 692 P.2d 512 (Nev. 1985). “She predicates her argument upon the provision of NRS 49.115(2) that there is no attorney-client privilege “ [a]s to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate…”
Fletcher v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. App. 4th 773 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “514 , citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.115 (2), italics added), rather than “parties all of whom claim through a deceased client” as in section 957 (italics added), but these minor differences are immaterial to the point at issue.”
Sloan v. State Bar of Nevada, 726 P.2d 330 (Nev. 1986). “In this regard, the State Bar relies on NRS 49.115(1), which provides that an attorney-client communication is not privileged when the client sought or obtained the services of a lawyer “to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably…”
Canarelli Vs. Dist. Ct. (canarelli), 2020 NV 29 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 10× “NRS 49.115 expressly lists five exceptions to the attorney-client privilege, none of which are the fiduciary exception.”
Seibel v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 73 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 5× “Brodin et al., Weinstein’s Federal Evidence §§ 503-1, 503.”
Seibel v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 73 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 5× “Specifically, Rule 503 of the Draft Federal Rules of Evidence or "Supreme Court Standard 503" is widely regarded as the common law crime-fraud exception's enumeration.”
Hall CA-NV, LLC v. Ladera Dev. LLC (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 4× “095 and NRS 49.115. NRS 49.095 provides the 16 general rule defining attorney-client privilege.”
Schwartzer v. Pisanelli Bice, Pllc (Bankr. D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 4× “§ 49.115(5) addresses the attorney client privilege among joint clients and states that there is no privilege “[a]s to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or…”
Tower Homes, LLC Vs. Heaton, 2016 NV 62 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “" NRS 49.115(3). While the 2013 bankruptcy stipulation and order here do not explicitly use "assigned," such formalistic language is not required for a valid assignment.”
Valley Health Sys., L.L.C. v. Dist. Ct. (Bellavance) (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “Crime-fraud exception NRS 49.115(1) sets forth the crime-fraud exception to attorney- client privilege: "There is no privilege under NRS 49.”
Moore v. United States En Banc (D.C. 2025). · cites it 2× “None has codified an § 27-503(4); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.115 ; N.H. R. Evid. 502(d); N.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.115(1): 4 cases
Sloan v. State Bar of Nevada, 726 P.2d 330 (Nev. 1986). “In this regard, the State Bar relies on NRS 49.115(1), which provides that an attorney-client communication is not privileged when the client sought or obtained the services of a lawyer “to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably…”
Seibel v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 73 (Nev. 2022). “Brodin et al., Weinstein’s Federal Evidence §§ 503-1, 503.”
Seibel v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 73 (Nev. 2022). “Specifically, Rule 503 of the Draft Federal Rules of Evidence or "Supreme Court Standard 503" is widely regarded as the common law crime-fraud exception's enumeration.”
Valley Health Sys., L.L.C. v. Dist. Ct. (Bellavance) (Nev. 2022). “Crime-fraud exception NRS 49.115(1) sets forth the crime-fraud exception to attorney- client privilege: "There is no privilege under NRS 49.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.115(2): 1 case
Clark v. Second Jud. Dist. Court, 692 P.2d 512 (Nev. 1985). “She predicates her argument upon the provision of NRS 49.115(2) that there is no attorney-client privilege “ [a]s to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or intestate…”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.115(3): 2 cases
Tower Homes, LLC Vs. Heaton, 2016 NV 62 (Nev. 2016). “" NRS 49.115(3). While the 2013 bankruptcy stipulation and order here do not explicitly use "assigned," such formalistic language is not required for a valid assignment.”
Tower Homes, LLC Vs. Heaton, 2016 NV 62 (Nev. 2016).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.115(5): 5 cases
Montgomery v. eTreppid Tech., LLc, 548 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Nev. 2008). “See NRS 49.115(5) ("There is no privilege ...”
Canarelli Vs. Dist. Ct. (canarelli), 2020 NV 29 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 49.115 expressly lists five exceptions to the attorney-client privilege, none of which are the fiduciary exception.”
Schwartzer v. Pisanelli Bice, Pllc (Bankr. D. Nev. 2023). “§ 49.115(5) addresses the attorney client privilege among joint clients and states that there is no privilege “[a]s to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or…”
Hall CA-NV, LLC v. Ladera Dev. LLC (D. Nev. 2020). “095 and NRS 49.115. NRS 49.095 provides the 16 general rule defining attorney-client privilege.”
Hall CA-NV, LLC v. Ladera Dev. LLC (D. Nev. 2019).
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.