NRS
7.055 Duty of discharged attorney to deliver certain materials to
client; enforcement; adjudication of claims to materials.
1. An attorney who has been discharged by
his or her client shall, upon demand and payment of the fee due from the
client, immediately deliver to the client all papers, documents, pleadings and
items of tangible personal property which belong to or were prepared for that
client.
2. A client who, after demand therefor and
payment of the fee due from the client, does not receive from his or her
discharged attorney all papers, documents, pleadings and items of tangible
personal property may, by a motion filed after at least 5 days’ notice to the
attorney, obtain an order for the production of his or her papers, documents,
pleadings and other property. If the court finds that an attorney has, without
just cause, refused or neglected to obey its order given under this section,
the court may, after notice and hearing, adjudge the attorney guilty of
contempt and may fine or imprison him or her until the contempt is purged. If
the court finds that the attorney has, without just cause, withheld the
client’s papers, documents, pleadings or other property, the attorney is liable
for costs and attorney’s fees.
3. An attorney who is in doubt as to the
ownership of papers, documents, pleadings or other property may deposit the
materials with the clerk of the court. The clerk shall immediately seal the
materials to protect the privacy and privilege of the clients and interested
persons and notify each interested person of the deposit. Upon a petition filed
by a client or other interested person, any court shall, after giving at least
5 days’ notice to all other interested persons, adjudicate the rights of
persons claiming an interest in the materials and make necessary orders under
the circumstances of the case.
(Added to NRS by 1977,
776)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case:
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
Means v. State, 103 P.3d 25 (Nev. 2004).
“Means further argues that NRS 7.055 requires the discharged attorney to deliver everything prepared for the client, including notes.”
In Re Hotels Nevada, LLC, 458 B.R. 560 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2011).
· cites it 4× “See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 7.055. 5 Moreover, under the broad scope of § 541, even attorney notes and research memoranda that were prepared in representing the debtors are property of the estate.”
Edgeworth Fam. Tr. v. Dist. Ct. (Simon) (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 14× “The district court erred in failing to require Simon to produce the complete client file to the Edgeworths under NRS 7.055 This court may issue a writ of mandamus to correct or otherwise tgcompel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from…”
Hockemier (Devon) v. the Fourth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In any event, a decision as to good cause must be addressed to the district court in the first instance should 'It appears from the "formal letter" filed on November 29, 2016, that petitioner's trial counsel has delivered his file to petitioner and therefore complied with NRS 7.”
Palmer (Markiece) v. State (Nev. 2018).
“Even if counsel failed to provide Palmer's file after counsel's withdrawal, Palmer has failed to demonstrate that the production of his file would have led to a reasonable probability of a different outcome.”
In Re: Connell Living Trust (Nev. 2018).
“And Ahern should follow the procedures set forth in NRS 7.055(2) to As BHFS's representation regarding the no-contest-clause litigation similarly did not yield an affirmative recovery, we need not separately address BHFS's request as to that portion of its fees.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.055(2) — 5 cases
Edgeworth Fam. Tr. v. Dist. Ct. (Simon) (Nev. 2022).
“The district court erred in failing to require Simon to produce the complete client file to the Edgeworths under NRS 7.055 This court may issue a writ of mandamus to correct or otherwise tgcompel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from…”
Palmer (Markiece) v. State (Nev. 2018).
“Even if counsel failed to provide Palmer's file after counsel's withdrawal, Palmer has failed to demonstrate that the production of his file would have led to a reasonable probability of a different outcome.”
In Re: Connell Living Trust (Nev. 2018).
“And Ahern should follow the procedures set forth in NRS 7.055(2) to As BHFS's representation regarding the no-contest-clause litigation similarly did not yield an affirmative recovery, we need not separately address BHFS's request as to that portion of its fees.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.055(a) — 1 case
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.