Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125 (2026)
Fees of attorney other than public defender
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 7.125 Fees of attorney other than public defender.
1. An attorney, other than a public defender, who is selected pursuant to NRS 7.115 to represent or defend a defendant at any stage of the criminal proceedings from the defendant’s initial appearance before the magistrate or the district court through the appeal, if any, is entitled to receive a fee for court appearances and other time reasonably spent on the matter to which the appointment is made of:
(a) If the compensation of the attorney is subject to the provisions of subsection 3 of NRS 180.320, the amount set forth in the regulations adopted by the Board on Indigent Defense Services within the Department of Indigent Defense Services pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 180.320; or
(b) If the compensation of the attorney is not subject to the provisions of subsection 3 of NRS 180.320, $125 per hour in cases in which the death penalty is sought and $100 per hour in all other cases.
2. Except for cases in which the most serious crime is a felony punishable by death or by imprisonment for life with or without possibility of parole, this section does not preclude a governmental entity from contracting with a private attorney who agrees to provide such services for a lesser rate of compensation.
[1:86:1875; A 1911, 318; 1945, 103; 1943 NCL § 11357] + [2:86:1875; BH § 2421; C § 2456; RL § 7541; NCL § 11358]—(NRS A 1963, 510; 1964, 8; 1965, 598; 1967, 1468; 1969, 478; 1973, 168; 1975, 1153; 1977, 419, 875; 1981, 874; 1983, 109, 1095; 1985, 1023, 1024; 1987, 1295; 1991, 2077; 1993, 2465; 2003, 442; 2013, 1731; 2021, 2263; 2023, 1890)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1976–1997 · leading case: Crowley v. Duffrin, 855 P.2d 536 (Nev. 1993).
Crowley v. Duffrin, 855 P.2d 536 (Nev. 1993). “Crowley ceased receiving indigent appointments after invoking his right to compensation under NRS 7.125 rather than a contract he entered into with the Second Judicial District Court which provided for a lesser rate of pay.”
Lueck v. State, 669 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1983). “Prior to 1975, there was no statutory provision for fees in excess of the limitations specified in subsection (2) of NRS 7.125. The provision for extraordinary fees which is applicable to this case was added by the legislature in 1975.”
Daines v. Markoff, 555 P.2d 490 (Nev. 1976). “See: NRS 7.125. This law provides for additional compensation.”
Beury v. State, Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 812 P.2d 774 (Nev. 1991). “Rather, the district court held that NRS 7.125(2)(e) applied, and that an appointed attorney should notify the court before doing work that would entitle him to excess fees.”
Cnty. of Clark v. Smith, 619 P.2d 1217 (Nev. 1980). “125(4) provides, in pertinent part, that the court appointing an attorney to represent an indigent defendant may award a fee in excess of the statutory maximum of $2,500, NRS 7.125(2)(a), if the court “deems it appropriate because of extraordinary circumstances,” which are…”
Wood v. State, 951 P.2d 601 (Nev. 1997). “NRS 7.125 governs the amount of compensation that court-appointed attorneys may obtain for the representation of an indigent client in a criminal matter.”
Brackenbrough v. State, 553 P.2d 419 (Nev. 1976). “Accordingly, we hold invalid the language in NRS 7.125(1) and NRS 7.165 which refers to the “supreme court or a justice thereof,” insofar as it relates to the appointment and payment of counsel; and, that portion of NRS 7.”
Digesti v. Third Jud. Dist. Court, 853 P.2d 118 (Nev. 1993). “Petitioner contends that the district court has misapplied NRS 7.125 because Nevada judges do not have discretion to award “any amount” for time reasonably spent on a matter under the statutory limit.”
Beury v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 826 P.2d 956 (Nev. 1992). “Thereafter, Beury moved the district court, pursu *221 ant to NRS 7.125, for $4,230 in attorney’s fees for the work performed on Walters’ appeal.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(1): 2 cases
Brackenbrough v. State, 553 P.2d 419 (Nev. 1976). “Accordingly, we hold invalid the language in NRS 7.125(1) and NRS 7.165 which refers to the “supreme court or a justice thereof,” insofar as it relates to the appointment and payment of counsel; and, that portion of NRS 7.”
Digesti v. Third Jud. Dist. Court, 853 P.2d 118 (Nev. 1993). “Petitioner contends that the district court has misapplied NRS 7.125 because Nevada judges do not have discretion to award “any amount” for time reasonably spent on a matter under the statutory limit.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(2): 3 cases
Lueck v. State, 669 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1983). “Prior to 1975, there was no statutory provision for fees in excess of the limitations specified in subsection (2) of NRS 7.125. The provision for extraordinary fees which is applicable to this case was added by the legislature in 1975.”
Brackenbrough v. State, 553 P.2d 419 (Nev. 1976). “Accordingly, we hold invalid the language in NRS 7.125(1) and NRS 7.165 which refers to the “supreme court or a justice thereof,” insofar as it relates to the appointment and payment of counsel; and, that portion of NRS 7.”
Digesti v. Third Jud. Dist. Court, 853 P.2d 118 (Nev. 1993). “Petitioner contends that the district court has misapplied NRS 7.125 because Nevada judges do not have discretion to award “any amount” for time reasonably spent on a matter under the statutory limit.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(2)(a): 2 cases
Cnty. of Clark v. Smith, 619 P.2d 1217 (Nev. 1980). “125(4) provides, in pertinent part, that the court appointing an attorney to represent an indigent defendant may award a fee in excess of the statutory maximum of $2,500, NRS 7.125(2)(a), if the court “deems it appropriate because of extraordinary circumstances,” which are…”
Digesti v. Third Jud. Dist. Court, 853 P.2d 118 (Nev. 1993). “Petitioner contends that the district court has misapplied NRS 7.125 because Nevada judges do not have discretion to award “any amount” for time reasonably spent on a matter under the statutory limit.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(2)(b): 2 cases
Lueck v. State, 669 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1983). “Prior to 1975, there was no statutory provision for fees in excess of the limitations specified in subsection (2) of NRS 7.125. The provision for extraordinary fees which is applicable to this case was added by the legislature in 1975.”
Digesti v. Third Jud. Dist. Court, 853 P.2d 118 (Nev. 1993). “Petitioner contends that the district court has misapplied NRS 7.125 because Nevada judges do not have discretion to award “any amount” for time reasonably spent on a matter under the statutory limit.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(2)(e): 3 cases
Lueck v. State, 669 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1983). “Prior to 1975, there was no statutory provision for fees in excess of the limitations specified in subsection (2) of NRS 7.125. The provision for extraordinary fees which is applicable to this case was added by the legislature in 1975.”
Beury v. State, Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 812 P.2d 774 (Nev. 1991). “Rather, the district court held that NRS 7.125(2)(e) applied, and that an appointed attorney should notify the court before doing work that would entitle him to excess fees.”
Wood v. State, 951 P.2d 601 (Nev. 1997). “NRS 7.125 governs the amount of compensation that court-appointed attorneys may obtain for the representation of an indigent client in a criminal matter.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(3): 1 case
Brackenbrough v. State, 553 P.2d 419 (Nev. 1976). “Accordingly, we hold invalid the language in NRS 7.125(1) and NRS 7.165 which refers to the “supreme court or a justice thereof,” insofar as it relates to the appointment and payment of counsel; and, that portion of NRS 7.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(4): 6 cases
Lueck v. State, 669 P.2d 719 (Nev. 1983). “Prior to 1975, there was no statutory provision for fees in excess of the limitations specified in subsection (2) of NRS 7.125. The provision for extraordinary fees which is applicable to this case was added by the legislature in 1975.”
Beury v. State, Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 812 P.2d 774 (Nev. 1991). “Rather, the district court held that NRS 7.125(2)(e) applied, and that an appointed attorney should notify the court before doing work that would entitle him to excess fees.”
Wood v. State, 951 P.2d 601 (Nev. 1997). “NRS 7.125 governs the amount of compensation that court-appointed attorneys may obtain for the representation of an indigent client in a criminal matter.”
Cnty. of Clark v. Smith, 619 P.2d 1217 (Nev. 1980). “125(4) provides, in pertinent part, that the court appointing an attorney to represent an indigent defendant may award a fee in excess of the statutory maximum of $2,500, NRS 7.125(2)(a), if the court “deems it appropriate because of extraordinary circumstances,” which are…”
Beury v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 826 P.2d 956 (Nev. 1992). “Thereafter, Beury moved the district court, pursu *221 ant to NRS 7.125, for $4,230 in attorney’s fees for the work performed on Walters’ appeal.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(4)(a): 1 case
Beury v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 826 P.2d 956 (Nev. 1992). “Thereafter, Beury moved the district court, pursu *221 ant to NRS 7.125, for $4,230 in attorney’s fees for the work performed on Walters’ appeal.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(4)(d): 1 case
Beury v. State, Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 812 P.2d 774 (Nev. 1991). “Rather, the district court held that NRS 7.125(2)(e) applied, and that an appointed attorney should notify the court before doing work that would entitle him to excess fees.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.125(6): 1 case
Cnty. of Clark v. Smith, 619 P.2d 1217 (Nev. 1980). “125(4) provides, in pertinent part, that the court appointing an attorney to represent an indigent defendant may award a fee in excess of the statutory maximum of $2,500, NRS 7.125(2)(a), if the court “deems it appropriate because of extraordinary circumstances,” which are…”
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.