State Bar of Nevada Ethics Opinion 61, February-18-2025

• Jurisdiction: Nevada
• Opinion Number: 61
• Date: 18 February 2025

1

STATE BAR OF NEVADA

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Formal Opinion No. 61

(January __, 2025)

Question Presented

The Committee is presented with an opinion request involving Nevada Rule of Professional

Conduct 4.2, which it has reframed into the following hypothetical questions:

Question 1: Attorney X is the CEO of a non-profit advocacy organization that engages in

education, lobbying, and litigation. Even though Attorney X is a Nevada-licensed attorney, he does

not represent his organization as its legal counsel and he does not represent any clients on behalf

of the organization or in the course of his duties as CEO.

Attorney X engages in communications with a local government agency sued by his

organization, who is also represented by legal counsel. Does Attorney X, a Nevada-licensed

attorney, violate Rule 4.2 of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct by directly contacting a

managing-speaking agent of a local government agency with whom his organization has pending

litigation? Stated differently, should Attorney X’s communications to a managing-speaking agent

of the government agency proceed through the government agency’s legal counsel?

Question 2: Using the hypothetical above, Attorney X would like to make public comment

during a publicly-noticed meeting by the local government agency against whom his non-profit

advocacy organization has pending litigation. Does Rule 4.2 of the Nevada Rules of Professional

Conduct prohibit Attorney X from making public comment on the subject of his organization’s

litigation against the local government agency?

Short Answer

Answer to Question 1: So long as Attorney X is not representing his non-profit advocacy

organization as its legal counsel or in the subject of the litigation against the government agency,

Attorney X does not run afoul of Rule 4.2 by contacting a managing-speaking agent of the

government agency. Attorney X’s position is CEO, not legal counsel, for the non-profit advocacy

organization; therefore, he is not acting in the course of representing a client during the contact in

question.

Answer to Question 2: Attorney X does not violate Rule 4.2 because he is not serving as

legal counsel for the non-profit advocacy organization – he is making public comment on behalf

of the company as its CEO, and he has a First Amendment right to petition the government at the

publicly-noticed meeting. Even then, Nevada-licensed attorneys representing clients in suits

against local governmental agencies may generally provide public comment at publicly-noticed

meetings of those local governmental agencies under Rule 4.2’s exception for communications