Before Justices Cherry, Pickering, and Hardesty. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
In this original petition for writ of mandamus, the Court faced two novel issues: should an attorney who represents one of his parents in a divorce action between both parents be disqualified either (1) because the attorney’s representation will constitute the appearance of impropriety or (2) because representing the parent will violate the concurrent-conflict-of-interest rule in Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.7? In answering the first issue, the Court held that there was no disqualifying appearance of impropriety because the appearance of impropriety is no longer recognized by the American Bar Association and the Court has not recognized the appearance of impropriety as a basis for disqualifying counsel except in the limited circumstance of a public lawyer. Thus, as a general matter, an appearance of impropriety without more does not support a lawyer’s disqualification. The Court resolved the second issue by holding there was no violation of RPC 1.7 unless there was an ethical breach by the attorney that affects the fairness of the entire litigation or a proven confidential relationship between the nonclient parent and the attorney. Moreover, the Court held that the nonclient parent did not have standing to assert a conflict claim, largely because she was not a former or current client of her son, the mother-son relationship did not establish a confidential relationship, and there was no suggestion of any other legally recognizable confidential relationship. Because the district court manifestly abused its discretion in disqualifying counsel, the court granted the appellant’s petition and instructed the district court to vacate its order granting Respondent’s motion to disqualify counsel. (Rory T. Kay, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP).
