By John M. Naylor
I last wrote about reasonable attorney fees nearly ten years ago. The legal market has evolved, and so, too, have some of the issues concerning fees. This article highlights two of those issues.
Reconciling NRPC 1.5 and Brunzell
Is there a violation of NRPC 1.5 if, while considering a fee award, a court declares a portion of the fees unreasonable? Probably not. Although NRPC 1.5(a) requires that attorney fees be reasonable, reasonableness in the attorney-client context appears to differ from reasonableness in the fee-award context because the two approaches developed independently.
NRPC 1.5(a)(1)–(8) sets forth a non-exclusive list of eight factors for determining reasonableness without regard to context. By contrast, Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.3d 51 (1969), identifies four factors in the fee-award context. Everyone knows (or should know) that despite being nearly 60 years old, Brunzell is alive and well. The divergence between Brunzell and the rule is not surprising given that Brunzell predates NRPC 1.5 by decades. At the time Brunzell was decided in 1969, Nevada’s professional rules, SCR 163 through 204, adopted October 15, 1965, did not impose a reasonableness requirement on fees. The Supreme Court of Nevada did not incorporate such a reasonableness requirement until the adoption of SCR 135 in 1986, which was based on ABA Model Rule 1.5. Pre-dating the ethical rules helps explain why Brunzell relied on out-of-state authority, Schwartz v. Schwerin, 85 Ariz. 242, 336 P.2d 144, 146 (Ariz. 1959), which itself relied on secondary sources, rather than Nevada rules or precedent, in articulating its four-factor test. Brunzell, 85 Nev. at 349, 455 P.3d at 51. This strongly suggests that Brunzell’s analysis addresses reasonableness in the context of a fee award.
Nevada case law supports this distinction, even if not expressly articulated. For example, Las Vegas Review Journal v. Clark County Office of Coroner/Medical Examiner, 138 Nev. 813, 817, 521 P.3d 1169, 1174 (2022), reviewed the district court’s analysis of a fee award exclusively under Brunzell, without reference to NRPC 1.5. Other cases, however, muddy the waters. In Vassey v. Burris & Thomas LLP, No. 86710-COA, 2024 WL 3083283, at *3 (Nev. Ct. App. June 20, 2024) (unpublished disposition), the Court of Appeals of Nevada reversed and remanded a matter involving the adjudication of an attorney lien—effectively a fee dispute between attorney and client—and instructed the district court to analyze the fees under Brunzell. The unpublished decision suggests that Brunzell trumps NRPC 1.5. Vasey, No. 86710-COA, 2024 WL 3083283, at *3 fn 3.
The Office of Bar Counsel of Nevada generally treats NRPC 1.5(a) as a client-protection rule. That said, a judicial finding of unreasonableness in the fee-award context may invite scrutiny under the rule. Standing alone, however, such a finding would not likely establish an ethical violation. Instead, it could prompt a fact-intensive inquiry into factors such as the terms of the engagement with the client and whether the fees were actually paid. Examination of those factors extends well beyond the scope of a court’s typical Brunzell analysis in the fee-award context.
Do Hourly Rates Really Matter?
Although Brunzell does not expressly reference hourly rates, district courts routinely consider prevailing market rates as part of their reasonableness analysis. See, e.g., Due Diligence Group, LLC v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Case No. A-22-853953-W, Eighth Judicial District Court, Order entered on October 19, 2022, p. 2 (observing that hourly rates inform the third and fourth Brunzell factors). Perhaps the best source of data on local hourly rates is the annual survey prepared by Chad Clament, Esq. and Dylan C. Ciciliano, Esq. for the Eighth Judicial District Court’s Business Court Bench Bar meeting. (Chad Clament, Esq., and Dylan C. Ciciliano, Esq., “Legal Fees and Rates in Nevada,” presented at the March 25, 2026, Business Court Bench/Bar Meeting). The 2026 survey reports an average attorney rate of $628 an hour, including an average partner rate of $710 and an average associate rate of $469. As the survey notes, these figures are averages and can vary significantly based on firm size, practice area, and experience level. Even so, the survey provides a useful benchmark and is likely the most detailed, comprehensive source of rate information for the local market.
Conclusion
The treatment of attorney fees continues to evolve, and the practitioner should review the latest cases and data when preparing a fee application.
About the author
John M. Naylor has been licensed for more than 35 years and is a cofounder of Naylor & Braster, a Las Vegas law firm specializing in business litigation. He strives to practice civilly and professionally in the areas of commercial litigation and appellate law.
About the article
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (June/July 2026), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2026 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.