A Matter Of Principal

The Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a claim against a law firm.

In this opinion, we consider the extent to which a nonlawyer agent who is granted authority over claims and litigation under a power of attorney pursuant to Nevada’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act, as codified in NRS Chapter 162A, may litigate a claim belonging to the principal. Construing the statutory scheme in a manner consistent with long-standing Nevada law prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law, we hold that a nonlawyer agent operating under a power of attorney concerning claims and litigation may not litigate an action in pro se in place of the principal or otherwise engage in the practice of law on the principal’s behalf; rather, our statutes generally grant such an agent the same limited authority a client has over claims and litigation in an attorney-client relationship.

Because the district court correctly determined below that appellant’s nonlawyer agent under a power of attorney was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, we affirm its decision to strike the second amended complaint prepared by the agent. But because the district court proceeded to dismiss appellant’s last remaining claim in the action with prejudice without conducting the requisite analysis for imposing case concluding sanctions, we reverse that dismissal and remand this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellant is an inmate who gave POA to a fellow inmate

Eby seems to contend that the UPOAA allows a nonlawyer agent with a valid power of attorney concerning claims and litigation to essentially step into the shoes of the principal and litigate an action as if the principal were proceeding in pro se, or that it simply authorizes such an agent to engage in the practice of law on the principal’s behalf. We disagree.

The case is DONALD DOUGLAS EBY VS. JOHNSTON LAW OFFIC.E, P.C.; BRAD M. JOHNSTON; AND LEANN E. SCHUMANN. (Mike Frisch)