Mainor V. Nault Case Study

Finally, in Mainor, the clients claimed that their attorney conspired to deprive their son of his money and as a result he received insufficient compensation. Mainor v. Nault, 101 P.3d 308, 310 (Nev. 2004). They allege their attorney violated the rules of professional conduct. Id. The court in Mainor stated that “An attorney's violation of professional rules of responsibility does not create a private right of action, but is relevant to the standard of care owed by an attorney.” Id. at 321. Rules 1.1 and 1.4 of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct require an attorney to be competent and to properly communicate with their client. Nev. R. Prof’l. Conduct 1.1, 1.4.
Here, the breach of an obvious statute, similar to Allyn, will not require expert …show more content…
Unlike in Mainor, where the attorney was able to obtain money damages for his client, Brenner did not obtain child support for Joyce. Similarly to Sorenson, where the attorney failed to properly handle a divorce decree resulting in financial loss for his client, Brenner’s failure to include child support in Joyce’s divorce proceeding resulted in her suffering financial hardship. It seems that the most obvious reason Joyce did not get child support was due to Brenner’s failure to demand it during the divorce proceedings. His lack of prudence and diligence directly caused Joyce to lose out on support she would have benefitted from. Without continued support from Joyce’s ex-husband, which Brenner did demand, Joyce will not be able to properly support herself or her child. Pursuant to NRS 125B.070, Joyce is entitled to 18 percent of her ex-husband’s salary, and without that she will be losing out on much needed financial support. Brenner should have been aware of this statute, and his failure to acknowledge and implement it caused Joyce damages in the form of lost child