High-profile lawyer's agreement said to be in violation of rules

Efforts by a high-profile Southern California construction defect attorney to enter the Las Vegas market involved the practice of law without a Nevada license, a lawsuit against the lawyer claims.

Las Vegas attorney Nancy Quon sued the Law Offices of Thomas Miller in Clark County District Court seeking to have a December 1996 employment agreement declared void and unenforceable because it violated Nevada Supreme Court rules.

But Miller's attorneys say it was Quon's responsibility to ensure the operation was within the state Supreme Court's rules and that she is seeking to get out of the agreement to work for a competitor

Miller is fairly well known in Las Vegas. He hired a public relations firm here in a successful effort to gain media attention about construction defects and has tried to educate homeowners and homeowners' associations through his Internet site and by teaching classes at UNLV.

Quon is now with Maddox and Quon in Las Vegas.

The suit claims the employment agreement would "facilitate unethical and criminal activity." Miller operates out of California and is not licensed in Nevada, according to the suit.

Quon worked for Miller, then later established her own law office in affiliation with Miller before terminating the relationship altogether in October 1997.

The suit alleges the employment agreement Quon originally worked under violated Nevada Supreme Court rules. One, the suit alleges the agreement would have enabled Miller to "direct or control the professional judgment" of a Nevada lawyer, which would violate Nevada Supreme Court rule 189 that states a lawyer shall not practice in a jurisdiction where doing so would be in violation of regulations of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.

Secondly, the suit alleges the agreement disallowed Quon from enticing any client to hire another attorney without Miller's permission. The suit alleges that restriction is unethical because it prevents clients from deciding for themselves whether to stay with a firm or not. Thirdly, a provision that entitled Miller to receive a share of fees from cases in Nevada, the suit maintains, violate state Supreme Court rules that prohibit sharing such fees with a non-lawyer.

Jim Jimmerson, representing the Miller law firm, said the suit was an attempt to stop arbitration proceedings filed against Quon in California. The Miller law firm is seeking arbitration in California to have the employment agreement enforced.

A lawsuit filed by Miller against Quon was dismissed in March, which preceded the call for arbitration. Jimmerson said Quon's current firm solicits clients in direct competition with Miller.

"I think this is a last-ditch effort by Ms. Quon to avoid a trial on the merits in arbitration," Jimmerson said.

archive