Your state's pack. New issues arrive periodically on Mondays. Bookmark it. I built this for the Nevada T&E solo who knows the NRS probate framework cold but still loses an afternoon a week tracking the moving Medicaid pieces — and who needs to keep the generous homestead and the community-property basis math straight.
For licensed attorneys. This pack is general legal information and professional commentary for practicing attorneys — it is not legal advice, does not apply to any specific matter, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Verify every authority against the cited primary source before relying on it with a client. Published by Mike Moss, a Utah-admitted attorney, as an AI-enablement information product; it is not an offer of legal services and is not a representation that the author is admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.
Three developments I think actually matter to a Nevada T&E solo. Each has a read that lands on your practice specifically — and each comes with a reachable citation so you can verify it yourself before you use it with a client.
Under NRS 422.29302, the State files a claim in a probate proceeding only when there is no surviving spouse and no surviving child who is under 21, blind or disabled.
This is the structural fact a Nevada Medi plan is built around. A Deed Upon Death or funded trust that keeps the home out of probate is the recovery shield; the trap is letting the home fall into probate.
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 422.29302 · leg.state.nv.us
Nevada's Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act, NRS 111.655 to 111.699, lets an owner record a Deed Upon Death that passes the home outside probate.
Because recovery is probate-only, keeping the home out of probate via a recorded Deed Upon Death (or trust) is the recovery play — pair it with the homestead and watch the basis step-up under community property.
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 111.655 et seq. · leg.state.nv.us
Nevada expanded managed care to all 17 counties effective Jan 1, 2026, bringing rural members into MCOs for the first time (selection deadline late Dec 2025; 90-day grace period to Mar 31, 2026).
Plan delivery and prior-authorization pathways changed for rural LTC clients. Confirm a client's MCO assignment before assuming continuity of services.
DHCFP managed care expansion (Jan 1, 2026) · dhcfp.nv.gov
Decisions that bind a Nevada practitioner — the Supreme Court of Nevada and the Court of Appeals of Nevada, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, and the Ninth Circuit — read for what actually changes how you draft, advise, and plan. Trusts and estates broadly, not Medicaid alone: wills and capacity, undue influence, fiduciary duty, trust construction, and estate recovery. One read, the holding, and the official cite.
Before he died, a settlor hired attorney Shawn Morris to prepare trust documents that would route a larger share of the trust’s assets to his daughter, Christine Bernstein, than the existing trust gave her. The documents were allegedly prepared negligently, so at death the assets passed under the older terms and Bernstein lost the intended share. She sued Morris for transactional legal malpractice; the district court dismissed, holding that as a non-client third party she lacked standing and that her claim was not ripe. The Court of Appeals of Nevada reversed. Reasoning that a remedy is hollow if no one has standing to pursue it, the court held that an intended third-party beneficiary may sue the settlor’s attorney for transactional malpractice, adopting the California Lucas v. Hamm balancing test (the extent the transaction was intended to affect the beneficiary, foreseeability and certainty of harm, closeness of connection, the policy of preventing future harm, and the burden on the profession) to keep liability bounded. The court also held such a claim is ripe — and the limitations clock meaningful — once the beneficiary is forced to incur costs litigating the validity or meaning of the challenged documents, which is when Bernstein’s claim accrued.
Two implications that pull in opposite directions depending on which chair you sit in. As a drafting attorney: Nevada now exposes you to malpractice claims from the very beneficiaries your estate plan was meant to benefit — not just the client, who is no longer alive to complain — so tighten your engagement scope, your drafting QC, and your file notes on the client’s intent, because a disappointed beneficiary can put the document’s adequacy on trial after the settlor’s death. As counsel for a shortchanged beneficiary: you have a path to recovery against the planner even without privity, but mind ripeness and accrual — the claim crystallizes when your client must litigate the instrument’s validity or meaning, so calendar the limitations period from that point, not from the settlor’s death alone.
Bernstein v. Morris, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Nev. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2025) (published) · official advance opinion — nvcourts.gov
This week in Nevada for the T&E solo with Medicaid-planning clients: what the State Bar of Nevada, DHCFP, and CMS put in front of you.
The bar CLE calendar, the DHCFP bulletins, and the federal standards all publish on different schedules. This is that sift, already done, with the link on each item.