TAYLOR v. BRILL FACOG FACS PLLC (2022)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Initial review of this appeal revealed a potential jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears that the order challenged on appeal is not substantively appealable. Accordingly, this court directed appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has filed a response to this court's show cause order, and respondents have filed a reply.

In her response to the order to show cause, appellant argues that the challenged order is appealable as a special order entered after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). This court has repeatedly stated that mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging orders disqualifying counsel. See Nev. Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 44, 49, 152 P.3d 737, 740 (2007); Waid v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 605, 609, 119 P.3d 1219, 1222 (2005); Leibowitz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 119 Nev. 523, 529, 78 P.3d 515, 519 (2003). The right to an appeal is statutory; if no statute or court rule provides for an appeal, no right to appeal exists. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an attorney disqualification order. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Hardesty, J.