Plaintiff Charm Hospitality, LLC filed this lawsuit alleging, inter alia, legal malpractice against Defendant Nohayia Javed, Esq. Specifically, Charm made various allegations, in which it contended that Javed fell below the standard of care in her representation of Charm in connection with her prosecution of an insurance claim relating to water damage sustained at a Hotel owned by Charm in Elko, Nevada. The Hotel and the business’ personal property (“BPP”) were insured by General Security and Indemnity Company of Arizona (“GSICA”).
Javed filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert, Rob Bare.
Law And Legal Expert Witness
Rob Bare worked at the State Bar of Nevada for 17 years (and as the chief attorney for 15 of those years), in which he prosecuted and tried 870 disciplinary hearings.
A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, he also served as a judge in Department XXXII of the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court.
Discussion by the Court
A. Bare is qualified to offer an expert opinion
Javed argued that Bare is not qualified to testify because he lacked knowledge and experience in the areas of law that are relevant to the underlying action. She contended that Bare has no experience performing
client conflicts, prosecuting first-party insurance claims, or handling commercial litigation.
Bare opined that Javed (1) breached the duty of competent and diligent representation by failing to research Nevada and Illinois law prior to advising Charm that West Town Bank needed to be a co-client; (2) breached the duty of communication by failing to advise Charm that (a) Javed was not licensed to practice law in Nevada or Illinois, (b) Charm may not receive proceeds under the policy; and (c) West Town Bank could be made a co-claimant; (3) failed to provide a facially valid conflict waiver by not identifying the potential conflict regarding division of proceeds; (4) breached the standard of care by disbursing the settlement payment without Charm’s consent or a court order; and (5) charged unreasonable attorney’s fees and potentially excessive costs.
Bare’s above opinions are closely related to the rules of professional conduct and his ample experience and knowledge regarding the duties of communication, competence, and diligence, as well as client conflicts. This Court further noted that Bare presided over 15,000 civil and business cases during his tenure as a state court judge for 10 years. This, combined with his 17 years of experience with the rules of professional conduct, make it “more likely than not” that Bare’s “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
C. Bare’s opinion is supported by sufficient facts or data
Javed argued that Bare’s opinion is not based on sufficient facts or data because he did not independently analyze the underlying loan documents or the insurance policy.
Bare’s opinion is based on what Javed did or did not disclose to Charm (given Charm’s version of the facts). He did not need to review the loan documents or insurance policy to form this opinion. In addition, it appeared that he did review the fee contract. Based on the scope of Bare’s opinion, the Court cannot say that his opinion was not based on sufficient facts or data merely because he did not review the loan documents or insurance policy. In sum, it is more likely than not that his above opinions were based on sufficient facts or data.
As for Javed’s argument regarding the personal guaranty, this argument is based on disputed facts. As the parties have repeated throughout this litigation, much of this case comes down to a he-said-she-said scenario. This Court will not choose between the parties’ competing version of the facts at the admissibility stage.
D. Bare’s opinion that the GSICA insurance payment was uncontested is not reliable
Javed argued that Bare’s opinions on the alleged breaches of duties owed by her to Charm are not reliable.
First, Javed argued that Bare did not explain what, if anything, would have changed about Charm’s position if she had researched Nevada or Illinois law. Second, Javed argued that she had no reason to tell Charm that she was not licensed in Nevada because Charm’s representative already knew that. In his expert report, Bare stated that lawyers have a duty to familiarize themselves with factual and legal elements of a problem and that the facts did not show that Javed familiarized herself with Nevada or Illinois law. He further stated that Javed did not communicate to Charm that she was not licensed to practice law in Nevada or Illinois.
The Court found that Bare’s opinions are based in his experience with the rules of competence, diligence, and communication governing lawyer conduct. Javed did not contest that she did not familiarize herself with Nevada or Illinois law or that she did not tell Charm she did not practice law in Nevada or Illinois; rather, Javed is arguing that she did not need to do so because it wouldn’t have changed Charm’s position or because Charm already knew.
Third, Javed argued that Bare incorrectly opined that the GSICA’s initial payment under the policy was uncontested and thus her fees were excessive. Bare identified no facts underlying his “understanding” that the insurance payment was uncontested, nor can the Court find any in his expert report.
Fourth, Javed argued that Bare incorrectly opined that she disbursed payment without Charm’s knowledge or consent. Javed is merely disputing the conclusion Bare reached, which is not a reason to strike his opinion at the admissibility stage.
E. Bare’s opinion regarding forfeiture and damages will be stricken as improper legal conclusions and opinions
Javed argued that Bare’s opinion that her fees are subject to forfeiture is an improper interpretation of the law. The Court agreed. Expert witnesses cannot opine as to legal conclusions, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law and Bare’s statement that Javed should be required to forfeit some if not all of her
fees is a legal conclusion.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Javed’s motion to strike the testimony of Rob Bare.
Key Takeaway
The Court has broad discretion to qualify experts. Bare’s extensive experience with the rules of professional conduct make it more likely than not that his experience and knowledge will help the trier of fact determine whether Javed violated one of those rules.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Charm Hospitality LLC V. Javed |
| Docket Number: | 2:25cv282 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Nevada |
| Order Date: | June 11, 2026 |
Leave a Reply