Call Today!





At Eric Roy Law Firm, our Mission is to take a genuine interest in our clients, to understand their objectives, and to exceed their expectations. We work hard to provide superior legal services in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. You can expect nothing less than the highest standards of professional integrity when you work with us.


No matter how you were injured, our goal remains the same. We want to provide you with the highest level of service and ensure that you are well taken care of during and following this process.

We are happy to come to you for your initial consultation with our office. We know that transportation can be difficult for some. We schedule a lunch between every client and Mr. Roy. This allows Mr. Roy to better understand his clients and thus better serve his clients. We know that you have enough to worry about and we're here to fight on your behalf and to make sure that your needs are met.

You remain our priority from the moment we begin working on your case until it has been favorably resolved.

Contact our Las Vegas injury attorney today – free consultations to injured clients!



Attorney Eric Roy secures justice on behalf of his clients. The numerous awards and client testimonials that Eric has garnered over the years speak volumes about the results he is able to achieve.

Eric has received significant recognition in Las Vegas. He was recognized as one of the Top 40 Trial Lawyers Under 40 by the National Trial Lawyers, as one of the Top 10 Attorneys Under the Age of 40 by the National Academy of Personal Injury Attorneys, and he was named in Desert Companion Magazine as one of Nevada's Top Lawyers.

With the Eric Roy Law Firm on your side, you can be confident in the outcome of your personal injury case!

Eric Roy Personal Injury Attorney

Working With Attorney Eric Roy

Eric Roy Personal Injury Attorney

Working With Attorney Eric Roy

Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 (Revised)

     Rule 16.1 governs mandatory pretrial discovery requirements.  The rule is divided into seven subsections.  The subsections are (a) through (g) and govern attendance at the early case conference, meet and confer requirements, case management report, case conference disputes, failure or refusal to participate sanctions, complex litigation, and proper person litigants.

Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 26

     This blog was written for my own personal benefit.  Here I look at Rule 26 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure which governs general rules governing discovery.  The rule provides for obtaining discovery by method of deposition, interrogatories, production of documents or things, requests for admissions, and permission to enter land for inspection of other purposes such as physical and mental examinations.

Nevada Civil Trial Rules (Part 2)

     There will be circumstances in which our witnesses will not have strong recollection of the facts we wish them to testify to.  This will particularly be the case when you are dealing with professionals who are accustomed to drafting reports on a regular basis.  This is customary for doctors in particular who see so many clients that it becomes difficult for them to remember one client from another without reference to a report prepared for the client.  As trial counsel you are permitted to use this type of documentation of your witness does cannot recall the facts without reference to

Nevada Civil Trial Rules

     This blog/article was written primarily for my, Eric Roy’s, own benefit.  It covers some of the basic rules governing the setting and conduct of trial in the state of Nevada.  For a more thorough understanding of the subject please see the Nevada Civil Practice Manual which outlines these rules with greater sufficiency. 

Hearsay Doctrine Exceptions

     As we know, there is a general prohibition against hearsay statements from being presented as evidence in the courtroom.  The rationale for that prohibition being that such statements lack reliability given their out of court nature and inability to cross examine effectively upon those out of court statements.  There are, however, exceptions and exemptions applicable to the hearsay rules.  Today I want to talk about some of these exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Laying a Foundation

     Generally speaking, before a proponent of evidence can offer an item into evidence that proponent should lay the foundation for such evidence.  The foundation is proof of a fact or event predicate to the admission of evidence.  There are times when a judge may choose to admit the evidence subject to subsequent proof of foundation.  However this is not the best idea as if the proponent fails to lay a proper subsequent foundation the Judge will be a position of having to either instruct the jury to disregard the evidence or grant a mistrial.     

Hearsay Doctrine

     As we know, the hearsay doctrine is complex and not easy to master.  The doctrine’s purpose is to exclude unreliable evidence from the purview of the jury.  The rules of evidence prefer testimony to be made in court and subject to the scrutiny of cross-examination.  With the aid of cross-examination a witness can be vetted as to perception, memory, and sincerity with regard to testimony made on the stand at trial.  When that testimony is initially made out of court by a declarant and then repeated in court it may be considered inadmissible hearsay.  Remember that the hearsay requiremen

Foundation for Original and Demonstrative Evidence

     Generally speaking, when we seek to introduce real or original evidence in trial we need to authenticate this evince before it will be accepted into evidence by our trial judge.  This requires you, as counsel, to demonstrate an “identification of physical evidence”.  This identification process involves having the witness identify the evidence as the original evidence and then describing to the court how the witness is sure that the proposed evidence before them today is the same evidence as the witness originally observed.  Commonly, when you have real evidence such as this it will ha

Expert Witness Testimony

     In some cases we may benefit from having an expert advise the jury.  These cases typically involve issues which are complex and beyond the comprehension of the average juror.  For example, in an injury case it is typical for the plaintiff to put on a medical doctor who can opine upon the injuries the plaintiff suffered.  Most jurors don’t have a solid grasp on the complexities of the human anatomy and/or medicine and thus can benefit from having an expert explain these things and provide an opinion as to these things. 

Subscribe to Eric Roy Law Firm