Person Photo
Person Photo

J. Stephen Peek


9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89134
5441 Kietzke Lane, Suite 200, Reno, NV 89511

Stephen Peek concentrates his practice on commercial and business litigation. He is ranked Band One in Commercial Litigation by Chambers USA, and is not afraid of the courtroom – representing clients in more than 40 jury trials.

Nearly 45 years of practice: Stephen uses the experience gained in nearly 45 years of practice to guide public and private companies of all kinds through the intricacies of high-profile lawsuits – from shareholder derivative suits to wrongful termination claims.

A wide range of clients: Stephen’s clients include national, regional, and local companies – including hotel-casinos; gaming manufacturers; developers and contractors; and financial institutions.


Gaming and Entertainment Industry
  • Litigation
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Jury Trials
  • Disputes
Financial Industry
  • Litigation
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Jury Trials
  • Disputes

Client Results

Recent Case Decisions
  • Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 2, 408 P.3d 566 (2018) (holding, as a matter of first impression, that the “gaming privilege” provided in NRS 463.120(6) does not apply to information requested through discovery before that statute’s effective date) View Court Opinion

  • In re DISH Network Derivative Litigation, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 61, 401 P.3d 1081 (2017) (adopting the standard set forth in Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619 (1979) and concluding, as a matter of first impression, that Nevada courts should defer to the business judgment of a special litigation committee’s decision concerning whether pursuing a derivative suit is in the best interests of the corporation so long as the committee acts independently and conducts a good-faith, thorough investigation). View Court Opinion

  • Parametric Sound Corp. et al. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 59, 401 P.3d 1100 (2017) (establishing Nevada’s test for distinguishing direct from derivative shareholder claims for purposes of determining if the shareholder has standing to bring suit) View Court Opinion

  • Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 52, 399 P.3d 334 (2017) (recognizing that the business judgment rule precludes judicial interference with corporate decision-making when a director or board acts in good faith and adopting the “because of” test for determining whether, for purposes of the work product doctrine, work was done in anticipation of litigation) View Court Opinion

  • Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 131 Nev. 834, 359 P.3d 1106 (2015) (establishing the test for evaluating whether a protective order is warranted to change the location or duration of a party’s deposition) View Court Opinion

  • Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 130 Nev. 118, 319 P.3d 618 (2014) (holding as a matter of first impression that NRS 50.125 requires disclosure of any document used to refresh a witness’s recollection before or while testifying, regardless of privilege, and granting writ of prohibition directing district court to halt production of purportedly privileged documents) View Court Opinion

  • Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 130 Nev. 578, 331 P.3d 876 (2014) (concluding that the existence of an applicable foreign, international privacy statute does not, by itself, prohibit Nevada state courts from ordering foreign parties to comply with Nevada’s discovery rules and accordingly civil litigants may not use such foreign statutes to excuse their compliance with discovery obligations in Nevada courts) View Court Opinion

  • Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court et al., 130 Nev. 643, 331 P.3d 905 (2014) (recognizing that because a corporation’s current management is the sole holder of its attorney-client privilege, Nevada law does not permit any judicially created class of persons exempt from that privilege’s protections) View Court Opinion

Other Experience
  • Wayne Newton adv. CSD LLC and Wayne Newton adv. McGrath



Bar Admissions

Court Admissions


  • Chambers USA, Litigation: General Commercial, Band 1
  • Martindale-Hubbell®, AV Preeminent® Rating
  • The Best Lawyers in America© Lawyer of the Year, Bet-the-Company Litigation – Las Vegas, 2022
  • The Best Lawyers in America© Commercial Litigation, 2006-2022; Bet-the-Company Litigation, 2010-2022
  • Mountain States Super Lawyers®, Business Litigation, 2009-2021
  • Mountain States Super Lawyers®, Top 100 Lawyers: Business Litigation, 2012
  • In Business Las Vegas, Who’s Who of Las Vegas, 2009-2014
  • Nevada Business Magazine, Nevada Legal Elite, 2009-2015, 2021
  • Benchmark Litigation, Local Litigation Star, 2009-2022
  • Nevada Super Lawyers®, Business Litigation, 2007, 2008

Professional and Civic Affiliations

  • Clark County Bar Association, Member
  • Washoe County Bar Association, Member
  • State Bar of Nevada, Business Law Section, Member
  • American Bar Association, Member
    Litigation and Tort Trial Section
    Insurance Practice Section

Unless you are a current client of Holland & Hart LLP, please do not send any confidential information by email. If you are not a current client and send an email to an individual at Holland & Hart LLP, you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us, unless we have already agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we may represent a party adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in a matter, and even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us.