NRS 17.115(4) and NRCP 68, the district court must analyze the factors established in Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 588-89, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983). Similarly, when determining the reasonable value of an attorney's services in a motion for attorney fees, the district court must analyze the factors established in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). The district court must then provide sufficient reasoning and findings concerning those factors in its order. Shuette, 121 Nev. at 865, 124 P.3d at 549. But if the district court's order fails to provide such reasoning and findings, we will nevertheless defer to the district court's discretion in awarding attorney fees if the record indicates that the district court properly evaluated the Beattie and Brunzell factors. Wynn v. Smith, 117 Nev. 6, 13, 16 P.3d 424, 428-29 (2001). In this case, appellant argues that attorney fees were improperly awarded because appellant's former counsel controlled the case, did not inform appellant about the case, took actions without appellant's knowledge or permission, and made mistakes during the case. Appellant's arguments, however, are not relevant to the attorney fees determination here. See Beattie, 99 Nev. at 588-89, 668 P.2d at 274; Brunzell, 85 Nev. at 349-50, 455 P.2d at 33; see also Lange v. Hickman, 92 Nev. 41, 43, 544 P.2d 1208, 1209 (1976) (holding that notice to an attorney is notice to the client, and if the attorney neglects the client's case, the client's recourse is an action against the attorney). Here, although the district court failed to set forth any findings of fact or its reasoning in the order awarding attorney fees, respondent's motion for attorney fees contains a discussion of the Beattie and Brunzell factors and a detailed breakdown of incurred attorney fees,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A and the district court's order indicates that a hearing was held on the contested attorney fees motion. Thus, although written findings supporting an attorney fees award are preferred for appellate review, Wynn, 117 Nev. at 13, 16 P.3d at 428-29, the record indicates that the district court evaluated the Beattie and Brunzell factors and awarded respondent approximately half of its requested fees as reasonable attorney fees. In this case, we will defer to the district court's discretion in awarding attorney fees. Id. Accordingly, having considered appellant's arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Douglas

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Adrian Niculescu Littler Mendelson/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A