In Re: Discipline of Malik Ahmad ( 2014 )

 evidence. SCR 105(2)(e); In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556,
1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). In determining the proper sanction, this
court considers four factors: (1) the duty violated, (2) the lawyer's mental
state, (3) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct,
and (4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In re
Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008) (citing American
Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3.0,
Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, 344
(1999)).
Having reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal,
we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's
findings as to the rule violations committed by Ahmad. We also conclude,
based on the evidence presented, that the panel's recommended
punishment is appropriate. Accordingly, we direct the disciplinary panel
to issue the public reprimand that is attached as Exhibit A to its Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation. Additionally, Ahmad
shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. See SCR 120.
It is so ORDErDi jet\_-ch
C.J.
Gibbons
OC_Jcp J. J.
Pickering
caitA a--71C-J.
Parraguirr Douglas
J.
Cherry Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) 1947A .0eP
cc: Jeffrey Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Malik W. Ahmad
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 44SW>