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 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 (0) 1947A 44SW>