sufficiently protects the public, the courts, and the legal profession. State Bar of Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 213, 756 P .2d 464, 527-28 (1988) (explaining purpose of attorney discipline). In determining the appropriate discipline, we weigh four factors: "the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors." In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008).
Randazza has admitted to violating duties owed to his client (conflict of interest) and the legal profession (restrictions on right to practice), and the admitted facts reflect that the misconduct was knowing. His conduct may have caused a delay in the disbursement of settlement funds to his client. The baseline sanction for both rule violations, before considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is suspension. Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 4.32 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2017) (providing that suspension is appropriate when a lawyer "knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client"); id. Standard 7.2 (providing that suspension is appropriate when a lawyer "knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system"). The record supports one aggravating circumstance (substantial experience in the practice of law) and three mitigating circumstances (absence of prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or cooperative attitude toward proceeding, and delay __ in disciplinary proceedings). Considering all the factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.