Trademark Office, Keller made numerous attempts to contact Chandler. 

Chandler failed to respond or to take any corrective action. Keller filed his 

grievance against Chandler in August 2011. Chandler also failed to 

respond to the State Bar's attempts at contact and communication for 

purposes of its investigation. We have previously disciplined Chandler for 

the same type of misconduct. In re Discipline of Chandler, Docket No. 

55625 (Order Imposing Public Reprimand, July 27, 2011); In re Discipline 

of Chandler, Docket No. 58956 (Order of Suspension, December 7, 2012). 1 

The hearing panel conducted a formal hearing on October 28, 

2013. Chandler, although represented by counsel, declined to file an 

answer to the complaint or to participate in the hearing. 

The panel found that Chandler has had two prior disciplinary 

sanctions, as noted above, and further that in December 2011 he was 

excluded from practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for 

the same and similar misconduct. The panel found that the allegations of 

the State Bar's complaint were supported by the evidence and testimony, 

and concluded that Chandler had committed the following violations of the 

Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 

(communication), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping of property), PRC 8.1 (bar 

admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). 

'The December 7, 2012, order notes that Chandler was feesuspended at the time for failure to pay his bar dues, and that the oneyear suspension would not begin until he resolved his bar dues 

suspension. It appears that Chandler has yet to resolve his fee suspension 

and remains suspended under SCR 98(12), and his one-year suspension 

imposed in Docket No. 58956 has not commenced. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 

t ,art.:wk,A04,11x9iit. . 
The panel also found the following aggravators: prior 

disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, 

multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, refusal 

to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the 

victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The panel found 

no mitigating factors. 

The findings and recommendations of a disciplinary board 

hearing panel, though persuasive, are not binding on this court. In re 

Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). Our automatic review 

of a panel recommendation is conducted de novo, requiring the exercise of 

independent judgment by this court. Id.; SCR 105(3)(b). The panel's 

findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. SCR 

105(2)(e); In re Drahulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). 

In determining the proper disciplinary 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)). The 

primary objective of attorney discipline is not further punishment of the 

attorney, but rather protection of the public and protection of the public's 

confidence in the legal profession. State Bar of Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 

115, 129, 756 P.2d 464, 473 (1988). 

We conclude that clear and convincing evidence in the record 

before us demonstrates that Chandler committed the misconduct and 

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the hearing 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

1.0) 1947 
Parraguirre 

panel, and that protection of the public and the public's confidence in the 

legal profession is necessary. The panel's recommendation is an 

appropriate sanction. 

Accordingly, attorney Travis Chandler is hereby disbarred 

from the practice of law in Nevada Chandler is also ordered to pay 

restitution to Russell Keller in the amount of $4,800 and the costs of the 

disciplinary proceedings within 90 days. The parties shall comply with 

the applicable provisions of SCR 115 and SCR 121.1. 

It is so ORDER-ED, 

Gibbons 

Pickering 

3-cnnteetatI , J. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Saitta 

CC: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

Jeffrey A. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Janet Trost 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

2Based on our decision in this matter, the matter pending against 

Chandler in Docket No. 62790 is closed. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

0) 1947A e 

AM.2E I 1 ,4.4Atv mxt. 

4 

9:14202rairalrolaDETBD