most often find judicial misconduct where judges have repeatedly or willfully denied individuals their rights.” In re Curda, 49 P.3d at 258. Generally, these cases involve multiple instances of knowing and wil hat Judge Pirraglia engaged in a course of conduct that violated the rights of those appearing before him. In fact, before the incident with Sprague, petitioner’s record was devoid of any complaints of misconduct. However, while petitioner’s actions did not rise to the level of threats or coercion, as alleged by the commission, he nonetheless deprived Sprague of the opportunity to consult with counsel before accepting a guilty plea and implied that Sprague would be penalized if he elected to speak to an attorney. See Marano v. United States, 374 F.2d 583, 585 (1st Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>). We are also satisfied that he prejudged the
holding that a person has standing to bring suit under the civil rights act if she or he can show that she or he was punished for trying to vindicate the rights of minorities holding that because plaintiff chose to leave her employer she did not suffer any tangible employment action holding that for a legal malpractice claim to accrue a plaintiff need not know the precise extent of his or her damages or even have suffered all of the damages attributable to his or her attorneys negligence holding that an expert can comply with the timing requirement if an experts research even after his or her deposition revealed that the standard of care in his or her community was the same or similar to the standard of care in the community in which he or she is testifying when the injury occurred holding that an accused should not have to fear even the possibility that he or she will suffer a penalty for exercising his or her rights