most severe sanction that this court can impose upon attorneys. Our constitution allows judges to “hold their offices so long as they behave well.” N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 35. When they do not, we are empowered to implement the constitutional mandate by taking the necessary disciplinary measures short of removal. In re Mussman, 112 N.H. 99, 102-03 (1972). Thus, indefinite suspension falls within the ambit of the exercise of our constitutional authority. It has never been the tradition of the jurisprudence of this court to refuse to exercise judicial power when there was an established need for it and there was no constitutional barrier to its exercise. Id. Therefore, this court has previously recognized its authority to indefinitely suspend a judge. See In re Mussman, 112 N.H. at 103 (<HOLDING>); In re Mussman, 113 N.H. 54, 57 (1973)
recognizing our authority to order suspension of a judge holding that in absence of changed circumstances and except there be some other most cogent reason when judge makes or denies interlocutory order and when appeal lies as of right from such order it should not be reconsidered even by judge who made the order much less by another judge recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that arbitrator had authority to choose between suspension and termination where the authority was vested in the company to suspend andor discharge holding that a postconsent reference order signed by the district judge was required to vest authority in a magistrate judge for disposition of a summary judgment motion