violations that demonstrate a pattern of misconduct or flagrant disregard for individual rights. Id. at 258-59. We hasten to add however, that errors of law may constitute ethical misconduct when the error “clearly and convincingly reflects bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty.” Id. at 258. We adhere to these principles. Finally, in determining whether a judge has engaged in judicial misconduct, courts apply a reasonableness test. “[I]f a reasonably prudent and competent judge would consider that conduct obviously and seriously wrong in all the circumstances,” the judge’s action constitutes judicial misconduct. Matter of Benoit, 487 A.2d at 1163, 1162 (<HOLDING>). In the case before us, there is no suggestion
holding that a judges incarcerating defendants for noncriminal matters and detaining a juvenile for six weeks without assistance of counsel and without any evidence warranted censure and suspension holding that defendants conclusory allegation that trial counsel failed to object to leading questions without specifying such instances did not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that the defendants ineffective assistance of counsel claims which were raised in a motion for a new trial and challenged on direct appeal were not barred in postconviction by the doctrine of res judicata because the defendants conviction and sentence were affirmed without a written opinion expressly addressing the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel