Formal proceedings can only be commenced after a finding by the commission of substantial evidence to support the charges. See § 8 — 16—4(c). We are of the opinion that these procedures ensure expeditious review of complaints of judicial misconduct while safeguarding the rights of judges and their judicial independence. Furthermore, unlike many quasi-judicial bodies, the commission’s role is restricted to making recommendations to this Court. Upon a finding of judicial misconduct, it is the responsibility of the commission to recommend a sanction including, but not limited to, censure, suspension, or removal from office. See § 8-16-4(e). We have steadfastly held that the authority of this Court to discipline judges is plenary and exclusive. See In re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921, 925 (R.I.2001) (<HOLDING>) (citing In the Matter of Almeida, 611 A.2d
holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court holding that the authority of the supreme court to discipline judges and members of the bar is plenary holding that the punitive provisions of the delaware consumer fraud act were not applicable to attorney conduct occurring within the practice of law given the state supreme courts inherent constitutional and statutory authority to discipline members of the state bar noting the lack of consensus in different jurisdictions as to the applicability of state consumer fraud acts to attorney conduct recognizing right of this court to regulate and discipline members of the bar holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction