but rather “shows that his conduct is not universally contrary to the” Code). Under this factor, the judge’s reputation is determined by looking at, for example: (1) “[pjositive contributions made by the judge to the court and the community”; (2) “[t]he judge’s commitment to fairness and innovative procedural reform”; and (3) “[t]he judge’s ability to fairly, effectively, and efficiently run a court with a heavy caseload.” AJS Study, supra at 82. Similarly relevant is “[w]hether the judge was experienced and[, thus,] should have been familiar with the high standards established for judicial behavior.” AJS Study, supra at 82. In certain cases, lack of experience may be a mitigating factor if inexperience partially accounts for the offensive conduct. Cf. Grew’s Case, 156 N.H. at 367 (<HOLDING>). If the judge has been previously sanctioned,
holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state holding that the term search has a settled meaning in the realm of criminal procedure holding that inexperience in the practice of law is only valid as mitigation in the attorney misconduct realm where the offending conduct has resulted therefrom 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