Rule 19. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

The following nonexclusive factors may be considered in determining appropriate disciplinary action: (a) the nature, extent, and frequency of the misconduct; (b) the judge's experience and length of service on the bench; (c) whether the conduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or private life; (d) the nature and extent to which the acts of misconduct injured other persons or respect for the judiciary; (e) whether and to what extent the judge exploited his or her position for improper purposes; (f) whether the judge has recognized and acknowledged the wrongful nature of the conduct and manifested an effort to change or reform the conduct; (g) whether there has been prior disciplinary action concerning the judge, and if so, its remoteness and relevance to the present proceeding; (h) whether the judge complied with prior discipline or requested and complied with a formal ethics advisory opinion; (i) whether the judge cooperated fully and honestly with the commission in the proceeding; and (j) whether the judge was suffering from personal or emotional problems or from physical or mental disability or impairment at the time of the misconduct.