A post on this blog in August titled “objective standards” noted several recent judicial discipline cases illustrated “the significance of motive when the goal is promoting public confidence in the judiciary.”  A similar principal was emphasized by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in a case last week when it stated “the fact that a judge thinks that there was no harm caused by his or her actions is irrelevant, because a ‘no harm, no foul’ rule does not exist in the Code of Judicial Conduct.”