a. On or about January 29, 2018, Judge White held a status hearing in a case that was before her on remand. At this hearing Judge White set a schedule for additional briefing. The parties agreed that a decision could be issued upon completion of the briefing, and that no further hearings were necessary.

b. On March 29, 2018, the completed briefing in the case was sent to Judge White's chambers, making the matter ripe *171 for decision. The file remained in Judge White's chambers until February 7, 2019.

c. On or about October 11, 2018, the plaintiff in the case filed a request for a ruling. Judge White did not personally review the request. Judge White believed that she had ample time to issue a ruling, due to her mistaken belief that the request pertained to a different case pending before her, and so she instructed her judicial assistant to add the request to the file.

d. On January 30, 2019, the plaintiff filed a second request for a ruling.

e. Judge White issued an order in the case on February 7, 2019.

f. From October 1, 2018 through February 2019, when Judge White issued an order in the matter following the second request for a ruling, she signed seven pay affidavits indicating that, to the best of her knowledge and belief, there was no matter referred to her which had been undecided for a period of more than six months.

g. Prior to signing her pay affidavits, Judge White reviewed an under-advisement report. This report was provided to Judge White by her assistant and was created by the Alaska Court System's case management software. The matter on remand never appeared on Judge White's report due to an issue with the court's case management system.

h. After receiving the second request for a ruling, Judge White took action to address the outstanding matter. However, when the issue came to her attention, she did not report that a matter referred to her remained undecided for a period of more than six months to the Commission or any other entity.

i. Judge White previously experienced this same issue of a matter on remand not appearing on her under-advisement report. In that prior instance, when the omission came to light, Judge White contacted the Commission for guidance and was advised to correct the outstanding matter as soon as possible.

j. Given the briefing schedule, the failure to act on the first request for a ruling in October 2018, and Judge White's inaction in the matter until after she received a second request for a ruling in January 2019, Judge White failed to dispose of the matter in a prompt and efficient manner. This is conduct that stands to prejudice the administration of justice and may undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciary in violation of Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct Canons I and 2A, which constitutes a violation of the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct 3B(8).

a. Judge White allowed a ripe matter before her to remain undecided for more than 10 months. This delay in deciding an outstanding matter, combined with her *172 complete disregard for the first request for ruling, the pay affidavits signed while the matter remained outstanding, and her lack of reporting the delay to an appropriate authority as soon as it came to her attention, stands to prejudice the administration of justice and may undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

b. Upon reviewing the entire record and analyzing Judge White's mental state, we conclude that despite the matter not appearing on Judge White's under-advisement report, her actions were negligent.¹¹ Judge White set the briefing schedule at a status hearing with the parties, and so should have been aware of the deadlines in this case. Second, the case file remained in Judge White's judicial chambers from March 29, 2018 until February 7, 2019. Judge White did not personally review the first request for ruling; instead, she explained that the first request for ruling “did not trigger any type of response, as in my experience attorneys routinely file requests for ruling regardless of timing.” However, if Judge White had read this request for ruling, she would have been notified in the second sentence that “[m]ore than 6 [m]onths have elapsed since the final pleading (Plaintiff's Reply Brief) was filed March 28th, 2018.” Finally, Judge White previously experienced the issue of a remanded case not appearing on her under-advisement report, and thus should have been aware of the possibility of such an issue recurring when her judicial assistant spoke with her about the file and the receipt of the first request for ruling.

c. Judge White's ignoring the first request for ruling without even checking the file sitting in her chambers, despite previously facing the same issue of a remanded case not appearing on the under-advisement report, demonstrates a failure to heed a substantial risk, which is a deviation from the standard of care a reasonable judge would exercise under the circumstances. We note that the under-advisement report is a useful tool and a safeguard; it does not supplant a judge's responsibility to manage deadlines within chambers or to stay apprised of the progress of matters pending before them. We further note that Judge White's disregard of first requests for ruling as a matter of course because “attorneys routinely file requests for ruling regardless of timing” is an entirely inappropriate practice.

*4 d. We do not have evidence demonstrating that the parties in the delayed case suffered actual injury due to the ten months the matter remained ripe but undecided, nor due to the four month delay between the six month deadline and Judge White issuing her decision. However, when a decision is delayed unreasonably, there is always potential injury to the parties. The plaintiff in the matter had to file not one, but two, requests for a ruling before Judge White took action. If the plaintiff had not filed a second request for ruling, it is likely that there would have been an even longer delay in deciding the matter and thus greater potential for injury. Furthermore, Judge White signed seven pay affidavits indicating that to the best of her knowledge and belief, there was no matter referred to her which had been undecided for a period of more than six months,¹² when Judge White should have been aware this matter remained undecided. Judge White signing her pay affidavits throughout this period potentially had a prejudicial effect upon the administration of justice and could undermine the public's confidence in *173 the integrity of the judiciary. As we have previously explained, “Alaska statutory law and the Code of Judicial Conduct hold judges to the highest standard of personal and official conduct. This standard is greater than that expected of lawyers and other persons in society.”¹³

a. We identify two aggravating factors in this case: Judge White did not acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct and had substantial experience as a judge. Judge White appeared to place the blame for her misconduct entirely on the under-advisement report. Judge White did not indicate that her practices — such as not reviewing the first request for ruling or more carefully managing deadlines in her chambers — contributed to the delay in any way. While Judge White noted that she only “execute[d] [her] last day of January 2019 pay affidavit” upon completing “drafting [her] order” in the outstanding matter, she did not express remorse for having inaccurately signed pay affidavits from October through January despite having an outstanding matter for more than six months. And she did not report this error to the Commission or other authority when it came to her attention. Judge White also had substantial experience on the bench, having been appointed in 2006, and retained in 2010 and 2016. Furthermore, she had previously faced a situation in which a remanded matter did not appear in her under-advisement report. However, she failed to set up an internal administrative safeguard to prevent such an issue from recurring.

*5 b. We also consider mitigating factors. Judge White has not faced prior disciplinary proceedings. She issued a ruling on the outstanding matter shortly after the delay finally came to her attention, indicating at least a partial effort to rectify the consequences of her misconduct. Judge White appeared to provide full and free disclosure to the Commission and cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings. Judge White has a good reputation and a history of maintaining her under-advisement reports in a timely manner. Finally, Judge White did not have a selfish or dishonest motive in the matters at issue in this proceeding.