"While it is possible that each individual incident, standing alone, should rightly be given the benefit of the doubt and would not merit a severe sanction, the continuous, repetitive nature of the misconduct, the fact that she did not improve her conduct in the face of numerous warnings, and (her) history of censure support the court's finding that her conduct at trial was willful, egregious, and not entitled to a presumption of unintentionality," the judge wrote in her 31-page opinion.