(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
My only quarrel with the majority opinion concerns the discipline imposed. I do not condone the action of Magistrate Harned. It was summarized well in the response of the other magistrates that she was “reacting as a mother rather than a magistrate.” I conclude that the commission overreacted to her lack of good judgment and should have disposed of the case informally without an application to this court. Since we have the matter before us, I would discipline by reprimand.
Neither the public nor the parties were harmed by Magistrate Harned’s inappropriate private communication with the other magistrate. The communication was properly and promptly rebuffed. This does not excuse the action, but the extent of the harm is a consideration in determining the appropriate discipline.
My review of the record indicates that it was obvious Magistrate Harned misunderstood her responsibilities as a judge. Undoubtedly her personal interest as a parent contributed to her lack of judgment. She did not attempt to act subtly; she communicated in writing. Although she used her magistrate’s stationery, she knew that the other magistrate already was aware of her status. Although she had attended magistrate’s schools and seminars, I do not believe that she understood the nature of her offense until after charges were made against her. She is not an attorney. Although the holders of a law license are given first consideration when magistrates are selected, the statutory qualifications for the office do not include a law license. Iowa Code § 602.52 (1983). County judicial magistrate appointing commissions do not always have lawyer applicants. Until a law license becomes a requirement for the position, we must examine the education and status of the applicant in determining the appropriate discipline. The understanding of the magistrate does not excuse a wrongful act, but it does bear on the magistrate’s intent to violate the canons of judicial conduct. I believe that intent is an important consideration in determining the extent of discipline that is necessary and proper.
Finally, in her appearance before the commission, Magistrate Harned was forthright, honest and repentant. She acknowledged her mistakes and gave every indication that such mistakes would not occur again. I conclude that this charge was substantiated, but does not warrant application to our court for a disposition. The commission could have disposed of this case by conducting a conference with Magistrate Harned or through a private com*304munication bearing a reprimand. I cannot agree that further punitive action is necessary or advisable in this case. The public humiliation inflicted on the magistrate by this procedure and by a reprimand would be sufficient punishment. I believe that this action is more punitive than the amount of salary loss that accompanies a four-day suspension. I also believe that it is appropriate to consider the effect that a four-day suspension has on court administration in the district and on the substitute magistrate who will assume additional duties without additional pay.
HARRIS, LARSON and CARTER, JJ., join this concurrence in part and dissent in part.