“Importantly, however, Respondent does not raise a First Amendment challenge to discipline. His attorney wrote the Court after oral argument stating, “We do not think it is necessary for the Court to address First Amendment issues.” For this reason, we will not analyze the impact of the First Amendment.”
It seems he’s a bad lawyer with even worse representation.
Be that as it may, the fact that this kind of disciplinary case can be brought against a lawyer who was not speaking about a case that was taking place in SC’s jurisdiction much less a case that he was directly or indirectly involved with in any capacity, underscores how depraved the system has become.
The prohibition of criticism of the state’s case against the accused is one of the bedrock reasons we revolted against the Kind.
240-years later, new king same as the old king.