Should this court resolve the split in state court responses to this court's prescribed objective analysis protecting first amendment petitioning as due process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : A Washington State Bar disciplinary investigation continued through to suspension, notwithstanding Attorney David C. Cottingham’s | opposition to unlawful conduct, and his insistence upon judgment descriptions for regulatory approval. Cottingham acted pro-se in defense of his family : and property title. He had achieved one pretrial legal description and damages due to absence of : cause for condemning defendants’ title claim, but insisted upon final judgment descriptions locating condemnation afterward. He is suspended for | efforts essential to finality while he needed regulatory approval, of an enforceable result without jeopardy under Washington’s criminal prohibition of sales. In defense against discipline Cottingham invoked First Amendment protections and a right to oppose illegal conduct impairing his future right of sales and marketing. The questions are: SHOULD THIS COURT RESOLVE THE SPLIT IN ; , STATE COURT RESPONSES TO THIS COURT'S ! : PRESCRIBED OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS PROTECTING FIRST AMENDMENT PETITIONING AS DUE PROCESS? SHOULD STRICT SCRUTINY REQUIRE AN ARTICULATED COMPELLING STATE INTEREST BEFORE REGULATING PRO SE ATTORNEY CONDUCT? MAY A GENERAL STATE INTEREST IN REGULATING ATTORNEY CONDUCT SUBORDINATE FIRST AMENDMENT PETITIONING OPPOSING ILLEGAL CONDUCT? i