Whether a state may impose professional discipline on attorneys for out-of-court criticism of a judge without clear and convincing proof of false statements, when the criticism occurs in a religious setting and involves a directed verdict in a civil case

In separate proceedings consolidated on review, the state high court affirmed 30 -day suspensions of two attorneys, Reverend Girley and Professor Girley (father and daughter), due to extrajudicial statements criticizing a judge and the courts on matters of public concern. These statements, in part, were delivered in a religious forum, where the two attorneys, one of whom is a pastor, practice their sincerely held religious beliefs and followed a directed verdict by a trial judge reversing a jury award of $2.75 million to Reverend Girley’s client, a physician of African heritage. This extraordinary measure included applying a burden shifting “objective reasonableness” rule (App.11a, 31a, 46a), and upholding protective orders that barred limited, non -deliberative examination of the complain ing judge. Accordingly, before this Court for decision are the questions : 1. Whether, consistent with the First Amendment, a State may impose professional discipline for out -ofcourt criticism of a judge and the courts without clear and convincing proof that the attorney made a false statement of fact with knowledge of falsity or serious doubts (actual malice), by instead requiring the attorney to establish an “o bjectively reasonable factual basis” for the criticism, including when the speech occurs outside court and, in part, in a religious setting in a jurisdiction where th e religious freedom statute expressly exempts judicial review of the statements and the court is comprised of elected judges. 2. Whether, before imposing speech -based profes sional discipline and/or orders compelling destruction or total surrender to the adverse witness of deposition ii materials, the Due Proces s and Equal Protection Clauses require : (a) charge -specific notice ; (b) a mean ingful opportunity to present a defense, including the ability to examine the complaining judge within proper, non -deliberative limits ; and (c) discipline supported by non -speculative proof of causation and harm. 3. Whether equal protection forbids selective enforcement of attorney -speech rules—evidenced by non -discipline of similarly si tuated speakers who made comparable criticisms of the judiciary—when disparate treatment evidence emerged after the referee proceed ings and is therefore tendered for consideration on remand.