Whether a state may impose disbarment absent findings satisfying constitutional standards of professional unfitness, as required by Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961).

Whether attorney speech may be sanctioned without findings of the requisite mens rea required by the First Amendment, including the subjective intent or recklessness standard articulated in Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023).

Whether attorney speech regarding a decisionmaker may be sanctioned without findings that the statements were false, made with reckless disregard, actual malice, and a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the administration of justice as required by Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), and Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 14380 (9th Cir. 1995).

Whether attorney speech regarding communications with a person represented by counsel may be sanctioned where there is no evidence that the speech pertained to the matter for which representation was obtained as required by Schwartz v. Florida Bar, 880 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2004) and Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961).

Whether due process permits discipline based on conduct not charged in the disciplinary complaint, depriving the attorney of notice and an opportunity to defend in violation with In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968).

Whether a state supreme court's disbarment of an attorney violates the First Amendment or Due Process Clause when the disciplinary action is based on protected speech or lacks adequate procedural safeguards