Rule 8.02-04 of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct addresses statements made by lawyers about judges, adjudicatory officers, public legal officers, or candidates for election or appointment.  

The Legal Information Institute's American Legal Ethics Library has links to legal ethics materials by state.  It also has a comparative analysis identifying which states have a rule based upon the ABA Model Rules or Code.

For example, the New York State Bar Association's Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 8-102, provides: (A) A lawyer shall not knowingly make false statements of fact concerning the qualifications of a candidate for election or appointment to a judicial office. (B) A lawyer shall not knowingly make false accusations against a judge or other adjudicatory officer.

Some states have rules and codes that address conduct relating to a tribunal.  For example,

Rule 3.5(a)(8) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct states "[A lawyer shall not]  engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal."  DR 7-106(C)(6) provides that a lawyer shall not "engage in undignified and discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal."

Rule 3.5(c) of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in undiignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal."  Rule 6.5(a) provies that "A lawyer shall treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process."

Vermont's Rule 3.5(c) states that "[A lawyer shall not]  engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal."  DR 7-106(C)(6) provides that a lawyer shall not "engage in undignified and discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal."

Cases:

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720 (U.S. Nevada 1991) ("The regulation of attorneys' speech is limited -- it applies only to speech that is substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect; it is neutral as to points of view, applying equally to all attorneys participating in a pending case; and it merely postpones the attorneys' comments until after the trial. While supported by the substantial state interest in preventing prejudice to an adjudicative proceeding by those who have a duty to protect its integrity, the Rule is limited on its face to preventing only speech having a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing that proceeding." 501 US at 1076. Emphasis added.)

In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S.Ct. 1376, 3 L.Ed.2d 1473 (U.S.Hawai'i 1959)

Standing Committee on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)  ("Because Yagman's statements do not pose a clear and present danger to the proper functioning of the courts, we conclude that the district court erred in sanctioning Yagman for interfering with the administration of justice."  "We can't improve on the words of Justice Black in Bridges, 314 U.S. at 270-71, 62 S.Ct. at 197-98 (footnote omitted): The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.")

In re Green, 11 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2000) (Colo. RPC 8.4(d), (g) and (h)) ("Thus, because of the interests in protecting attorney speech critical of judges, we agree with those jurisdictions that have applied a version of the New York Times standard when considering discipline of attorneys who criticize judges. We hold that under the New York Times standard, a two-part inquiry applies in determining whether an attorney may be disciplined for statements criticizing a judge: (1) whether the disciplinary authority has proven that the statement was a false statement of fact (or a statement of opinion that necessarily implies an undisclosed false assertion of fact); and (2) assuming the statement is false, whether the attorney uttered the statement with actual malice – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth. . . . We view Green’s statements that the judge was a "racist and bigot" and having a "bent of mind" as statements of opinion based upon fully disclosed and uncontested facts. Because Green’s statements do not involve false statements of fact or represent statements of opinion necessarily implying undisclosed false assertions of fact, we may not, consistent with the First Amendment and the first prong of the New York Times test, discipline Green for his subjective opinions, irrespective of our disagreement with them. Thus, we need not proceed to the second part of the New York Times test concerning proof of actual malice.")

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 793 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 2003)

Disciplinary Board Actions:

Grievance Administrator v. Geoffrey N. Fieger (Michigan, Nov. 11, 2004) (re: MRPC 3.5(c) and 6.5(a) and statements made in live radio broadcast).  See court filings in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Geoffrey N. Fieger, Case No. 2:05-cv-72264, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).

Law Review  and other Articles:

Washington and Lee Law Review, Standing Committee on Discipline v. Yagman:  Missing the point of ethical restrictions on attorney criticism of the judiciary?, Spring 1997 by Casprice L. Roberts

Kentucky Bar Association Bench & Bar, Judge Bashing, Telling It Like It Is v. Telling It Like It Ain't, Vol. 62 No. 4, September 1998, Del O'Roark

      Well let's see now, the RENO-Washoe County BAR ASSOCIATION-their own Attorney RUN entity by their own admission had, had pleanty to say about Judge Chuck Weller!     They just graded his "Poor Performance" that was PRINTED in the RENO Gazette Journal a few weeks ago!

      I believe his rating was 3.2 and poor was a "4"!  So, what are they thinking? It is my opinion that these RENO-Washoe Attorney's "Running the show" there should {ALL RECUSE THEMSELVES"} from any case in RENO now that the Judge that they "COLLECTIELY Graded sooooo Pooooorly" has himself caused his own shooting, and caused the DEATH/MURDER of Charla Mack!!!

      The rules are that you can only speak properly to a Judge or about a Judge? If that is true, then "Get rid of the BAR ASSOCIATION"!  They are useless!

      The rule that there are "Guidlines" in place on Propar ediquette on talking about, or talking to a JUDGE to me, is futal!

      I'm not suggesting that Attorney's Blast a Judge while there is Court sessions going on!  But certainly in "CHAMBERS"!  LUNCH- or DINNER!  Or How about a phone call at home?

      Judges if male, all have "Male parts" not a sign on their forhead that reads  I also rule the WORLD--of course unless you are Jasanna Berkow the Deputy Atty. General/Commissionor of Contra Costa County California!  I'm begining to question weather or not she's/he's truly a woman anyway!

      Jasnna Berkow-She/he did "Proclaim she/he was GOD" In an insulting letter to me over a week ago, where he/she was complaining about my abilities to spell correctly!

      From the Nevada Appeal Newspaper, to the Reno Gazette newspaper to this very Courthouse Forum.com site---it seems that the Justice system is broken!

       I think that GOD should send down a couple of Million cleaning angels to do a "CLEAN SWEEP" of our Court facilities across America!

       Once again I will point to the Carson City JUDGES who's Sentansing of Violent criminals that made the front page of the AUGUST30th.2006' Paper was more than a clear example of where Justice does go wrong!

       I think that PROSECUTING Attorney's should be allowed to "Stand on top of the table" right inside the Courtroom and scream at the Judge for being a complete idiot!       Patty Pruett.

       I seem to remember seeing scales of justice, that are supposedly "Equal" and measured equal standards for the accused and the victims until the Court functioned to it's full capacity of JUSTICE.  Both the defense anf the prosecution building their perspective cases for and against the suspect, and the victim.

       Someone said that there was a Judge who "Already has his mind made up before many of these cases" enter his court!   That was said many times about JUDGE Chuck Weller of Reno by some of his victims who felt that they got "The shaft" in his Courtroom.    I know a couple of them!   I even watched a divorce take place on DVD in the office of my home about two months ago as Judge Weller told this "Ex-wife" to be that she probably did not truly have Breast cancer, and that if she did she'd have gone right in for the proceedure!   She was afraid of the cancer treatment and was not sure what she wanted to do yet!     He was a bully and an a*s!

          That's just how I saw him.  Patty Pruett Dayton Nevada

        It is my belief that there should be a standard of conduct between a JUDGE and the ATTORNEY'S in OUR Courtrooms of this country.-------BUT!    I also believe that if we have a case/situation such as we had in RENO with the husband---Darren Mack who "Allegedly" killed his wife,   then he "Allegedly shot at a Judge"---- it is then the real responsibility of all of the { Men and Woman } of that JUDICIAL DICIPLIN COMMITTEE to "De-bunk"---de-bench that judge until they review him, by investigating his "Conduct inside the courtroom".

       I believe that there should be a "Secret pannel" of chosen ATTORNEYS who would rotate their time,  by sitting as Obsurvers inside the courtrooms of JUDGES who are under suspision of micanduct by the pannel.  After receiving complaints against any judge after a "Pattern of actions/behaviors--and complaints" these obsurvers and their co-Atty's---Pannel of that diciplin committee---they should write a report, and turn it in for review, and render a desision to "Disbar that judge after a hearing by the pannel".   These men and woman should { Take a VOTE by the pannel } to remove that JUDGE from sitting on ANY BENCH---in any COURTHOUSE--- Anywhere!

       I believe that the CANNONS are over rated--and "Under used --- when they should aply"!   That is just how I feel about the situation.  I have said before that I am not an Attorney, but Common sense should be used!!

       That is why I have said that I believe that it is the responsibility of the "Sitting Washoe Bar association" and the Judicial Diciplin commision to { DISBAR } these Judges!   Because if it was up to us, we would've disbared Judge Chuck Weller after his first year on the BENCH!!!

              Patty Pruett, Dayton Nevada

       I have been trying to read as manyof these letters and remarks as I can each day, but I cannot always take the time to read everything. I do find it strange that these Contra Costa County Parents are having to go through so much of this abuse by these people responsible for the Ca. Courts there.  We too have many of the same problems with a few of our attorney's who seem to be able to get away will Ex-part'e communications in Judges chambers and the judge will faind in favor of the Mother over the father in many cases,  I believe it is because of that old belief that the mother is the best interest for the child, but in my view that is many times a mistake on the part of the judge.  I also believe that the judges that aply that belief system in their choice making for these children, who are too young to know the seriousness of the situation until they are much older.  Even when many of us are in the courtrooms we ourselves cannot understand the thought prosses of these judges.         I would also like to say that not all Attorney's are happy working as a right wing attorney inside of many left wing Courthouses run by Judges who legislate their own LAWS that seem to be unjust made up laws from the bench.  But sadly these judges are aware that they make the final motion and the final call for human beings without the power to stop them. These actions are so rule of thumb now, that there are not enough attorney's who will do or say anything to try and stop these judges.  Sadly I have only been an attorney for three years, and I do not seem to have any or most of these older attorney's who will go out and go up against these left wing judges.  Sadly it may take another person who thinks that shooting a Judge because he/she made them feel that thay had no other means or help and that the only way to be heard, may be to shoot the Judge who made their lives h**l.  I have sat up most of the night reading many of these letters and remarks by people across the Country and I must say, that I believe that something has to give or we may find ourselves in some big trouble.  Judges and attorney's have a notion that many people are not very smart when it come to the laws and court activities, and that may be true in some cases.  From what I have been reading here tonight, shows me that there are many people smarter than many of our Judges.   Good luck.     LA. Attorney   These are the things that attorney's cannot say openly in court.

Tonja B.                    

      However we all understand why some people are unable to think outside the relm of violence when a judge like Chuck Weller, or even some "Moron- Judge like Mills Lane" has been protected all of his years as a Judge!  Just because he found his way into the BOXING world around all of those Big shots, and all that fame and BIG BUCKS!  I wonder how much he made off of illegal bets? I'd love to know, if Judge Mills lane was involved in "Underground betting" in the boxing world?  I would not be shocked to learn that he may have been!

      I can olny pray that most if not all of his friends in the boxing world, will dis-own him, and their ties to him, after learning about his "Involvement in the wrongful conviction of Nolan Klein" twenty years ago.  Even Judge Weller didn't do that!  And he got shot!   Patty Pruett  dayton Nevada.

          NO, I think that you hit the nail on the head!   They are "CIVIL SERVANTS" That means that { They serve the people!} and that is what they are supposed to do.   Sadly their position have become "About them" and their next election.  "Sadly".

         Justice is "NOT POLITICAL"!   Justice is an inaleable right as a human and an American, and as a child of GOD! We have rights and liberties as humans, and many/most of us could care less weather or not any Judge has rivals in the Court business, and he/she would not have to worry about "Competition" at all from an opponant especially someone with of likes of Carson City DA. Anne Langer---or that total EXTORTIONIST--"Bit-h" in California, Jasanna Berkow and her Spinetta theif buddy!      SERVANT=Look it up !!   It usually means that you work for the people!  As much as we pay in State and sales TAXES I would think that "We the people, would get more BANG for our TAX BUCK"!

              However some of you who we are speaking about here these last many months are not CIVIL at all!  You probably cann even spell "CIVIL"-- Or give the true meaning of the word JUSTICE !    Patty Pruett   Dayton Nevada.