Before doing that though, let's set forth some background on Rule 8.2:
The ABA's Model Rule 8.2 says:
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement concerning the qualifications of a judge, adjudicatory officer or other public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office, that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.In the commentary accompanying Rule 8.2, the drafters made clear that in using that language they were adopting the NY Times v. Sullivan actual malice (subjective) standard and that adoption of the rule was intended to end the prosecution of attorneys for judicial criticism "intemperate in tone." Further, the drafters at length pointed out that actual malice standard for limiting attorney criticism of judges under the disciplinary rules was constitutionally required.
See also: Monday, December 16, 2013, Commentary to Model Rule Limiting Attorney Criticism of Judges Shows Rule Being Misinterpreted and Misapplied by State Disciplinary Bodies