I DO think it's definitely a no-no to do such things when it's a case you're personally involved in--and doing personal attacks is something that should be avoided regardless of whether or not you're involved in the case or not--it's just unprofessional.

Unfortunately though, I think a lot of lawyers opine more about local cases and the politics involved in them. Then you create a situation where even if you aren't currently involved in a case before a judge or against a proescutor/defendant you're criticizing, you always run the risk of affecting those who are associated with you, or yourself in future cases, should you find yourself before those people.

But the most protected speech always has consequences.  If I criticized one of my work associates online, I would very likely quickly become a "dis-associate".  I would likely get no warning or censure, we'd just separate.  

And on blogs you can get deleted, censured, or banned for what you say.  Internet providers can cut bloggers' accounts for saying something they disagree with or that violates their policies.  Allegre recently gave up blogging (but left her site to other bloggers) because she went to work for a senator(?) or Congressperson.  Employers can deny you employment for things you post online.

When life and liberty are meaningless, when there is no court with jurisdiction to hear your claims because your prison doesn't have an address, when the State can torture you, and rape you and your family, and murder you, and no one is ever held to account -

Why do we need lawyers in the first place?

And why are we worried about muzzling them when they do nothing to show they have any regard for their sworn oaths?

Yet lawyers who are criminals on a scale beyond the pale of any of the rest of us get a pass.

The rule of law is dead in America. Once that little secret gets out, Katy bar the door. All thanks to lawyers. The end of the social contract. The end of civilization as we know it.

A look at daytime and late night TV lawyer ads, or your local yellow pages, classified ads and Craigslist will tell you what happened to that.

There was likewise a time when prices for various services were set by the local bar, and deviation (downward, only - if you could get more, fine) from them was a sanctionable offense.  

That, too, went the way of all things.

The ban on advertising took it on the chin in the 70s on First Amendment grounds but it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

The ban on fixed fees went out the same way, but on antitrust grounds, also per a Supreme Court case.  

I've been hanging around courthouses long enough (too long, some might say) to see a bunch of judges and, like any other group, there's a bell-curve distribution.  Some really really smart, some dumb as a post.  Some hard-working, others more interested in making sure their schedule accommodated hitting an bucket of balls at lunch.  Most really honest, and a few real crooks who more than balance out the honest ones.  Sober ones and drunk ones.

People want to believe that all the judges are on the "good" end of the distribution, but they aren't, no more than any other politicians or professionals.

Most of them are gossips (they got to be judges by being in politics, after all) - a colleague who was the son-in-law of a leading local judge once said that judges gossiping made any stereotypical kaffeeeklatsch sewing circle look positively tame by comparison.

Unfortunately, the stupid, lazy, venal, vain, crooked and drunken judges are pretty uniform in one aspect of their personalities - they have very thin skins and simultaneously think very highly of themselves and their abilities, regardless of the accuracy of that thought.  And, they live out an old saw:

Give someone a little power, and you'll soon find out how small they are.