If you saw the original story, scroll down to the end for an update:
I am sure you have heard by now that fifteen professors of legal ethics have sent a letter to the Washington DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel arguing that Kellyanne Conway has incurred in multiple violations of Rule 8.4(c) which recognizes as misconduct engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
The complaint has sparked a spirited debate among ethicists and other commentators. It certainly dominated the discussion for most of the day yesterday in the listserv of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers.
Some of the debate has centered on whether the complaint has any basis in the rules [it does]; whether the rule is (or should be considered to be, rather) unconstitutional [it hasn't and there is precedent in many jurisdictions to suggest it wouldn't] and whether the bar has the authority to regulate Conway's conduct since it was not in the practice of law [there is precedent in many jurisdictions to support the view that it does]. Also, a separate question is whether the bar would (or should) spend resources on a complaint based on these types of allegations.
Given that the answer to that last question is that disciplinary agencies usually do not go after lawyers for relatively "minor" and or "private" instances of dishonesty, the issue depends on how important you think Conway's conduct (or alleged misconduct) really is.
I am sure that if you "google" (a word that is now a verb) the story, you will find a lot of comments. Here are just a few:
You can read the complaint itself here.
The Washington Post reports the story here.
Above the Law has a short statement that starts "It’s becoming increasingly likely that Kellyanne Conway isn’t a real person so much as a Professional Responsibility issue-spotter made flesh. Between making up terrorist attacks or shilling Ivanka’s crummy baubles or generally degraded political discourse by treating it like a criminal trial, Kellyanne’s had a busy month of run-ins with the generally accepted principles of legal ethics."
Jonathan Turley argues the complaint is not justified and lacks credibility.
Attorney Paul Alan Levy criticizes the complaint on First Amendment grounds here.
The ABA Journal reports here.
UPDATE (2/27/17): Professor Steven Lubet, a Legal Ethics professor at Northwestern, criticizes the complaint here.