I’ve been intrigued by some of the commentary by certain Ohio political figures in response to the New York jury finding Donald Trump guilty on 34 felony counts. Some have been over the top to put it mildly.

• Senator J.D, Vance had this to say: “Dems invented a felony to ‘get Trump,’ with the help of a Soros funded prosecutor and a Biden donor Judge, who rigged the entire case to get this outcome.”

• U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan said: “The Manhattan kangaroo court shows what happens when our justice system is weaponized by partisan prosecutors in front of a biased judge with an unfair process, designed to keep President Trump off the campaign trail …”

• And this from GOP Chairman Alex Triantafilou: “The American people know a sham when they see it” referring to the trial.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose and State Treasurer Robert Sprague also weighed in with similar sentiments. But I highlight the comments of Vance, Jordan and Triantafilou because they are lawyers (or at least law school graduates) and ostensibly subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

In Ohio, Rule 8.2 may apply here. Rule 8.2 is part of the section headed “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession” and it states: “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judicial officer, or candidate for election or appointment to judicial office.”

This rule raises several important points.

First, lawyers are different. Readers may insert any snarky comment here that they wish. But lawyers are expected to adhere to certain guidelines that don’t apply to non-lawyers. Among those are Rule 8.2, which limits what lawyers can say about the justice system and judges. It’s not a good look for members of the legal system to be making unfounded comments about how the system is corrupt.

Another important point about the ethical rules is that they are supposed to be self-executing. While a non-lawyer could presumably get sued by a judge for making false comments, the non-lawyer is not barred from making the comments in the first place.

But a lawyer is supposed to be bound by the ethical rules whether or not someone presses legal action. The expression “guide your conduct accordingly” comes to mind.

Do the comments above cross the line? There are certainly arguments that they don’t. They are expressed as opinions, and so can’t be proved true or false. And if the statements can’t be proven false, then the speakers can’t be charged with making the statements knowing them to be false.

But claiming that the judge “rigged” the case to get to an outcome sounds close to a statement of fact. And it would be interesting to know what evidence Vance possesses to back up this claim.

The comment from Jordan is similar – did Judge Juan Merchan design the process to keep Trump off the campaign trail? Representative Jordan levels that unqualified charge. Is there any evidence to support it?

As a general rule, all of us should be careful about making unsubstantiated charges about anyone. Indeed, the Bible cautions against bearing false witness. But it’s not a “general rule” for lawyers. We are subject to specific rules of conduct. And we are expected to know better.

Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: What are lawyers allowed to say about Trump verdict