the rules regarding criticism of judges is a limited exception that typically applies only in cases in which the attorney is or was party to a case in front of said judge
No ethical rule of which I am aware limits the prohibition to judges before whom an attorney appears. The rules are phrased generally. Here's the ABA Model Rule, for instance.
Of course, most rules specify that the lawyer must knowingly (or recklessly) make a false statement, which in the case of false statements made publicly, would constitute defamation. But given that lawyers have been disciplined for criticizing judges in private emails, it does not appear that disciplinary actions are being limited to defamation cases in which the First Amendment would not apply.
California rule applies to false statements affecting an ongoing adjudicatory proceeding
No it doesn't. The rule contains no such requirement. Rather, the "Discussion" that appears at the bottom of the rule indicates that falsity may be one of many factors to be considered. But on its terms, the rule does not only apply to false statements.
even within the judicial criticism rules actionable statements are typically limited to statements that are demonstrably false
I've already addressed this above. Knowing or reckless false statements about a public figure may constitute defamation, and fall outside of the First Amendment, if they are "published" (i.e., made publicly). But the ethics rules are not coextensive with defamation law, and in fact prohibit false statements across the board, whether made in public or in private. In the case of, say, private emails or conversations, the First Amendment would protect false statements, even if made knowingly or recklessly.
But we're really just getting down a rabbit hole. The point is, it is not at all unprecedented for attorneys to be disciplined for doing or saying things that are otherwise protected by the First Amendment. That's the question you asked, and that's the question I answered.
There's no basis in that for attempting to disbar an attorney for making what is basically a political statement on a matter of public interest
Well, unless he's not abiding by the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.
"In other words, the New York Times v. Sullivan that limits recovery for defamation in suits by public officials or public figures, should be used as the only restriction on speech about pending cases"
Yes. See above. My point is that, at present, the rules are not limited to defamation cases.
More importantly, none of them refer to a political statement as the basis for disbarment under moral character or fitness, much less allegiance to the constitution
This was the question you asked: "If you have any legal support for disbarment for engaging in protected speech I'm all ears." That is the question I answered.
Further, from a strictly policy perspective, it is not the business of the state bar to regulate the political opinions of its members, even were the state bar to have such authority.
Maybe not, but so long as the State Bar asserts the authority and prerogative to police its members' "moral character" and "fitness" to practice law, I have no objection to the Bar taking action against someone who is advocating the wanton slaughter of thousands of Californians.
Characterizing his actions as mere "political statements" is, frankly, a little misleading.