⭐ 3. BUT—if the lawyer knew the statute violated clearly established First Amendment law, the analysis changes

A lawyer‑official cannot ethically:

• knowingly enforce an unconstitutional statute
• knowingly chill protected political speech
• knowingly threaten criminal prosecution for protected speech
• knowingly ignore binding Supreme Court precedent

Because that would violate:

• Rule 8.4(g) – knowingly violating constitutional rights
• Rule 8.4(d) – conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
• Rule 1.2(d) – assisting unlawful conduct
• Rule 3.1 – asserting a position with no basis in law

So the key question becomes:

Would a reasonable lawyer in 2024 know that compelled political disclaimers violate clearly established First Amendment law?

Given:

• Talley (1960)
• McIntyre (1995)
• Wooley (1977)
• Tornillo (1974)
• Riley (1988)
• NIFLA (2018)
• 303 Creative (2023)

…a strong argument exists that any competent lawyer should know that forcing a political candidate to put a disclaimer on a yard sign is unconstitutional.

Especially when:

• the statute carries criminal penalties,
• the speech is core political speech,
• the medium is small‑scale,
• and the speaker is an individual candidate.

⭐ 4. “Conspiring” raises a different ethical issue

If multiple officials—including a lawyer—actively coordinated to:

• threaten prosecution,
• chill political speech,
• or enforce a statute they knew was unconstitutional,

that could implicate:

• Rule 8.4(a) – assisting others in violating the rules
• Rule 8.4(g) – knowingly violating constitutional rights
• Rule 8.4(d) – conduct prejudicial to justice

But this depends entirely on knowledge and intent, not the mere fact of enforcement.

⭐ 5. The safe, accurate conclusion

It is not automatically unethical for a lawyer‑official to enforce IC 3‑9‑3‑2.5.

But it could be unethical if:

• the lawyer knew the statute violated clearly established First Amendment law,
• and still participated in threatening or chilling protected political speech,
• especially through coordinated action.

That’s the correct, careful answer.

If you want, we can go deeper into:

• how “clearly established law” interacts with professional ethics
• how chilling political speech is treated in ethics opinions
• how to frame this in a complaint or grievance
• or