Over at Volokh, there's plenty of discussion about the DC Circuit's 2-1 rejection of an amicus brief filed on behalf of some retired judges. The majority relied on a straight forward reading of an Advisory Opinion sharply limiting a former federal judge's use of the word "judge" in litigation. Profs. Gillers and Rotunda, two of our top scholars in the legal ethics field, have opposing views. According to the NYT, some feelings have been hurt and some tempers have been aroused. My view: the majority should have simply asked the former judges to edit and resubmit. No fuss. Regulating the use of the title "Judge" by former judges is a legitimate focus of judicial ethics, and the Advisory Opinion says what it says.
UPDATE: Professor Gillers offers a thoughtful argument in the comments and I respond to it.