According to Drudgereport, North Carolina DA Mike Nifong has been charged with disciplinary offenses. The complaint can be found here. Unfortunately, I've had trouble reading past page 9, but up to that point, the complaint seemed to focus entirely on the pretrial publicity rule. It listed numerous statements Nifong made to the press. If the complaint does not include the events concerning the DNA report, I suspect that there will be an amended complaint.
UPDATE: OK, now I've gotten through the whole complaint, which focuses on Nifong's pretrial statements and alleges that they violated 3.6(a), 3.8(f), and 8.4(d). According to the complaint, Nifong repeatedly offered his personal views on the evidence, heightened public condemnation of the accused, and made extrajudicial statements that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the trial.
But as to some statements, recounted in paragraphs 114-119, the State Bar alleges dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of 8.4(c). Those statements concern Nifong's suggestion to media that condoms had been used in the attack, even though Nifong had been informed that the complainant had said that no condoms were used. Nifong's statements were apparently offered to explain why no DNA from the accused might be found. But, because Nifong had already learned that no condom had been used, the statements were, in the view of the State Bar, dishonest. That charge may be easier to prove than the charges that will require the State Bar to show there was a likelihood that the trial would have been tainted by Nifong's comments. Regardless, if an amended complaint comes down, as I expect, Nifong's position will be even harder to defend.
UPDATE 2: This is a 16 page, 181 paragraph complaint. My guess is that this was being drafted well before the recent evidence regarding the DNA expert's decision to omit exculpatory facts from the report. The paragraphs are often short, which may be done to force Nifong to admit the key facts of what he said to whom. I'm also guessing that the recent evidence about the DNA report forced the North Carolina State Bar to accelerate its internal decisions about what to charge, and when. Finally, I'm guessing that, as I stated above, there will be at least one amended complaint filed against Nifong before too much time passes. The circumstances surrounding the DNA report, the statements to the judge that all discovery had been made, the failure to provide discovery, and perhaps even the absurd methodology of the lineup will be included in a subsequent complaint.
Another prediction: this particular set of charges will occasion a lot of discussion about the tension between (1) the defendants' right to a fair trial, and (2) freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Many of the charges deal with statements made to mainstream press, such as CBS, the New York Times (which has been sympathetic to Nifong and the complaining witness throughout this ordeal), local TV channels, and the local newspapers. Some of those statements will not appear to the public to be ones that a lawyer should be forbidden to say, such as "it is a case that talks about what the community stands for." (para. 148)
UPDATE 3: KC Johnson has thoughts here, which are very similar to mine. Friends of Duke has a round-up. Concurring Opinions weighs in here. I agree with Dave Hoffman that Nifong won't succeed on any First Amendment defenses. My prediction above concerns the discussion of the issue that will be occasioned. I've found that a lot of folks believe that except in the case of affimative misstatements, the pretrial publicity rule is overkill, because you can virtually always find an impartial jury. But I'm a traditionalist on that issue -- that is, I think the rule has continuing importance, and it's pretty clear that Nifong grossly violated it.