E & J apply to disciplinary directives already handed down in prior decisions concerning the lawyer at issue. I don't think H applies because the victims - Duke boys - have adequate counsel, are free on bail, not incapacitated, feeble-minded, unfamiliar with the language, or so young or so old or so uneducated that they could not grasp what was happening to them. Besides that, I think it would more commonly apply to representation of a client. The NC Rules are adopted exactly from the ABA model and, although I don't think "vulnerability" is actually defined, my understanding is that it usually applies to such things as I've mentioned. But CA (where I am) has its own Rules (not the ABA model) that don't specifically include the subject, so I'm not sure.
I read E&J again. I think they pretty clearly include the current case. Certainly it is against the rules to lie to the committee in this case and he broke that rule. Certainly he has been indifferent to making restitution.
As for H, you make a good case for it not applying. On the other hand were these poor black kids or poor elderly victims who scraped together bail money, but were only well represented because the ACLU of my youth took there case or some good lawyer took their case pro bono, would H not apply here either? These guys are young and POOR. They are depending on the generousity of others to pay for their representation. Sure it is their parent, BUT THEY ARE STILL POOR. Because others who happened to be related to them stepped forward to help them, everyone forgets that in this case [unless one has a trust fund we have not heard about] the defendants essentially have nothing.