There probably is, but probably not the way you are thinking. Social media is a curious thing. It combines a very casual, off the cuff tone with a medium in which every word might as well be etched in stone. In a very general sense society
is still coming to terms with that. You say in the past that this would be have “consisted of a visit over coffee”. As in face to face without any kind of
written record about what transpired. Which means when it comes time to recount what happened all you really have in the recollections of trained attorney and an 18 year old woman going through a very difficult time. Descriptions of a conversation
don’t often carry the same weight as the words actually spoken – even if the
description is completely accurate in its facts. And of the two I know which I would expect to do a better job sounding confident and authoritative when giving testimony at a disciplinary hearing.

You also have the situation that social media is more
broadly visible. It’s possible that before it “everyone involved would have just chalked it up to typical aggressive persuasion tactics that lawyers are expected to employ”, but “everyone involved” would be a bunch of lawyers and the aforementioned 18 year old who is unrepresented by council. Who else would
even notice? Now it’s out there and – for better or worse – it’s going to be judged people who aren’t as sympathetic to the tactics lawyers are expected to employ.
The optics on this aren’t good. We have a lawyer badgering a young woman without council and most likely without the wherewithal to obtain council (even acquiring pro bono council requires a certain degree of knowledge and effort). Even worse he hasn’t bothered to get his facts straight before laying into her.

Ultimately I don’t know if the panel took a more serious look at his conduct because the world is watching or if it at chose the easy popular answer rather than right one. I
have an opinion but it isn’t an informed one. However the main difference is the way that social media put things under a microscope.

See this case’s free docket mirror online as well as every brief filed therein. There is ONLY one OBVIOUS result of arguments in St. Louis on Tuesday, January 13, 2015. http://master-of-photography.us/transfers/2014/Roe-v-Wade_AR/Appeal/ Docket mirror.

*full disclosure* I have an amicus curiae and an amicus Reply pending before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case and one another. *full disclosure*
http://theendofpornbywire.org/14-3447/ Docket mirror of the other

Fathers have an unrecognized but fundamental human right to control communications giving them a right of first refusal to adopt developing sperm. This could have been stated much more effectively. Lability-free adoptions are allowed TODAY for females in Arkansas. The natural father’s right of first refusal to adopt is or is not preserved in Arkansas.—-