Back

ABA Journal

Home

Legal Ethics

Lawyer’s suspension includes lifetime ban on representing women

Aug 6, 2014, 01:14 pm CDT

Comments

As an attorney, it is clear to me this man should be disbarred. As a woman, the actions of the Connecticutt Discipline system indicates a problem with their valuation of these issues. Consider if the discipline would be the same if this man repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances and actions against males. I think not. As a retired prosecutor, it is clear this man is a sexual predator. Another reason to disbar.

By Helen Harberts on 2014 08 06, 5:29 pm CDT

“As a retired prosecutor, it is clear this man is a sexual predator. Another reason to disbar.
▲ 1. Helen Harberts  Aug 6, 2014 12:29 PM CDT ▲

¿ Is there a difference between the elements of “sexual predator” classification in CA than in CT ?

He is <i>de facto</i> disbarred from representing woman •

The sanction appears to protect the public •

Too often , <b>some</b> prosecutors routinely trash Constitutions and case law , by suborning perjury , egregiously violating <i>Brady</i> , etc., with either no sanction or the mildest of sanctions •

A Mike Nifong sanction is uncommonly rare ; an <i>Operation Anthropoid</i> sanction is unavailable •

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 06, 6:00 pm CDT

As a young solo practitioner in a small town I took over the office lease from a downsizing sole practitioner who specialized in small divorce actions - great location right across the street from the courthouse. Ground floor storefront + a great brick loft style mezzanine with a skylight.

He said that I could buy as much of the office furniture as I wished except for one piece and he pointed to a cheep looking 3'x3'x3' laminated cube on which he had placed a coffee maker and cups. Puzzled, I asked "what is it". He then pulled out a tab and out flopped ... a spring loaded single bed. He then looked at me with a mischievous grin and quickly added "I have negotiated many a fee on this bed! It has too much sentimental value for me to part with.

He was not an attractive man; 60; fleshy, paunchy, and red cheeked from 5,000 too many liquid lunches. I was literally speechless.

Apparently this kind of thing used to go on 30 years ago, a lot. Until then I had never heard of the practice.

Household name divorce lawyer Marvin Mitchelson, who made a name suing actor Lee Marvin for "palimony" (and breaking new ground with the California Supreme Court) was then flooded with palimony cases and leased a upmarket office in Century City office complete with a Jacuzzi soaking tub in an anti-room off of his office. He was later accused by two clients of rape and reputedly had a habit of meeting with clients naked in his hot tub. he was never prosecuted for sexual impropriety. (He was later sentenced in 1993 to 4 years in prison for tax fraud.)

By StephenG on 2014 08 06, 6:25 pm CDT

I'm sitting here trying to imagine how a guy like this will fit his predatory predilection into a "men's rights" style divorce practice, and I fear that the state bar in Connecticut may have created the practitioner's version of Frankenstein.

By BMF on 2014 08 06, 7:45 pm CDT

If he is not ethically fit to represent women, then he is not fit to ethically represent anyone. Shame on the bar for their ridiculous decision.

By Island Attorney on 2014 08 06, 11:07 pm CDT

Don't try to disparage men's rights positions by conflating them with this guy. Moreover, if he provides future clients with competent, ethical representation going forward, more power to him.

By Wine_Country_Dude on 2014 08 07, 1:21 am CDT

@ 6: RE "Don’t try to disparage men’s rights positions by conflating them with this guy."

I think the Connecticut Bar beat me to that when they allowed him to continue in practice if he only represents men.

By BMF on 2014 08 07, 3:50 am CDT

Quick! Someone call the Health Department...there's gotta be excessive amounts of lead in the water in Conn. because that's the dumbest decision so far this century!

By wraparound on 2014 08 07, 12:55 pm CDT

Shame on me. I was working from the English translation of the Connecticut bar's decision. It nowhere mentioned "men's rights", nor restricted him to cases involving men's rights. Strangely, men have all sorts of legal issues, such as will contests and slip and falls, that do not fall within the rubric of "men's rights" causes, both as popularly defined and as you, transparently, intended.

By Wine_Country_Dude on 2014 08 07, 6:24 pm CDT

I'm sure the next time the judge calls for order in the court, every response will end with ". . .and hold the Mayo."

By B. McLeod on 2014 08 08, 12:42 am CDT

Let a thousand flowers bloom, my children.

And stop all this damn talk about holding the Mao.

By Wine_Country_Dude on 2014 08 08, 4:11 am CDT

If he is unfit to represent a class of people, he is unfit to practice law. What a backwards decision.

By Clear As Day on 2014 08 08, 10:42 am CDT

I strongly disagree with the decision to allow a sexual predator to remain (and disgrace) the bar and represent anyone. His conduct is even more reprehensible because he violated an earlier court order 11 times. This decision seems to suggest that repeated violations of the canons, court orders and preying on women are not offenses that disqualify a person from the privilege of practicing law.

While I am not familiar with Connecticut procedure, I wonder why he was not held in contempt of court, fined and imprisoned. How many violations of court orders, the canons and the rights of clients are sufficient in Connecticut to warrant disbarment?

For lawyers to be effective and be respected we need high standards and the fair enforcement of the rules of professional conduct.

By david gibbs on 2014 08 08, 11:12 am CDT

I practice in England where losers are routinely ordered to pay winners' costs. A partner of mine once won a case against a very attractive young woman who offered to discharge the order for costs horizontally. He declined because of the difficulty in accounting to the partnership. And the tax issues.

By Andrew on 2014 08 08, 11:15 am CDT

I think that it is pretty clear to me based on the old lawyers that I have met over the years, that back in the old days, PRO-BONO meant PRO-BONER, and women (and perhaps some men) had to negotiate for discount legal services on their backs, on the attorney's stinky sofa.

Very sad! Now, in 2014, anyone that is still doing that should be disbarred, and castrated too.

By Learned Hand on 2014 08 08, 11:33 am CDT

Am i seeing court ordered gender discrimination as a resolution to a lawyer's unwanted advances? Laws are made to be broken, for sure.

By Peter C. Lomtevas on 2014 08 08, 11:34 am CDT

He should be disbarred. The men he could represent will only entrench mysogynistic attitudes in court.

By James P Moriarty on 2014 08 08, 11:50 am CDT

Hmmm.......The comments here by those who are to defend our laws concern me, to say the least. I'm not an attorney, but I do know that if someone is "accused" it doesn't automatically make them guilty. I do know that men seem to be increasingly accused and falsely convicted of sexual crimes. It also concerns me at the "former prosecutor's" comment about "this man being a sexual predator." With over 770,000 people (mostly men) on the sex offender registry, LESS than 1% are sexual predators or pedophiles. In fact, 1/3 of those on the registry are our children and under the age of 18 years old.
It's time that prosecutors stop being allocated federal funding to prosecute innocent people and defense attorneys start receiving funding to protect our citizens from false accusations. Maybe then, will our justice system be a protection for not only the "victims" but the accused as well.

By RWsMom on 2014 08 08, 11:57 am CDT

Yes, Andrew, there are the tax issues. Every lawyer who engages in these practices should have "tax tables" near the sofa and a Rolodex entry for a Revenue Agent who can be called to come for the government's share.

By B. McLeod on 2014 08 08, 12:25 pm CDT

Shame on the Conn. Bar! He is a predator and they are enablers.

By Rebel1960 on 2014 08 08, 12:46 pm CDT

As Island Attorney stated, "If he is not ethically fit to represent women, then he is not fit to ethically represent anyone. Shame on the bar for their ridiculous decision." But that would require seeing women as people, and sadly it doesn't seem that we have reached this point yet.

By Army Vet on 2014 08 08, 12:46 pm CDT

If the story is accurate, he ought to be held in contempt of court, and disbarred. The only times he enters a courtroom again should be as a plaintiff or a defendant. And maybe the district attorney's office should check to see if there is enough viable evidence for a charge of extortion or rape. Assuming that none of the women were below the age of consent, and assuming that none of the women were intimate partners of his before he started representing them, what other crimes might he have committed while receiving part of his payment for his services in this manner? Serious question. If convicted of this possibly criminal misconduct, is he at risk of being required to register as a sex offender? I think that is probably going too far, but on the other hand, depending on how coercive his behavior was, maybe that is not going too far. The force used in rape does not need to be physical in all cases. If he prepares the case right up to the eve of the court date, and then says that a woman needs to sleep with him or he will blow her case tomorrow, not many lay women are going to be willing to fire their lawyer, insist on getting their money back in a timely manner, and go into court on their own the next day and request a continuance because they just had to fire their lawyer for unethical conduct. In most divorce cases both sides already feel that they are getting screwed when they find out how tough it is to make ends meet as a single parent family. So being faced with coercion to engage in sex with your attorney should carry the risk for the attorney of not just contempt of court if it violates a court order, and disbarment as a disciplinary measure. The attorney should also be aware that if his behavior meets the legal standards for rape in that state, he is likely to be facing criminal charges. Is this an extension of existing law? Possibly, in some states. But then, once upon a time, no matter how many times a husband forced unwanted sex with his wife, he could not be charged with rape. That law has changed, but some of the male sense of entitlement to the use of the body of a woman who comes to him for any reason has got to end, soon.

Sex with another adult is always a privilege, not a right. Permission always has to be explicitly given, and can be intentionally withdrawn at any time for effectively any reason. Consent is automatically withdrawn if a person becomes incapacitated, whether by drugs, alcohol, accident, or any other cause.

And "No!" always means no. Not maybe. Not try harder. Not "exert more pressure, so she will capitulate. "No" means you stop what sexual activity you are doing and do not initiate any new sexual behavior, unless by her free choice she initiates further sexual behavior and invites you to do likewise.

By Kit on 2014 08 08, 12:48 pm CDT

RWsMom, a discipinary proceeding against a lawyer investigates allegations and makes findings which provide the basis for discipline. In situations where allegations are found credible, a lawyer (or other licensed professional in a disciplinary case against him/her) often agrees to a settlement which sets out the discipline to be imposed. (I handled a board case against a licensed psychologist which resulted in the psychologist giving up his license to practice psychology in Vermont and any other jurisdiction but, intentionally did not set out the factual basis for this draconian outcome. The board decision would be public, which would have been devastaking to the personal life of the former-psychologist.)

Here, allegations of sexual exploitation of women clients appear to have been widespread, over a period of time, and are no longer in the realm of "accusations." An individual who takes advantage of his position to extract sexual "favors" from female clients is, indeed, a sexual predator. A licensing case is not a criminal prosecution where the lawyer is found guilty or not guilty. The CT licensing board's investigation(s) have determined that the allegations against Mayo are credible, apparently twice previously AND there was a 2010 COURT ORDER prohibiting Mayo from representing women in family law and domestic-violence cases. That court order had not been overturned on appeal and so was binding on Mayo and he has been found to have violated it. So, RWsMom, Mayo's case is NOT simply an issue of unproven "accusations," but rather multiple instances of this attorney engaging with women clients in a sexually in appropriate manner over a period of time and violating a court order. The court could have found Mayo in contempt of court and jailed him. Why the court did not do so is not clear.

I tend to agree with those who observe that an attorney who has been banned from representing a particular large class of clients, in this case, all women, should permanently lose his license. It is hard to understand how an attorney whose behavior is persistent in the face of a court order and who cannot be trusted to represent half of the population can be considered to have appropriate qualifications to practice law in Connecticutt or elsewhere.

RWsMom, please direct your advocacy to those who deserve it, not those who present a risk of harm to fellow women.

By Vermont Lawyer on 2014 08 08, 12:57 pm CDT

May Mr. Mayo represent an entity whose duly authorized constituent is female? May he represent herself if he undergoes sex-reassignment surgery? Inquiring minds want to know.

By Ethics Guy on 2014 08 08, 12:58 pm CDT

@ 18 - RWs Mom:

Yes we as a society are over eager to prosecute any body who might possibly convicted. And yes this clearly happens some times in sex offenses, It is possible that all eleven women randomly picked this person to accuse of sex offenses. It is also possible that they knew each other and conspired to falsely accuse this prosecutor of sex offences. Stranger things have happened. but the fact remains that apparently eleven women have separately accused this man of similar crimes. So there is a pretty good chance that at least some of this has happened. Not proof or evidence, just observation.

I am inclined to give a man accused of a sex crime some benefit of doubt. I know some problems occur with remembering stuff that happened inaccurately, or with people with regrets blaming the other person for some reason. But you do not often get a lot of people making false accusation against one person. When this happens, there often is a real underlying crime and not mass hysteria.

I expect that this is part of the reason that it is being treated as fact by a lot of readers, including me.

By Kit on 2014 08 08, 1:10 pm CDT

Can he represent transgendered clients?

By DadVanHorn on 2014 08 08, 1:16 pm CDT

The new movement in criminal justice is toward rehabilitation, not punishment. In that spirit, someone will have to teach Mr. Mayo how to fill out a time sheet, as his time-recordation and billing skills may have grown a little rusty in the course of his carnal fee collection practice.

By Occam's Razor on 2014 08 08, 1:24 pm CDT

@26 Not unless they self- identify as male.

BTW, California does not per se prohibit sexual relationships between lawyer and client unless it would interfere with the scope of the representation, as where a relationship with a divorcing wife would make it difficult to settle with husband.

Of course just because it is not a per se disciplinary offense does not make it less than a very bad idea.

Here is the California disciplinary rule:

Rule 3-120 Sexual Relations With Client

(A) For purposes of this rule, "sexual relations" means sexual intercourse or the touching of an intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse.

(B) A member shall not:

(1) Require or demand sexual relations with a client incident to or as a condition of any professional representation; or

(2) Employ coercion, intimidation, or undue influence in entering into sexual relations with a client; or

(3) Continue representation of a client with whom the member has sexual relations if such sexual relations cause the member to perform legal services incompetently in violation of rule 3-110.

(C) Paragraph (B) shall not apply to sexual relations between members and their spouses or to ongoing consensual sexual relationships which predate the initiation of the lawyer-client relationship.

(D) Where a lawyer in a firm has sexual relations with a client but does not participate in the representation of that client, the lawyers in the firm shall not be subject to discipline under this rule solely because of the occurrence of such sexual relations.

By StephenG on 2014 08 08, 1:26 pm CDT

Having practiced for more than 30 years, I take strong issue with the statements that predatory sexual practices against clients were "typical" or "accepted," at least where I practice. They occurred then just as they sometimes occur now, but even then were viewed as ethically wrong and repugnant.

The Connecticutt authorities are making the same mistake that the Catholic Church has been making for many decades, by assuming that this person can be trusted to understand rules to stay away from his apparent victims. He needs to be disbarred.

By Zimba W on 2014 08 08, 1:29 pm CDT

Now let's suppose an existing or even future female client knows the story, does not believe the allegations, and specifically wants this man to act for her. Who the hell has the right to tell her that she must go to somebody else?

By Andrew on 2014 08 08, 1:32 pm CDT

You guys get up too early---brains are not in gear---it was more like the 1950s when this was more accepted by only some but still not right ---- it has nothing to do with men's rights or women's rights but unfairly taking advantage of a person in a vulnerable position I believe

By ajw on 2014 08 08, 1:33 pm CDT

So, the Connecticut bar has decided to punish an unethical lawyer by demanding he not represent women. It is an ill thought out opinion. Is he barred from representing women owned companies? After all, he will be dealing with the women owners. How about transgender individuals? How is the bar going to enforce this ruling? Well, at least late night talk show hosts will have some interesting fodder for their comedy routines.

By Jh on 2014 08 08, 1:35 pm CDT

If he received sexual favors in lieu of fees, is there a tax issue here? It wouldn't be the first time a criminal was brought down by the tax laws, when more direct measures were not effective.

By Elliott Ness on 2014 08 08, 1:35 pm CDT

As a retired attorney; there seems to be pros and cons with this issue. Many years ago the gov't
attempted to get Al Capone on a dozen murders, extortion , and various crimes. They ended up
getting him on a seemly minor tax evasion crime and he ended in jail.. Mr. Mayo received payment in kind for services rendered.. He did not pay income tax on that payment.; a disbarment offense. I rest my case, without addressing the other issues.

By Howard on 2014 08 08, 1:41 pm CDT

@5: Agree. The State Bar of Connecticut has failed the people. Maybe the bar is hard up for fees.

By SlipKid on 2014 08 08, 1:44 pm CDT

I am a corporation, and I am a person. Ergo, I have a gender. Now I have a roughly 50% chance of not getting the benefit of this gentleman's counsel - unfair, I say.

By Engendered Corporation on 2014 08 08, 1:46 pm CDT

I don't know, I think he should be disbarred, but not for the reason these very angry commentators seem to want him disbarred for. I see that he had two previous ethical violations, and violated the court order many times. I see that as reason for disbarment.

I think the fact he made unwanted advances is not really relevant is it? I made many advances back in my college days towards women and I couldn't tell if they were unwanted until after I made them! I would think if he asked them out that's one thing, if he was overtly aggressive that's different.

By Walter Sobchek on 2014 08 08, 1:53 pm CDT

My first year as an attorney, I represented an attractive middle-aged woman in a real estate dispute. She offered to settle my bill by taking me to a local resort for a weekend romp. I politely declined. I explained to her that if I accepted her offer, her bill would double.

By Ironman on 2014 08 08, 1:58 pm CDT

The punishment seems fair. Many clients these days who are looking for an attorney use the internet to aid in the search. This guy's internet persona is now scarred for life. The link right below his advertisement will likely take one to this story either by the ABAJ or by some other publication that reported on this. Now I know there are men out there would be fine with, or even prefer, a bigot attorney. But most people would not want to have this guy representing them.

By Fair Punishment on 2014 08 08, 2:04 pm CDT

An attorney, with whom I had the displeasure of handling a dissolution case at one time was disbarred in California and given 6 years in state prison. He is now a convicted felon and must register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life. His crime was demanding that his female clients disrobe during a consultation so that he could determine whether he would take their case.

His somewhat novel approach to family law finished him off for good in the law and, I suspect, with his family. The way that I see it, the lawyer in the case under discussion got off very lightly.

By GNM on 2014 08 08, 2:33 pm CDT

It's simply not feasible to not represent women without doing a disservice to representing men (competently and with vigor). In one way shape or form, representing a man can be bound up with representing a woman, and it's impossible to predict when that might arise. What's he supposed to do with a male client? Leave him up a stream without a paddle later in representation because women are around? He can't competently practice law, and why doesn't the Connecticut decide that? This decision makes too much fun of women when they're down and dilutes effective representative of men (and lowers the quality of the bar).

By never met silly till now on 2014 08 08, 2:34 pm CDT

There is nothing new about people, mostly women, using sex to get goods and services, nor is the practice relegated to "old days." Oldest story in the book, with new chapters added daily. And when the deal is struck between compentent consenting adults in equal positions of strength and power, the only wrong would be extra-marital sex, for those who find that wrong.

But the reason we declare it unethical for lawyers, like we would for doctors, counselors, bosses, teachers and others, is the presumption that the lawyer (in this case) has a position of power over the client, coupled with the emotional and physical aspects of sexual relations. Criminal and domestic relations work is usually fraught with an emotional quality, even desperation, that it is more likely to be prone to power imbalance than, say, a real estate closing.

Therefore, ethically, a homeowner could "do" the painter for painting the garage. Or a client could paint the lawyer's garage to pay a legal bill. And there are plenty of instances where lawyers have argued, vainly, that sex-for-services was an arrangement completely on equal terms (such as a real estate closing). and then there's the complication of lawyers and clients who also have sex, contending that the personal relationship had no connection with the professional relationship, yet the ethical rule prohibiting it stands.

Back to this case, a lawyer who takes advantage of a client sexually should be barred from representing clients. Gender is irrelevant.

By Hadley V. Baxendale on 2014 08 08, 2:40 pm CDT

In related news, a Connecticut doctor was given a brief suspension followed by a lifetime ban on treating any black patients.

Not true of course, but does it illustrate how stupid the Connecticut decision is?

By R on 2014 08 08, 2:40 pm CDT

One hopes that the publicity attendant to this sanction will promote the sanction of the market remaining available to him.

As for the morality of the decision, while it's appalling to some of us, it's also entirely predictable in a nation which has so defined deviancy downward in a nihilistic race to the bottom. In a world where similar behavior in the Oval Office (and worse, outside of it) was poo-pooed as "just about sex," I'm trying to figure out what part of his behavior was actually sanctioned. Trying to get sex? The accusations of being a "sexual predator" seem over the top, as the story doesn't indicate that he did other than retire gracefully when his advances were rebuffed. It appears to me that most of this sanction was about his violation of a court order. Unfortunately.

It's a Brave New World, kiddies. Get used to it.

By W. James Young on 2014 08 08, 2:46 pm CDT

What disappointingly merciless attitudes. All you armchair quarterbacks clamoring for this man's crucifixion when you know neither him nor his deeds. He wasn't accused of raping or assaulting anybody, but merely of being a somewhat creepy dude with apparently lecherous desires.

As if you righteous avengers haven't ever had untoward thoughts or made unwanted advances yourselves.

By Supercilious Stonecasters on 2014 08 08, 2:52 pm CDT

This is a significant cultural issue. "Americans" quickly see the social issues and inappropriateness of behavior in other countries, yet carve it into various categories here -- sexual assault in the military, prison rape, sexual assault on college campuses, street harassment, domestic violence, workplace harassment, etc. -- to avoid dealing with the issue for what it is -- gender based violence.

It's an epidemic. And, the predators do not confine their behavior to certain categories. They prey on vulnerable populations because they know society allows the behavior. Take note:

1) 95% of the workmen I have hired to come to my home have sexually assaulted me.

2) I have three clients to proposition me. During a meeting, one exclaimed that all he wanted from his counsel was a "blow job."

3) I have been harassed, repeatedly, on public streets for rejecting the sexual advances of old, typically white, men. And, then arrested for protecting and defending myself when the police failed to act after I repeatedly notified them there was a problem.

4) I have been stalked on line, repeatedly, by men and had accounts closed when I take the guys to tasks for the stalking, taunting and harassment.

5) And, yes, I have had other attorneys engage in sexual harassment and gender violence towards me.

The community needs to stop making excuses and deal with the issue of gender violence which takes not only the form of rape, sexual assault (like groping and unwanted kissing), but also financial abuse, damage to property, etc.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 08, 2:55 pm CDT

As I understand , in Ohio , there is not an ethical violation ▬► <b>IF</b> ◄▬ there existed a high level personal relationship <b>BEFOIRE</b> the attorney/client relationship •

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 08, 3:07 pm CDT

► 47. Docile Jim Brady in Ohio — <b>BEFORE</b>

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 08, 3:10 pm CDT

@11 Wine_Country_Dude:

The correct quotation is, "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.”

By 杜 吉 慕 on 2014 08 08, 3:12 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By jason on 2014 08 08, 3:21 pm CDT

From the Hartford Courant: "Once Mayo returns to practicing law, he will continue to be monitored for two years by the disciplinary counsel. Mayo also has been ordered to write letters of apology to the complainants, to ``direct his practice away from the representation of women in domestic relations matters'' and to have an office policy that prevents ``his being alone, or in confined quarters, with women at any times,'' the agreement states".

By Comet on 2014 08 08, 3:25 pm CDT

One of the chief reasons for not engaging in any kind of relationship, other than professional, is the fact that many clients are defectives mentally, emotionally, spiritually. Think about how many truly strange people you have represented. I have represented alcoholic, drug addicted, psychopathic types who I sure would not want to get cozy with, despite otherwise normal appearance. I distinctly recall one client sitting in the courtroom before hearing very matter of factly saying "I don't know why , but I always have to get over on everyone I meet and deal with"

By John on 2014 08 08, 3:35 pm CDT

Delaware would have disbarred him , if he didn't go out on lifetime disability after the First incident! Note: Our Lifetime Disability is a professional way of Hari Kiri - with all the gruesomeness ODC can muster. .............And so it goes............

By large weasel on 2014 08 08, 3:36 pm CDT

Lawyers systematically destroy this country more than any criminal or an enemy can ever dream off. In the minds of too many already, the America is not the Land with the Rule of Law - people's rights to WSBA/lawyers as what kids are to pedophile. I'd say that lawyers is a most dangerous monopoly any country could have - quiet, cancer like fascism eating away any humanity it can find.

By Whatever on 2014 08 08, 3:47 pm CDT

http://articles.courant.com/2005-10-01/news/0510010851_1_law-license-clients-grievance-committee

Not first time? That changes things.

By RI Law on 2014 08 08, 3:49 pm CDT

So is there a big sign on the door warning women about this limitation? and/or a Bar Assoc monitor working next to this attorney enforcing this restricting and checking the "gender" of each client? The attorney first agreed to the restriction then his violations came to light later, presumably after female clients made complaints. What a crazy story. There must be more facts that are not reported that might justify allowing this attorney to continue his career but I cannot imagine what they might be . . .

By Seriously? on 2014 08 08, 3:52 pm CDT

To Jason (#50), as a woman who worked in a firm where the president/senior partner and my direct supervisor sexually harassed and in some cases outright assaulted his female attorneys and staff, it wasn't until one person came forward that the other women finally felt safe to come forward too. Even though we worked together, we did not realize there were other victims until then.

These women in Connecticut were clients. How on earth would they know of each other and have an opportunity to collude? In my case, whether you want to believe it or not, there was no collusion and ultimately he was criminally charged and disbarred (thank you Washington state for doing the right thing!). I'm appalled that Connecticut has allowed the man to continue to practice law at all. It's a disgrace to our profession. People come to us during some of the most difficult and vulnerable times in their lives and anyone who takes advantage of that has no business practicing law.

And you, sir, need counseling. You're generalization of American women is sad and ignorant. The Connecticut lawyer in this story wasn't accused of just "looking" at these women or even leering at them. He made advances on his CLIENTS! That's wrong, end of story. I don't care what they were wearing when they came to his office. It's irrelevant.

It's comments like yours that make women so afraid to come forward. Even in these times, when women do come forward about abuse and harassment, they are victimized all over again by the criminal justice system and if there's a civil suit, the perpetrator's defense counsel. In my case, I was told that by wearing shoes with a heel, instead of flats, I was asking for it too. I'd say more, Jason, but I don't want to violate the ABA's comment policy, so just use your imagination.

But let me tell you something, whether a woman dresses like a prostitute or not, or is even stark naked, if a man's advances are unwanted and he persists after being told to stop, he's guilty of a crime.

By C on 2014 08 08, 3:58 pm CDT

@50 - What's it like in the Middle East where you're from?

By StephenG on 2014 08 08, 3:58 pm CDT

The only reason I am at all pleased that Mr. may is allowed to represent men is I hope the day comes that he is representing a man in a desperate situation, and this lawyer suggests a "Learned Hand" in lieu of fees...and gets to enjoy some true Karma...

By Robin Esq. on 2014 08 08, 4:01 pm CDT

Big trouble for any attorney to let his little head rule his big head.

Seems like a much longer suspension with psychological counseling for the serial propositioner or disbarment is warranted.

By JR from NJ on 2014 08 08, 4:03 pm CDT

Leave the guy alone as far as his status as an attorney goes; if his abused clients want to sue him, let them, but this reeks of judicial dictatorship. Quo warranto does the judiciary establish who may appear before them, or who may represent before them? Such arrogance! And please, don't blabber about protecting the public...; caveat emptor if you are a woman; how demeaning to women that in this day the judiciary deems that their sex, and only their sex, "needs" to be protected.

By Mostwise on 2014 08 08, 4:04 pm CDT

@54 - "a quiet, cancer like fascism eating away any humanity [they] can find"

So what would your opinion of lawyers be say on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being the most unfavorable?

By StephenG on 2014 08 08, 4:14 pm CDT

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/ProfConduct/profConductRules.pdf

<b>PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT [ ☺ 208 pages‼ ☺ ]</b>
(Effective February 1, 2007; as amended effective June 1, 2014)

<b>TABLE OF CONTENTS (Rule 1.0 → 8.5)</b>
* * * * *
1.8
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/ProfConduct/profConductRules.pdf#page=50&zoom=auto,70,720
<b>RULE 1.8: CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CURRENT CLIENTS:</b>
1.8 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules

(j) A lawyer shall not solicit or engage in sexual activity with a client unless a
consensual sexual relationship existed between
them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced. (P. 53)

<b>COMMENT</b>
[22] Sexual activity with clients. (P. 44)
A lawyer is prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with a current client unless the sexual relationship predates the formation of the client-lawyer relationship. See Rule 1.8(j). [Model Rule Comment 12

<b>Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility</b>
Rule 1.8(j) has no analogue in the Disciplinary Rules, but is consistent with the Supreme
Court’s rulings in <i>Cleveland Bar Assn v. Feneli</i> (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 102 and <i>Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore</i> (2004), 101 Ohio St.3d 261.

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 08, 4:19 pm CDT

@59 "Learned Hand" LOL I must remember that one!!! =8-D

By Supercilious Stonecasters on 2014 08 08, 4:30 pm CDT

This clown should be disbarred - not for having sex w/ clients, but for being a rapist.

A hard-and-fast rule against having sex with clients is not necessarily a good rule. It seems fair enough for the clown with the hide-a-bed I his office; scum indeed. Nevertheless, such a rule can have other unintended consequences.

When I was a junior assistant grundoon at a BigLaw sweatshop in NYC, we spent a lot of nights proofreading at the financial printers. The senior partners weren't there at two in the morning--it was the junior associates from the firms, junior analysts from the investment bank, and a smattering of company representatives and accountants. Well dressed young people hanging out late at night, one thing can lead to another.

If a junior associate happens to get friendly with a junior analyst from the underwriter client, I could end up being the best man. (And I did.) You really want to disbar this person? Their kids are really cute.

The rule needs to be more nuanced; it has to interfere with the representation.

By Hard Cases = Bad Law on 2014 08 08, 4:33 pm CDT

@63 "A lawyer shall not solicit or engage in sexual activity with a client unless a
consensual sexual relationship existed between
them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced"

That's where Calif and Ohio differ. In my former state sex with a client was permitted unless it interfered with the lawyer doing a competent job or there was coercion or the sex was solicited as a condition of employment.

By StephenG on 2014 08 08, 4:51 pm CDT

<i>Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wieczorek</i>, 135 Ohio St.3d 434, 2013-Ohio-1743
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Sexual activity with a client—Consent-to-discipline agreement—Public reprimand.
No. 2013-0224—Submitted February 27, 2013—Decided May 1, 2013.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2013/2013-ohio-1743.pdf

<i>Disciplinary Counsel v. Engler</i>, 110 Ohio St.3d 138, 2006-Ohio-3824
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Reasonable possibility that lawyer’s professional judgment could have been affected by personal and financial interests.
No. 2006-0392 — Submitted March 29, 2006 — Decided August 9, 2006.
www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-3824.pdf

ALSO

<i>Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore</i>, (2004), 101 Ohio St.3d 261, 2004-Ohio-734, 804 N.E.2d 423,
▼ citing ▼
<i>Disciplinary Counsel v. DePietro</i>, (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 391, 643 N.E.2d 1145;
<i>Disciplinary Counsel v. Paxton</i>, (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 163, 610 N.E.2d 979;
<i>Disciplinary Counsel v. Ressing</i>, (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 265, 559 N.E.2d 1359.

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 08, 5:03 pm CDT

The ban should be lifted if he agrees to chemical castration.

By neal on 2014 08 08, 5:08 pm CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By Anna Gray on 2014 08 08, 5:18 pm CDT

@hardcases... You were at the financial printer at 2 Am, those were the days... I was the printer who later went to law school at night.

By John on 2014 08 08, 5:22 pm CDT

Although no longer updated , Cornell LII has a 50+ page discussion of Ohio legal ethics which includes discussion of sexual activity with a client •

Decades ago an Ohio attorney engaged in coital contact/conduct with the SPOUSE of a client , the latter on trial for a capital murder charge ; the defendant did NOT receive the death penalty •

Not one peep from the spouse until many, MANY years later , with a by the way comment to the media •|


http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/oh/narr/narr/OH_NARR_1_07.HTM

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 08, 5:35 pm CDT

This man is a predator and a repeat offender. The four month sentence should've been a jail term. That he should be disbarred goes without saying.

By Nb on 2014 08 08, 5:58 pm CDT

No Mayo please! This scumbag should have been disbarred.

By Dacolinho on 2014 08 08, 6:22 pm CDT

Why doesn't this guy have any Yelp reviews? Where is Yelp when you really need it?

By neal on 2014 08 08, 6:22 pm CDT

This decision assumes the position taken by all state bar committees that sex with a client creates a conflict of interest. This is exceedingly dubious, no different than suggesting that accepting money from a client creates a conflict of interest. Sex with a client increases the probability that the attorney will work harder for the client. Here, the problem is that the sexual advances were unwanted but apparently did not come even close to criminal conduct. If there was no rule against sex with clients, the unwanted advances would never trigger a bar investigation or disciplinary action. Male lawyers are often more motivated by sex than money and female clients often a shortage of money but an unlimited supply of sex. Thus banning sex between lawyer and client reduces access to lawyers. This is an outrage and must stop.

By Alan Dershowitz on 2014 08 08, 6:38 pm CDT

There is going to be vastly less interest into going into a domestic relations practice with rulings like this. Unfortunately, I can see a negative backside to this flurry of political correctness - the collection of fees. What a marvelous way for female clients to get out of paying for legal services - claim sexual harassment with the threat that counsel will be disciplined and have his ticket cancelled whenever counsel is forced to send out the collection letter. there are going to be a lot of women forced to go pro bono.

By Publicus on 2014 08 08, 6:40 pm CDT

If you can't even be trusted with HALF the population, you probably can't be trusted at all. This is nonsense, allowing him to practice but only with male clients.

By Allison Ellis on 2014 08 08, 6:42 pm CDT

Absolutely needs to be disbarred and registered as a sex offender. So, he can only represent men, that means the personal information he had access to of women will be the opposition or victims. It's a perfect situation for a preditor whose victims will no longer be able to fire him. Especially for unrepresented female victims he will be like a kid I'm a candy store.

By Fresnojake on 2014 08 08, 6:50 pm CDT

I am appalled at the decision of the disciplinary board. However, Comment #50 is also appalling. The legal profession is supposed to be just that - a profession. I would suggest that those in it conduct themselves as professionals.

By Kathleen on 2014 08 08, 6:53 pm CDT

I suggest that comment 75 be removed as it pretty obviously did not come from Professor Dershowitz.

Comments 50 and 69 are beyond the pale and should be removed.

Perhaps a "report" button is in order.

By R on 2014 08 08, 7:14 pm CDT

My bad - I just noticed there is a "Flag comment for moderator" button. I'll be using it on 50 and 69.

By R on 2014 08 08, 7:18 pm CDT

@Kathleen

Maybe we should remove your fascist comments for being so intolerant of free speech and insulting to the First Amendment.

Wanna go to a book burning after this?

By Zygote314 on 2014 08 08, 7:35 pm CDT

Re <b>#50</b>. – jason – Aug 8, 2014 10:21 AM CDT
“My only question is …
“If the attorney doesn’t have a record ….

“Modern American women are ….”
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
80. – R – Aug 8, 2014 2:14 PM CDT
* * * * *
“Comments 50 … beyond the pale and should be removed.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

At 14:30 /CDT , Fri 08 Aug 2014, I respectfully disagree with the idea that #50 ought be removed •
A prior disciplinary record <b>IS</b> relevant to the degree of discipline •

A better write on “Modern American women are ….” would be to preface the word “modern” with “Some” or “Too many” ; Some and too many would include the set of one (1) •

IMO „ my claimed “shortcomings” of word choice on #50 does not warrant removal of the post •

BTW „ #75 did not claim to be <b>THE</b> Alan MORTON Dershowitz •

DJB a.k..a. Kind Sou®

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 08, 7:44 pm CDT

57. – C – Aug 8, 2014 10:58 AM CDT

“But let me tell you something, whether a woman dresses like a prostitute or not, or is even stark naked, <b>if</b> a man’s advances are unwanted <b>and</b> he persists after being told to stop, [<b>then<b>] he’s guilty of a crime.”

▲ I agree ▲ (and w/o violence , a <i>malum prohibitum</i> crime ) •
And if a person falsely accuses another of forbidden sexual conduct / contact ; then that also is a crime •

Thank you for the “if” „ the “and” „ and the implied “then” •

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 08, 8:04 pm CDT

Two things to comment on here.
One is that I have seen our Supreme Court fashion discipline where they said they would be lenient on the attorney, going forward, because he was no longer in private practice, but was in house or government office and not likely to be a danger to repeat. So if this guy is kept away from female clients, but is otherwise a good lawyer, it is like having your dog neutered.

Second, the old payment of fees via the couch, was probably more common when there were few lawyers, and like doctors were godlike in their small and/or poor communities so that no one would dare to say anything against them. I have heard, for example, back in the day, of doctors smothering newborns who had downs syndrome or significant birth defects. They told the mother that the baby was stillborn or died soon after. No one would do that today because someone would speak up-nurse, attendant, anyone, and the doctor would be facing murder one.

By dragutin on 2014 08 08, 8:05 pm CDT

Wow. Dodged the bullet. In most states he'd be a former attorney for life.

By Steve on 2014 08 08, 8:28 pm CDT

I am trying to understand how this will work. This lawyer can have a client who is a man - and in the course of that representation, he can, for example, interview women witnesses with the mantle of the law, or meet with the husband's wife, girlfriend, or child, all of whom will credit him as a lawyer (since that is what he will be) - he will be allowed to have credence as an officer of the Court, as would any lawyer. In the course of this "men's only" representation, he will present himself, accurately, to the world as a lawyer. Does anyone seriously believe that that protects the public from a predator?, to cloak the offender in the guise of a lawyer and send him off to do his business? Puhleeze. That's asking for trouble. It's dangerous. It's also disrespectful of all of us who are duly licensed ethical lawyers.

By mary on 2014 08 08, 11:12 pm CDT

I'm very sad to see how little the state of Connecticut values professional ethics. The issue here is that he not only made unwelcome sexual advances and propositions to his female clients, (and yes, Mr. Dershowitz @75, it DOES matter) but he also violated the court order not once but ELEVEN (11) times. As a woman, and a lawyer, I'm very happy that I don't practice (or live) there.

A very disappointing commentary on the state of ethics and sexual harassment in our profession.

By The REAL Voice of Reason on 2014 08 08, 11:28 pm CDT

Good for women. One less blood sucking parasite they have to deal with. It isn't much, but you have to take what you can get.

By MickeyG on 2014 08 08, 11:52 pm CDT

Sounds like a creepy guy. I guess this man has little control over himself. I find it odd he will be allowed to represent male clients, because he has to interact with women, but there may be more to it. He might be getting counseling, or promised to retire after he finishes up some pending cases, or maybe after having a history, he was targeted, and the factual basis of the claim was suspect, but enough that the Bar felt they needed to act. The actual facts might justify the Bar's lenient ruling, or they may not. We, more than any group, should avoid jumping to conclusions without knowing the full story. Tell you what I do know-this report sure provoked comments.

By Mike Lygnos on 2014 08 09, 1:40 am CDT

There was no indication he was doing that. That's kind of a specialized little fetish group.

By B. McLeod on 2014 08 09, 2:17 am CDT

While I agree that the man's actions were reprehensible, they hardly make him a sexual predator.
The unwanted sexual advances and the one request for a massage do not even come close.
As to the question by Helen Harberts as to what the discipline would be if the victims were male
instead of female, don't make me laugh! We all know that little if anything would be done if the complainants were men instead of women, that is if the men were even taken seriously in the first place.

By Flange21 on 2014 08 09, 2:55 am CDT

Publicus @ 76: Where have you been? Clients who report an attorney to the State Bar--or threaten the same--to get out of paying fees is already commonplace in many states. And it doesn't just happen to men. I had one former client threaten to report me to the State Bar for stalking because I billed her ex- pursuant to court order. That's okay--I got even for that one! Every time she came within 25 feet of me in a public place, I snapped her photo on my cell phone and logged it--just in case. God, I love technology.... And I haven't accepted a representation for a dissolution issue since.

By BMF on 2014 08 09, 4:01 am CDT

The cases I mentioned earlier involved consensual conduct with CLIENTS + no priors •
Mary, (#87. mary – Aug 8, 2014 6:12 PM CDT) , where is the ethics issue if he engages in ''forbidden'' conduct with a witness ?
Never mind the ♀ Judge sleeping with the prosecutor when both are handling the same capital offense trial •

If we disbar this man , what do we do with the New York ♀ lawyer who imprisons a man for YEARS (against his will {a not guilty plea} ) , intentionally using a jail house and knowingly permitting him to lie ?

¿ A frontal lobotomy , but allow her to keep her license ?
She received the equivalent of a public reprimand , far kinder than other potential sanctions •

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 09, 4:35 am CDT

@92 - Men are taken seriously. It is a part of the gender violence. I have had three men, who were not clients, try to have me disbarred because they were irate for not be allowed to have their way. Two had made sexual advances, which I rejected. One filed a bar complaint accusing me of agreeing to represent him and failing to do so. He stalked me and would do like 93. Take my picture in public places and report me for stalking and harassing him. I told the bar investigator to subpoena the closed caption tapes of the establishments where the idiot said the events occurred and check with another attorney, whom I in fact knew to be representing him on the matter instead of harassing me every Monday morning with the guys complaints. That finally stopped him and the ethics committee closed the complaint.

In the second, the guy turned it into a neighborhood project of stalking by his friends and the cops joined in. They arrested me after I started to document the abuse. The prosecutor used the criminal process to make me leave so he could continue to get votes from the idiots. Needless to say, I'll be suing folks, but it still drains your resources and ruins your reputation.

Again, it's gender violence and it runs both ways with the same tactics used by each side. The problem is that the cops, prosecutors and judges don't listen and think through what is happening. They look at the parties and look for information to confirm their biases.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 09, 4:36 am CDT

He was outside the front door of Bantam court interviewing a young female client or potential client on Friday Aug 8th 2014.
Talk about flaunting it.

By ct lawyer on 2014 08 09, 4:26 pm CDT

@96 - How can you be at all confident that there was a prohibited attorney-client relationship (or the attempt to solicit one) with the woman he was seen speaking with?

By StephenG on 2014 08 09, 4:39 pm CDT

It is sad that at least three different lawyers don't know how to spell Connecticut.

By Bill on 2014 08 09, 7:08 pm CDT

Amazing where our priorities lie •

<b><SIGH></B> Ethics involving [gasp-shudder] “<b>sex</b>” v. Ethics involving other than sex
One ABA post on a CT lawyer suspended on ethics charges involving sex •

Comments = 99 so far @ ≈ 14:55 CDT
1. Aug 6, 2014 12:29 PM CDT ○ Helen Harberts
––. Aug #, 2014 various over three days
98. Aug 9, 2014 2:08 PM CDT Bill
##. Aug 9, 2014 –:–– PM CDT Docile Jim Brady in Ohio

Legal Ethics
Lawyer’s suspension includes lifetime ban on representing women
Posted Aug 6, 2014 8:14 AM CDT By Debra Cassens Weiss
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯


Four ABA posts on a “ROGUE” TX judge indicted for felony crime
"He has ruined dozens of lives over the last two years with ridiculous, horrible rulings he has made," said attorney Greg Hughes, who filed the removal petition against Dupuy, earlier this year.

Total Comments=1+0+3+1=5

Comments=1
1. Sep 23, 2013 12:04 PM CDT ○ Charlegman

White-Collar Crime
Suspended Texas judge accused of misusing powers against lawyers takes misdemeanor plea and resigns
Posted Sep 20, 2013 11:25 AM CDT By Martha Neil

¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

Comments=0
Commenting has expired on this post.

Judiciary
Suspended judge is sentenced for contempt and ordered to undergo competency exam
Posted Sep 6, 2013 7:02 AM CDT By Debra Cassens Weiss
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

Comments=3
1. May 23, 2013 7:26 AM CDT ○ B. McLeod
2. May 23, 2013 4:46 PM CDT ○ Charlegman
3. May 24, 2013 7:27 AM CDT ○ Docile Jim Brady – Columbus OH 43209

White-Collar Crime
Judge is criminally charged with misusing his official powers against lawyers
Posted May 23, 2013 6:35 AM CDT By Martha Neil
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

Comments=1
1. Feb 25, 2013 8:11 PM CDT ○ Docile Jim Brady - Columbus OH 43209

Judiciary
Controversial judge is target of complaints; DA asks state AG to investigate
Posted Feb 22, 2013 11:00 AM CDT By Martha Neil

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 09, 7:59 pm CDT

Come on, Jim. People (especially lawyers) having sex in Connecticut is bug news.

I would the Staff would do more with reporting on the debauchery and hook-up gossip at the Anual Meeting. To read the posts here, you would think it was all a bunch of boring awards and reports and presentations and stuff.

By B. McLeod on 2014 08 09, 9:17 pm CDT

Sorry, "big" news. I hope it's not "bug" news (but we are talking Connecticut).

By B. McLeod on 2014 08 09, 9:18 pm CDT

Is the presumption of unequal power between an attorney and client rebutable?
I am an attorney with 30 years of experience in the practice of law. On several occasions, powerful women clients came onto me demanding sex as well as legal services. They were all white, intelligent, highly educated owners of family businesses, successful professionals, wealthy, etc using their power to get what they wanted.
It seems ridiculous to punish the attorney in this kind of circumstance.
it is not considered polite to discuss the abuses of powerful women in our society. Men are usually flattered by the attention.

By Black Adder on 2014 08 10, 1:49 am CDT

He's unethical scum....but it's okay for him to represent men. Makes sense.

Especially in the biased, due-process free chancery cesspool of family court.

By pjay on 2014 08 10, 1:52 am CDT

Black Adder, you should not have to compromise your principles for wealthy female clients. If they are pretty, feel free to refer them to me for the part that does not involve legal services. I am willing to handle that for you.

By B. McLeod on 2014 08 10, 2:29 am CDT

@98 I thought the only hard to spell states are Massachusets and Mississippi.

By rnh on 2014 08 10, 3:29 am CDT

102 Says:

"On several occasions, powerful women clients came onto me demanding sex as well as legal services. They were all white, intelligent, highly educated owners of family businesses, successful professionals, wealthy, etc using their power to get what they wanted."

Ha! In your dreams perhaps. "Demanding" sex, no less! Not once, but on several occasions! Ha!

By StephenG on 2014 08 10, 5:53 am CDT

thoroughly_disgusted
Aug 8, 2014 9:55 AM CDT


1) 95% of the workmen I have hired to come to my home have sexually assaulted me.


Sure, I believe that.

Never underestimate the imagination of a feminist.

By DirkJohanson on 2014 08 10, 4:38 pm CDT

@ 106: I'm glad YOU said that--although I freely admit to thinking it! Besides, what kind of attorney can't convince a rich and powerful female client that surely she deserves better--or at least someone who has the time to accompany her to Vegas, Monte Carlo, etc., at a whim?

By BMF on 2014 08 10, 5:29 pm CDT

@DirkJohanson -

Your name sounds like you hail from northern Europe? Perhaps Sweden? It has the second highest rate of rape in the world. So your comment is of no surprise to me. All that white male entitlement apparently gives you the right to not only say what you want but take what you want, including a woman's body and sense of safety. After all, she's simply chattel to you.

And, of course, being as smart as you are about feminist, you know we believe that sexual crimes are about power and control. It probably won't be long before you and Ira form a gang to drug and rape women like the lovely young men in New Zealand and the football players in the US. The initial crime is only outdone by the audacity to post the videos on social media, plead not guilty when charged and be surprised when tried and convicted. What's more powerful and controlling than have sex with a powerless person and then humiliating them by making it public and relive the experience, repeatedly.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/top-5-countries-highest-rates-rape-1434355

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/05/trial-by-twitter?currentPage=all
About the Steubenville Ohio rape culture

And see the story of Savannah Dietrich, whom the defense counsel sought to hold in contempt of court for tweeting the names of rapist after they and the prosecutor, who was friends with their parents, worked out a deal to keep everything secret under the guise of a juvenile court proceeding.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-teen-savannah-dietrich-spared-contempt-charge-after-naming-attackers-on-twitter/

In fact, a google search of rape in Kentucky, yields some very interesting cases. The good ol' boys are very busy down there. At least they get reported and eventually investigated. In the North - be it Northeast, Northwest or Md-west, entitlement still controls. They simply don't take reports, so it looks like a Southern problem. Similarly, given the brutality and mistrust of police in non-white populations, most of those go unreported. And, if reported, then unsubstantiated because non-white women are liars, Jezebels or simply available for massah's entertainment. And, hence the US stopping international slavery with about 400K people brought into the country and turning that into 4 million people in about decade. Massah's slave was his property, to do with what he chose. He owned her children too.

Again, present day sexual assault has a special feel in the Northeast where there is a large immigrant population. Many immigrants come from countries where women are still completely subjugated. Further, many of them are self-employed because they are either here illegally, have criminal records, or little to no education, leaving "home improvement" as their chosen profession. This provides a ripe population - women and children at home alone during the day while "big daddy" works or single women who are alone -- for their antics. And, many of these predators are raised by women who think that this is either normal behavior or the victim did something to "deserve" the treatment. Worse, if you fight back, you find yourself arrested and branded as a violent criminal.

Yep, all that feminism explains the psychology of oppression.

Thanks for the asinine comment. Please make another so I can continue to update my research and educate the group.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 10, 6:04 pm CDT

If you truly claim that 95% of workmen coming to your home have sexually assaulted you, you may wish to consider not greeting them at the door naked.

Because this number seems, well, disproportionately high.

By StephenG on 2014 08 10, 7:04 pm CDT

Keep comments on topic.

- <b>Lee Rawles
Web Producer
ABAJournal.com</b>

By Lee Rawles on 2014 08 10, 7:16 pm CDT

@StephenG - I think we have had a few go rounds before. Glad to take you on again. Your responses are so predictable and juvenile.

News flash - pun intended. It does not matter what I (or any other woman) does or does not have on. Neither assault, battery, criminal restraint, false imprisonment or rape allow for a defense that she didn't have anything on. If you and your buds are so concerned, call the cops and make a report for flashing or indecent exposure. Of course that will not happen, because like I said in response to DirkJohanson, the point is to have power and control. If I don't have my clothes off, you'll get them off. And why waste all that lovely charm, just use a rufie.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 10, 7:16 pm CDT

@Lee Rawles - Can you clarify which comments are not on topic? Particularly in light of B McCleod's comment at 100.

If you are referring to the exchange between DirkJohanson, StephenG and I, I think it is exactly on topic - the perception of what constitutes sexual assault, who is held accountable and why or why not. That is what the original story is about. It apparently influenced the ethic's committee decision regarding discipline of the attorney in question.

This behavior does not exist in a vacuum. People do it because an environment exist that allows it to proliferate. Apparently, Mr. Mayor has engaged in this behavior before. And, as one commentator indicated, his reprimand that he not represent female clients is nonsensical. He will still have access to women through other means - spouses or ex-spouses of clients, court staff, witnesses, etc.

Gender violence in the US is as big an issue as it is anywhere else. The US spends a lot of time reporting on other countries, but fails to address its own issues, including being one of only six countries, including Iran, Nauru, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga, that have not ratified CEDAW ( Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women - See more at: http://www.impowr.org/pages/cedaw#sthash.NbMDyLYW.dpuf).

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 10, 7:36 pm CDT

As the previous poster says, gender violence is a big issue in the United States of America. And it starts when boy infants are treated differently from girl infants, to the detriment of both. Even as infants, boys get negative treatment when they cry even if they have good reason, girls get positive attention when they cry even if they have no reason. How about giving a little bit of positive attention to infants who have a good reason to cry, and no attention to infants who appear to be crying for no reason? How about teaching both genders to be assertive but not extremely aggressive? How about treating both genders that their education and their physical prowess are both important while growing up? A sound mind in a sound body? how about teaching both genders self defense in school gym classes?

How about equal pay for equal work? How about hiring the most competent person for the job, regardless of gender? How about there are no strictly male or female jobs except sperm donor, egg donor, and wet nurse, and maybe some day surrogate mother?

How about mandating that all health insurance policies equally cover all health issues that are specific to one gender, or they cover no issues that are specific to one gender. If you do not want to cover birth control and abortion, you do not get to cover testicular cancer either. And any employer that does not cover gender specific health issues must allow employees to purchase a group rate policy for added coverage for gender specific health issues by payroll deduction.

And how about finally signing and ratifying CEDAW?

Women are people, not doormats or toys, and it would be about time for lawyers to start talking about women that way, publicly at least.

By Kit on 2014 08 10, 11:46 pm CDT

@30: "Who the hell has the right to tell her that she must go to somebody else?"

That would be Mayo himself: he not only has the right, he has a court-ordered obligation.

By Ham Solo on 2014 08 11, 7:56 am CDT

@115

Actually, the comment raises a valid point: The extent to which the disciplinary order infringes on the rights of potential clients, notably female clients, to hire the attorney of their choice.

Although factually dissimilar, the principle has been used to invalidate settlement agreements that prohibit an attorney from even suing a certain corporation in the future and/or a certain class of defendants in the future as violating public policy by interfering with a future client's right to hire the attorney of their choice.

To those would respond: "what woman would want to hire him?", that is their right to chose.

If he is not fit to practice he should be disbarred or suspended but this gender condition seems of dubious validity to me.

By StephenG on 2014 08 11, 9:09 am CDT

What gender comprised the disciplinary board? If we want our profession to have a better reputation then it is up to us to do more appropriate self policing. Representing school districts for several years and trying to convince school boards that moving employees, coaches, band directors or assistant superintendants to other schools was not sufficient action to protect from liability when there were continuous acts of sexual misconduct with minors. Amazing how hard it was to convince a group of men that a 16 year old could not have consensual relations with an adult. Hence, new case law for knuckleheads. Uneven playing field.....Hello, Connecticutt?

By Lee on 2014 08 11, 2:10 pm CDT

Re #1: I understand your opinions here, Helen . . . but seriously: The guy made advances towards his female clients. Advances. Not rape. Not unwanted touching. Just "advances". Does that REALLY deserve the title of "Sexual Predator"? When we use that loaded word for ANY time a man makes an advance towards a woman, aren't we cheapening the meaning of that word, that conduct? A sexual predator is an EVIL being. This lawyer is just a horn-dog who hasn't learned how to suppress his Junior High School impulses.

By David W. Simon on 2014 08 11, 4:21 pm CDT

#37 says: "I made many advances back in my college days towards women and I couldn’t tell if they were unwanted until after I made them!"

That is exactly my point!! All these commenters are demanding disbarment of this attorney. One even accused him of RAPE (even though there is NOTHING in the article suggesting that he raped anybody. Or even had sex with ANY of his clients. Merely that he "made advances" towards some of them.) Is making an advance towards a woman now considered the functional equivalent of sexual predation?

It reminds me of that famous Saturday Night Live skit: "How to avoid a sexual harassment complaint! Tip #1: Be attractive. Tip #2: Don't be unattractive.

And there we have it! Suddenly, according to many of the commenters here, asking a woman out on a date is the VERY SAME THING as "sexual predation" . . . IF, that is, you're not attractive to her.

That is NOT to say that this lawyer didn't violate ethical rules by even making the advances in the first place! He did, and the SUSPENSION was the correct punishment. But if I read ONE MORE self-righteous woman calling this guy a sexual predator (and possibly a rapist to boot) based on nothing more than the information contained in this article, I THINK I WILL PUKE!!!!

By David W. Simon on 2014 08 11, 4:30 pm CDT

Sounds like he deserved discipline. BUT I also condemn the merciless chorus of "disbar him."

Only in circles as overly educated as lawyers do people pile onto men so eagerly.

Outside of the legal ethics arena all kinds of disgusting sexual practices are now applauded as legit social norms; but the mere suggestion of something like this brings shrieks of puritanical outrage.

By JS on 2014 08 11, 5:49 pm CDT

I'm confused why so many of the men are confused. Perhaps that is why sexual harassment and assault remain a problem. Let's try to walk through this.

Man: Hi, can I buy you a cup of coffee, lunch, dinner, concert tickets, theatre, etc. -- take you on a date.
Expressing interest. No harassment (if done in a civilized adult tone).
Woman: No. Thank you.

Man: But, I really think you're nice, pretty, funny . . . and I'd really like to take you out.
Woman: No. (definitive, total rejection and with a bit of annoyance).
Getting a little warmer on the harassment side. You have a clear rejection and no interest.

Man: You sure are sexy. I could show you a great time.
Woman: No #%$&% thank you.

What we have here is harassment. After the first polite denial of the offer for a date, guy was on notice she was not interested. He persisted. She maintained the no and got icy. Third time, he thought was a charm, she called it a strike. Despite what the magazines say and movies and sitcoms portray, you do not get rewarded for persistence. It is harassment.

Next step, add to the mix that this is in a "work" or "professional" relationship, it is further down the line. Do what Ira did and suggest that fees would be forgiven in exchange for a "massage," it is quid pro quo sexual harassment. Remember, give me a kiss and I'll give you a raise. Go to dinner with me and you'll get a promotion. Give me a massage and I'll forgive your fees. Sounding familiar to anyone?

Next step, intrude into personal space, touch hair, back, or backside. Assault and battery - nonconsensual touching and putting a person in fear. And, if that space is intruded upon in a way that prevent the person from leaving, it is false imprisonment.

Go check your local rules on civil and criminal assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and stalking.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 11, 6:08 pm CDT

I guess California is the only jurisdiction where attorney-client sex - absent coercion or conditioning the representation on sex - is perfectly permissible unless the relationship would prevent the attorney from acting competently.

By StephenG on 2014 08 11, 7:04 pm CDT

"Thoroughly disgusted:" Yes, I suppose one could conclude that if a man asks a woman out on a date, and the woman says no, but the man asks a second time anyway, that is sexual harassment. I suppose it's a border-line case, but it could be so called. But this is a FAR CRY from the conduct of a "sexual predator", as SO MANY of the woman commenters here have concluded, without any actual evidence of any such predation.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Once again, this is not a defense of the unethical conduct of this lawyer. Yes. He acted unethically. But to call him a "sexual predator", based solely on the information contained in this article, is a gross abuse of the English language. And to suggest that this was rape (as some above did), even though there is nothing in the article to suggest that this lawyer ever had sex with any of these clients, makes such comments even more egregious and inappropriate.

By David W. Simon on 2014 08 11, 7:56 pm CDT

@ 37 I agree for the reasons you set out. He has shown himself to be ungovernable. Moreover, the fact is that it is clearly impractical for any Bar Association to monitor or police this ruling.

By Canadian Common Sense on 2014 08 11, 7:57 pm CDT

@123 - reread my scenario. It is along a continuum. By the time you get to the last one, there is a suggestion that sexual behavior be undertaken in lieu of payment. That is what makes his behavior sexual harassment, not a simply rejection of an advancement.

He also engaged in criminal behavior with the touching. More significantly, he was dealing with a vulnerable population. These women were referred to him by a domestic violence group. It would be like sending someone who has mental illness to a professional with predatory behavior who further damaged them.

Most significantly, this was not his first time at the rodeo. He was in violation of a court order. He should be in jail and being disbarred. Court order says you no contact. You violate - go to jail. Court order says pay child support. You fail to comply - go to jail.

The only folks protesting too much are those who do not want to see women as equal individuals with the right and ability to make decisions for themselves.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 11, 8:50 pm CDT

The realm of gender relations has always been a tricky one -- and a source of dramatic comedy going back to the Ancient Greeks (Aristophanes' Lysistrata), right through the Restoration (Goldsmith's She Stoops to Conquer), straight down to today's Defending the Caveman). It is a subject fraught with raised emotions, void of all but the most basic ground rules -- and the general principles of behavior that were thought appropriate in my younger years are now dangerously out of date, as the definition of "appropriate" is a subject of broad disagreement (vide the posts to this blog); except to the extent that everyone seems to acknowledge that this situation is undergoing change. And this is only with reference to contemporary American mores -- I leave aside the vastly more complicated question of cross-cultural attitudes. As the father of both a daughter and a son, I had to face this head-on in trying to raise two responsible young people who would have the opportunity to become at ease with persons of the opposite sex without fear or embarrassment, and to enjoy intimacy with some of those persons. Outside of the most egregious situations (which have been thoroughly examined in the group-therapy-style posts to date on this blog), each situation is different and calls for common sense. And some empathy. And some humor. Turning to Attorney Mayo, I agree that a sanction was necessary, for all of the reasons previously given. He is a licensed professional who should have known -- without the need of any intervention -- to keep his amorous interests separate from his role as a legal counselor and advocate. Common sense, like I said. But of course, he did have an intervention -- the prior court order. And he disobeyed it. For that reason, his punishment should go beyond gender and should not be dependent upon the sex of his client/prospective client. As has been pointed out, he will encounter females in all walks of his practice, even if he were to confine his clientele to fellow males. If he was unable to regulate his behavior toward female clients, his inability to comply with court orders in general has been exposed, and he must pay the price, just as any other person who shows contempt for judicial decrees would be answerable. A complete suspension from the practice of law, irrespective of the gender of his clients (one can differ over the duration, but 12 months does not strike me as excessive, under these circumstances), combined with a required course of rehabilitation, is what should have been ordered. Further your affiant sayeth not.

By Occam's Razor on 2014 08 11, 9:37 pm CDT

@126. Well sayeth you.

By rnh on 2014 08 11, 10:55 pm CDT

So... let me get this straight. Making 'unwanted' advances is now sexual predation in the view of some here?! What if the advances are 'wanted'? What constitutes an advance? This is all rather vague and murky. Without more... so what. He made unwanted advances. In other words, he ineptly made an advance on a woman or group of women who were not receptive. He didn't rape or sexually assault anyone. He didn't even assault anyone or commit any crime. He gave offense to his female clients. Is being offended now the equivalent of having been sexually assaulted? His actions were likely inappropriate from an attorney to a client. However, the over-reaching disciplinary decision barring him from representing woman is far more chilling than the fact somebody had to rebuff an unwanted advance. Frankly, it is far more chilling reading the posts above equating his actions with being a sexual predator.

By Pierce on 2014 08 11, 11:29 pm CDT

I have not read anything about this disciplinary matter except this article. I do not know exactly what the lawyer did with or to his female clients that 11 of them to complain to the disciplinary board about his sexual advances. I do know enough about human behavior to know that it is highly unlikely that even one woman wrote to the board about the lawyer's sexual advances because he suggested that they get a cup of coffee together. Eleven women who were trying to get a divorce from their husband, which is usually a sign that something has gone seriously wrong with a marriage, felt that the behavior of the lawyer who is supposed to be helping them get a good enough settlement to get on with their life after divorce, were so upset by his behavior that they filed a report.

These women risked complaining about the lawyer who was supposed to help them because something happened to them that in their eyes was worse than any benefit that the lawyer might have gotten for them with a good divorce settlement. So whatever the lawyer said or did, these women all decided that the lawyer's behavior is not merely annoying or rude, it is totally unacceptable to me. Either the lawyer keeps getting stuck with female clients that are unbelievable prudes, or he did a whole lot more than ask these eleven women to have coffee with him. It is very likely that these women are typical women in the middle of a divorce. Many women in the middle of a divorce would like a little polite reassurance that they are still attractive sexy women, and would be reassured even by a slightly rude indication that they were sexy and beautiful. So I have no doubt that he did a lot more than say "Boy you look sexy in that outfit. I would love to see you out of it, too. Want to grab some dinner and see what happens?" Men make remarks like that all the time, and they expect that if women get upset, all the man has to do is say, "Hey, I was only joking about wanting to get you out of it tonight, I know you are not that fast. I respect you. I just thought we could use a little humor to lighten things up." And every woman knows that she is expected to be a good sport and say something considerate like, "I understand, it is just that this divorce thing is making me a little touchy talking with a man I don't know for all that long yet about sex. I still feel like I am married."

So I do not know if the man deserves to be called a sexual predator or not. But I do know one thing, and that is that the people who are attempting to shame others for calling him a sexual predator are way off the mark. If the lawyer who was disciplined is not a sexual predator, then he did a very good imitation of one, even after being warned by the court. And he did it with women that it was highly inappropriate to treat that way. Even if he never "got lucky", his behavior was highly unprofessional, and he bullied his clients, using his power from his position as a needed expert to create a situation where eleven women felt that simply turning him down was not an adequate remedy, and they overcame their reluctance to describe to strangers how they had been treated in a manner that they considered sufficiently unacceptable that it was not enough to just fire the guy, get your money back (except for costs?) and find a less abusive lawyer. So don't make silly claims like all he did was ask them to dinner because he thought they might like that. Nobody here believes that that is what happened - not even the people writing it. And nobody believes that that is what the disciplinary committee concluded had happened. Even very strict disciplinary boards do not discipline lawyers for asking a client to dinner.

But people do everyday say demeaning things about women who believe that there is a difference between a woman and a doormat. Those people who say demeaning things about women in these circumstances are also bullies. You know who you are, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. But you won't be. Not until enough people learn to recognize this behavior, and tell you what they think of it. Fortunately this is already starting to happen.

By Kit on 2014 08 13, 3:38 am CDT

▼ I disagree with the author of the editorial posted today @ 14:52 EDT (13:52 CDT)▼

http://www.registercitizen.com/opinion/20140812/editorial-connecticut-should-disbar-torrington-attorney-who-pressured-clients-for-sex#disqus_thread

By Docile Jim Brady in Ohio on 2014 08 13, 4:53 am CDT

Heads up to Kit, #129, while I agree with much of your post and appreciate your insights your description of common male practice that, apparently, men don't find offensive, shows that a lack of awareness of what is offensive to women is yet to occur. You wrote that suggesting that the following is commonplace and not a offensive:
" 'Boy you look sexy in that outfit. I would love to see you out of it, too. Want to grab some dinner and see what happens?' Men make remarks like that all the time, and they expect that if women get
upset, all the man has to do is say, 'Hey, I was only joking about wanting to get you out of it tonight, I know you are not that fast. I respect you. I just thought we could use a little humor to lighten things up.'"

Here's the heads up, Kim, that remark and question makes it clear that the man speaking sees the woman as an object, and that his penis and testosterone are controlling his brain. Women wouid like to be seen as intelligent, thoughtful human beings, rather than sexual objects. And that dialogue by a male attorney, or doc, or shrink, with a woman client would be inappropriate and offensive.

The proposed followup if the woman gets "upset" also doesn't help at all. "I know you are not that fast. I respect you." will be seen through as disingenuous crap and more testosterone.

The further followup, "I just thought WE [emphasis added] could use a little humor to lighten things up.'" indicates that the man involved doesn't understand that WE don't both see sexual objectification of women as "humor" or humorous.

That said, it appears that men are biologically constructed to think with their genitals and have difficulty thereby controlling what comes out of their mouth. When it happens in a social setting, we women can simply internally roll our eyes and come up with some reasonable comeback ("Gee, I wouldn't have imagined that a smart, successful man like YOU is THAT easy!!!" perhaps?) and remember, oh, yeah, I'm talking to a guy.

However, that excuse/out doesn't apply to lawyers, doctors, psychologists, etc. They need to learn the professionalism that quells accidental, or intentional, communications such as you described, Kit.

Good luck to all those guys out there. Appears to still be a significant challenge to understand what is offensive to women.

By Vermont Lawyer on 2014 08 13, 1:57 pm CDT

That "Docile Jim Brady in Ohio" (#130) disagrees with the Torrington, CT editorial calling for Mayo's disbarment is evidence of the complete lack of insight about the effect of sexual victimization by men in positions of responsibility against women clients, patients, etc.

The Torrington, CT editorial which Docile Jim Brady cited and disagrees with (at http://www.registercitizen.com/opinion/20140812/editorial-connecticut-should-disbar-torrington-attorney-who-pressured-clients-for-sex#disqus_thread) speaks eloquently on behalf of women and a responsible approach to those who engage in sexually victimizing conduct towards women over time and despite court orders.

The facts appear to be that this CT lawyer repeatedly solicited sexual contact from female clients instead of receiving a monetary fee AND groped a woman in his office and asked her to perform oral sex on him, while he was under a court order to not represent domestic violence victims.

Setting aside the tax implications of Mayo's conduct, providing sex for money is prostitution in most states and a reasonable inference is that the atty is soliciting prostitution.

Docile Jim Brady in Ohio and others on this list seem unaware how traumatizing it is to find that a professional one expected could assist, is instead making sexual advances. When the victim is already a client (or patient), it adds another whole layer of victimization and fear, "Can I get another lawyer to represent me in time? Will this sexually aggressive lawyer make some comment to a successor lawyer somehow dissing or blaming me?"

If men really want to know how women feel about the conduct Mayo is described as engaging in, or the comeon described by Kit, take opportunities to have a real, live, concerned conversation with the women you know, your daughter, your mother, your wife, a favorite aunt, and ask them how they would feel and react in circumstances similar to Mayo's conduct and/or the scenario described by Kim in #129.

Men who take the time to do so and really listen will probably learn that these women in their lives have already had experiences of sexual predation by men, that they have not talked of, and still remember decades and decades and decades later.

By Vermont Lawyer on 2014 08 13, 2:16 pm CDT

"The State Bar of Connecticut has failed the people."

Southern culture strikes again!

By Colin Bullherd on 2014 08 13, 2:20 pm CDT

Those defending Ira Mayo, or wondering about the extent of his conduct need only do a little research.

The first case against Mayo, in 2005, involved allegations of sexual misconduct by three clients and a hearing before a judge. Mayo did not offer a defense to charges that in 2003 he had told a criminal defense client having financial difficulties that she could work off the fee with sexual favors, and that he'd engaged in sexual "horseplay" with two other clients. Indeed, Mayo entered into an stipulation that "acknowledged that the Complainant 'could have reasonably and objectively perceived his conduct as sexual in nature.' [Mayo] further admitted in the stipulation that the conduct 'harmed' the attorney client relationship." The CT statewide disciplinary committee concluded that "Respondent made numerous unwarranted sexual advances on the Complainant, some of which involved physical contact. Although the Complainant repeatedly asked the Respondent to stop this conduct, it continued. Indeed, the Respondent even suggested to the Complainant that sexual favors could be used to pay her legal fees." See http://www.jud.state.ct.us/faq/grievance/030209.htm

When this matter came before the court in 2005, Mayo did not offer a defense to allegations that he'd engaged in sexual "horseplay" with a client and accepted sex for elgal fees. Mayo entered into an agreement in 2005 to a 15-month suspension followed by 1 years of bar counsel supervision, a requirement that he have an office policy that prevents ``his being alone, or in confined quarters, with women at any times,'' and a requirement that he engage in mental health treatment to be monitored by the judge, AND that he direct his practice away from domestic relations clients. Not surprisingly, Mayo was no longer associated with his prior firm. See http://articles.courant.com/2005-10-01/news/0510010851_1_law-license-clients-grievance-committee

Less that 2 years later, Mayo was at it again. In a disciplinary proceeding initiated in 2008, Mayo (represented by counsel) was found BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE to have violated the terms of his previous suspension. It did not conclude that Mayo actually had or sought to have sexual relations with the a female client in criminal matters involving a domestic relations complaint. Bar counsel was directed to file a presentment against Mayo in Superior Court of the imposition of whatever discipline was considered appropriate. http://www.jud.ct.gov/sgc/decisions/08-0767.pdf

This client's allegations described Mayo offering to waive fees for a naked backrub, Mayo hugging and kissing the clients, and Mayo asking the client in the Bristol courthouse to get together with the client, telling her he liked kinky sex. Unfortunately the disciplinary committee considering these allegations was three men, only one of whom was willing to conclude that Mayo made sexual advances to the client or touched her sexually. http://www.jud.ct.gov/sgc/decisions/08-0767.pdf

Interestingly, after bar counsel filed these charges, another client then in jail alleged that Mayo made graphic solicitations and unzipped his pants in front of her - she was then just 18. http://accesstoinfo.blogspot.com/2010/03/connecticut-lawyer-ira-mayo.html

The 2010 decision re discipline against Mayo was an order that he can't represent female clients in family law or domestic violence cases.

The 2012 allegations just now resulting in sanctions against Mayo again are that Mayo offered to waive his fee if a female domestic violence client would have sex with him and that he groped a woman in his office and asked her to perform oral sex on him. Again settled by an agreement with the State: 4 month suspension and no female clients ever. http://www.registercitizen.com/opinion/20140812/editorial-connecticut-should-disbar-torrington-attorney-who-pressured-clients-for-sex

It's hard to understand that CT doesn't find violation of court orders, repeatedly, doesn't warrant disbarment.

By Vermont Lawyer on 2014 08 13, 3:30 pm CDT

@ Vermont Lawyer

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the facts. How refreshing.

By Ironman on 2014 08 13, 3:40 pm CDT

” ‘Boy you look sexy in that outfit. I would love to see you out of it, too. Want to grab some dinner and see what happens?’ Men make remarks like that all the time."

I readily admit to being ignorant to social convention in Vermont, but I am 60 years old and have NEVER heard a man utter such a lame and ridiculous statement or invitation inside or outside a business or professional context, and if he did so in California he would be instantly laughed at. If he was directing the remarks to a coworker or subordinate and it was the first offense reported he would at a minimum be subject to immediate corrective action and if it happened again he would be fired.

On the other hand, men and women are first and foremost human beings and attractions do occur.

There is nothing wrong with asking a coworker for coffee or lunch or drinks or dinner - its what happens next that matters.

There are some men, perhaps a significant number of men who have difficulty with asking women out. They ten do focus on who they find most attractive instead of being attuned to the nonverbal cues that indicate whether or not the attraction is mutual or is reciprocated.

This is due to social ineptness and not malice in most cases.

In view of this perhaps the best policy is to refrain from attempted social interaction entirely in a professional or workplace context, unless one is sure the attraction is mutual.

But the social retardation of some men is not the same thing as malice.

The lawyer under discussion clearly has a psychological problem and I would not be surprised to learn that underlying it are serious substance abuse issues. A pattern of asking and being told no is one thing. Clearly preying on desperate, abused people and coupling needed help with demands for favors of any kind (let alone sexual) is reprehensible. Not being able to keep ones hands to oneself takes it to another level entirely.

This kind of predatory behavior is not to be confused, though, with simply being socially retarded around women.

For some reason there are some people in general, men in particular, who seek to lack the ability to read people. This is unfortunate, but not in the same category at all.

By StephenG on 2014 08 13, 5:35 pm CDT

@136. I agree that the "invitation" is lame. That you never heard anyone utter such a line might be because men usually utter their lamest lines in public. I've never heard a lawyer suggest that a client work off her fee, but I have little doubt that Mayo made such suggestions. I can't imagine that an attorney who would make such an offer would have much sense of shame, or integrity. Which leads one to wonder why the Connecticut Bar has cut him so much slack. Is there an employer in the country who would keep him employed after such behavior? I imagine that you can't sue the Bar, or they too would have shown Mayo the door.

By rnh on 2014 08 13, 6:33 pm CDT

I never meant that the incredibly lame line was "exactly" what a particular man would say. But I bet that every woman you know who isn't a nun and is over the age of 21 has heard a line that was almost that lame. I would bet that the same woman has also heard a man pass an offensive remark as a joke. I would also bet that the same woman would not report either remark to the bar disciplinary committee.

So the many people on this thread who said that we do not know what Mayo did and that he was probably just being clueless about which women would welcome clumsy advances are talking bovine excrement and they know it, but they are engaging in deliberate victim shaming anyhow. When I give a silly but not actually unrealistic example of how bad some men are at knowing what to say to women, everybody seems to agree that it is clearly not an example of what Mayo is doing. But when poster after poster objected to other posters calling Mayo a sexual predator who was harming women just by his attempts to solicit sex from a particularly vulnerable population of women, nobody said "Yes Mayo probably is a sexual predator."

Mayo is probably not the WORST sort of sexual predator. Mayo probably has never killed any of his victims. Mayo has probably never kidnapped any of his victims. Mayo has probably never physically tortured any of his victims. Mayo has probably never engaged in sexual acts with a child of either sex under the age of 5, or under the age of 10, and maybe even not under the age of 15.

That does not mean that Mayo is not a sexual predator. Mayo has repeatedly attempted sexual contact with vulnerable women with respect to whom he was in a position of power, where there was a significant risk in saying no to him that the women were aware of, so that even if Mayo did not explicitly threaten the woman, the implicit threat was clearly present, and Mayo almost certainly knew that the woman would feel threatened. Mayo almost certainly intended that the woman should feel threatened. In fact that may be what turned Mayo on, although that is pure speculation on my part. It is not pure speculation that there are men who are turned on sexually by the vulnerability of their partners. It is well documented from credible research that there are significant numbers of men who are turned on by vulnerability of their partners, and if Mayo is, this may explain why he was willing to risk disbarment to continue doing this. And that is enough to make Mayo a sexual predator. It is enough also to make sure that some of the women, even ones who turned him down, will have nightmares about him for years to come.

If you are a man with any women in your life that you care about, ask them about whether they have ever dealt with sexual advances from a man who made it obvious that he thought or wished that they were in a vulnerable situation. And ask them if that bothered them or would bother them. Think about why that is not a good way to treat another human being.

By Kit on 2014 08 14, 2:56 pm CDT

@ 138: RE: "But when poster after poster objected to other posters calling Mayo a sexual predator who was harming women just by his attempts to solicit sex from a particularly vulnerable population of women, nobody said 'Yes Mayo probably is a sexual predator.'”

1. Perhaps it's because some of us realize that women who insist on fighting it out in court for the kids, the dog, and the toaster often file complaints with the State Bar when they get the attorney's bill for the carnage. And they also realize that in order for the Disciplinary Committee to take action, there must be an ethical violation that does NOT involve fees.
2. Perhaps it's because some of us don't accept that being "vulnerable" does not confer automatic "victim" status.
3. Perhaps it's because some of us realize that many women actually request payment via the "Couch of Restitution," as opposed to cold hard cash.

We don't know the alleged victims' backstories. All we know is the outcome--and that in many jurisdictions, State Bar Disciplinary Committees are of the general opinion that when it comes to ethics violations, attorneys are guilty until proven innocent.

By BMF on 2014 08 14, 4:36 pm CDT

@138

"So the many people on this thread who said that we do not know what Mayo did
and that he was probably just being clueless about which women would welcome
clumsy advances are ..."

Let me stop you right there, because your entire premise is incorrect.

None is saying that using referrals of battered and abused women as Mayo's private little dating club and additionally laying his hands on them is merely "clueless" behavior. Certainly not me.

You went on to generalize and gave an example of a lame pick-up line.

I responded that I am not familiar with Vermont, but in California such a line would simply be laughed at on-the-spot, and if it occurred in the workplace and was reported, the employer would without question take immediate corrective action. If it happened a second time, the guy would be fired - problem solved.

You then go on to say:

"I never meant that the incredibly lame line was “exactly” what a particular man would say. But I bet that every woman you know who isn’t a nun and is over the age of 21 has heard a line that was almost that lame. I would bet that the same woman has also heard a man pass an offensive remark as a joke. I would also bet that the same woman would not report either remark to the bar disciplinary committee."

I am 60 years old. I have experience with people in all walks of life. Bikers. Medical doctors. Billionaires. Real estate developers. Cocktail waitresses. Legal secretaries. Court reporters. Judges, lawyers, bookies, prison inmates, writers, college professors, airline pilots, police officers, and prosecutors. I also have two adult sisters close to my own age.

I am a social person, and I know their stories.

Yes, some very stupid, lame clueless and self-defeating lines have been used and will be used that get the lonely clueless men who use them nowhere with women. But that is different than what Mayo did. It is in the realm of the clumsy and clueless.

I can only speak for my state, California, but your newest hypothetical does not even come close to presenting a disciplinary offense there.

Even sexual relations with a client are not prohibited without coercion or conditioning representation on sexual services ("the fee couch") or where the relationship would preclude competent representation, which has been interpreted by the courts to mean that sex with a client who is a party to a contested divorce action falls into that category.

Therefore, in your hypo, there would be nothing to report to the State Bar of California.

Nor in my experience are 99% of women so obsessed with stomping on any semblance of boorish male behavior that they would immediately try to cause trouble.

In my state, as I said, most women would simply tell the guy off on the spot. That tend to shut things down in a hurry.

And in California, if you don't like your lawyer for any reason you are free at any time to fire him or her without cause and demand your file and the return of any unused retainer. If the file, the retainer, and an accounting are not immediately forthcoming the State Bar of California will step in.

So I am sorry, but I just don't see some global problem - as isolated as Mayo's rare and disgusting behavior is.

But in any event there is indeed a difference between cluelessness and predatory behavior as well as behavior that crosses the line into sexual battery.

In California the latter cases are prosecuted and upon conviction the offender must register for life as a sex offender.

That seems plenty harsh.

By StephenG on 2014 08 14, 5:49 pm CDT

@ Stephen G, #140 -

As one of the recent posts clearly indicated, Mayo was found to have engaged in the sorts of behavior that you describe as predatory. Specifically his behavior included offers to reduce his fees in exchange for sexual activity, laying his hands on a woman that had made it clear that she was unwilling, unzipping his fly and exposing his genitals to a woman who was unwilling. This was posted after I first said that it was clear even from what little facts were presented in this article that Mayo had done more than merely make lame remarks or ask a woman out who did not want to be asked out.

Mayo is a predator. He is not the worst imaginable predator apparently but he is clearly a predator.

Yet there were several posters earlier who said that there is nothing to indicate that Mayo is a predator. These posters claimed over and over that Mayo was probably some poor clueless man who did not know how to tell whether a woman would like to go out for coffee or dinner. They claimed that the women who complained to the disciplinary board were overreacting. Several different names were harping on the same theme, and no one said that of course Mayo is a predator. His behavior obviously was not just a clueless man trying to get a date. So I tried to think of some of the most clueless lines I have heard to make clear that yes some guys are super super clueless, but that has nothing to do with Mayo's problem. Mayo is a predator, and he should have been disbarred by now, not just told he cannot have female clients.

Do disciplinary boards take their jobs very seriously? I do not know from experience, but from what I have heard, most do. Most disciplinary boards take their jobs very seriously in two ways. Most disciplinary boards want to do a very thorough investigation, so that they do not make a mistake. And when most disciplinary boards find accusations that appear to be well founded after a thorough investigation, the board wants to make sure that their message is clearly understood the first time, so that there will not be a second time. If there is a second time, obviously what they did the first time was not effective, so the consequence tends to become extreme. For some reason the Board apparently feels Mayo needs at least a third chance to fly right, so maybe the Board does think that Mayo was originally clueless that he was being a predator. Maybe Mayo originally was clueless about being a predator. But at this point, there should be no question left in Mayo's mind that Mayo is a predator, and there should be no doubt in the reader's mind that Mayo is a predator. And the next time he is reported for this behavior and it is discovered that he really did it again, then he should be disbarred.

By Kit on 2014 08 14, 11:48 pm CDT

I had typed a really long (and I think comical) response with examples to Kit's post at 138. I'm going to try it again, because even though it gave egregious examples of bad behavior, it was also funny -- even to me the "victim" after I finished. The comedic value was not in what the people did, but that they did not appreciate the egregiousness of their behavior. This is frequently the case. They (we) simply don't see it. It is why there are laws, police, lawyers and judges. If folks were good and could self police, there would be no justice system.

So, as ammo to Kit for better examples when folks want to diminish the severity of behavior, here it goes:

I lived in Portland, OR for about a 15 months. It has the highest concentration of adult entertainment establishments in the country. It was also founded as a white's only state. My experience's conveyed those nuances. Specifically, I routinely had white men walk up to me and proclaim, "I've never had sex with a black woman. (Close your mouth, they get better.)

Another guy, who was ex-military with three ex-wives and a kid well on his way to jail for a major felony, called me one night at about 11 pm to tell me through his drunken slur, "I just want you to know you stand a chance with me." I was taking adult enrichment classes through the community college to learn about women's rights, anthropology, etc., so I could be better equipped to do some work in this area. We were in a group together. That's how he got my number. I told him to contain the conversation to school projects before 9 pm and hung up. I had/have a phobia to dog's (actually more the dog owners), which he knew. He sent a text at 3 am with pictures of his dogs wanting to know if I would take a ride with him and them to do something for his criminal kid.

Another guy, this one black, who was ex-military, asked me out for drinks. I went. Before I got there he had ordered calamari. (Hold the calamari thought. There's another good story about it.) We talked a bit, were about half-way through the drinks and calamari and he says, "Let's out of here, go somewhere and get to know one another." I said, "I thought that's what we were doing." He says, "You know what I mean." I said, "You can't possible be suggesting that I leave here and go to your house, allow you to come to mine or go to some secluded place after having just met you." He got mad. I got up to leave. He followed behind me and put his hand on my @#$. I told him to move it. He refused. I swatted his hand away and went out to the parking lot. A female patron followed us out. (Thank god!). I launched into a speech about personal space. The lady distracted him with her presence. He asked her about personal space. She said arms-length just as I had explained. I used the distraction to get in my car. She went back inside. I went home. He texted me a picture of his "brownies" since we didn't get a chance to have "dessert."

A guy in NJ that I went out with also ordered calamari. He slurped and sucked on the calamari with great zeal as I daintily cut mine into bite sized pieces and gently placed them in my mouth with a fork. The guy kept getting louder with his eating. I frowned at him. He announced, "This reminds me of eating @#$%&!" I dropped my fork and said, "Really." He sat across from me licking his lips in what he thought was a seductive manner with while smirking at me. I immediately had to go to the bathroom, which was near the exit.

My friends and I now have a rule. If he orders calamari, run, don't walk to the nearest exit.

These are general and dating examples. After you finish laughing about those, I'll add some work examples. Those are even better.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 15, 12:19 am CDT

Thank you. Those are both much funnier and more outrageous. I guess calamari is another generations oysters.I had forgotten about oysters until you told the calamari stories. I will look forward to your other stories.

By Kit on 2014 08 15, 3:33 am CDT

I wonder at what point in the second calamari story you could have stood your ground.

By neal on 2014 08 15, 3:36 am CDT

The new journal is out with a story about Feguson, MO. It's time to move to that debate, but I'd like to finish up here, particularly since I promised Kit more stories and I need to address Neal.

He said, "I wonder at what point in the second calamari story you could have 'stood your ground.'" I stood it. Literally. After he made it clear he was engaging in sexual innuendo. I shifted my center of gravity out of the chair, repositioned it over my lovely little feet that were outfitted in fabulous shoes, put one foot in front of the other, and gave him a last good look at what he really wanted and would never get as I went to my car and left. That was the appropriate time to do it. Before making his comment, he simply had crude table manners. After making his comment, his intentions were clear and I had a reason to respond. The response was to leave. There was no reason to talk to him. I didn't need to resolve anything as I didn't have to engage him on a regular basis.

Work examples --
A male client insisted he needed me to attend a "very important meeting." I reluctantly agreed as it took me away from a family function. We get to the hotel after a long day of traveling. While relaxing over drinks and preparing for the next day, the client leans over to a patron sitting next to him and says, "This is my attorney. All I really want is a blow job." They laughed hysterically. I sipped my drink, looked at him and said, "Did I fail to mention I was related to Lorena Bobbit." They gasped. I thought the matter was closed.

The next day at the facility where the meeting was supposed to occur, no one was there except men from his company and a couple of people from the other company who happen to be working on their day off. The facility was closed. I was beyond annoyed. The client sensed my irritation and says, "Oh, don't worry. It will get better." He pulls out a bottle of tequila. I looked at him, turned around, found the woman to whom I had just been introduced and started getting information on the logistic of getting to and from the facility, hotel and airport. The client found me, started apologizing for the "misunderstanding" and promised to make it up to me. I rolled my eyes, set up my laptop and tried to get a flight. I couldn't. I was stuck. The client continued to make inappropriate jokes and comments, which was exacerbated by the alcohol. He told his team, "The next time our lawyers comes, I'm going to get one room so I can come too." They laughed. I was incensed, but stayed quiet as I knew engaging him would make it worse as the issue was power and control. He being "the boss" with the "lady lawyer." When I got back to my office, I packed up his files and had them couriered to his office. His admin called to find out what was going on. I told her. She said, "Oh, he does that all the time. His partner is worse." I told her its sexual harassment and give me a call when she was ready to sue. I received several voicemail messages from the partner apologizing and suggesting that they increase my rate so I could continue to work for them. I didn't return the calls.

Recently, at a bar function, a new admittee and I got on the subject of sexual harassment. She was shocked when I commented about the misogyny and harassment I encountered. She looked at me with an inquisitive stare. I said, "Go for it." She shared that she had been told that she could not wear high heels to work because her breast bounced when she walked. Conversely, she had been told that when she was doing client development or before the court, she needed to use her "feminine wiles." She quit the job.

We then began to discuss how having to leave a job or organization because of harassment impacts our career. I shared some tactics. One is to say, "If I wanted to be to a two bit whore, I would have kept my size 4 figure instead of getting a quarter million dollar education." I also shared that if the predator (and yes, they are predators. They only engage in the behavior because they think they're going to get away with it.) works for a larger institution, I engage them about their diversity, inclusion and workplace harassment policies.

At a professional meeting I regularly attended, another attendee would routinely tell me his wife's vacation schedule, then suggest I come to his home to work on things with him. (We didn't work together.) He would sit next to me and run his hand up my legs. I would spend the entire presentation swatting his hands off my legs. His supervisor, who was a woman, was usually close by. I knew she subscribed to the don't make waves the notion. One day I had had enough, I left the meeting early, went home, found a copy of his institution's sexual harassment policy online and emailed it to him with a suggestion that he review it and govern himself accordingly. I copied his supervisor. Things are a lot more cordial.

By thoroughly_disgusted on 2014 08 15, 2:01 pm CDT

Ira, his predatory supporters and the CT bar association are clearly sending a wrong message: it's perfectly okay to coerce women into prostitution.

By Finnegan Bell on 2014 08 18, 3:08 am CDT

@ 146 Finnegan Bell - Thank you for describing the problem so succinctly and accurately. Of course it is also not okay to coerce girls, boys, and men into prostitution, but that did not seem to be Mr. Mayo's problem, so your summary is excellent as it stands.

And if you are an attorney it is not okay to act in a manner that leads others to conclude that you are coercing women into prostitution. Mr. Mayo had plenty of warning that his behavior appeared to be objectionable, so if he felt that he was being misunderstood, he had plenty of opportunity to learn how to be more clear about what his intentions and expectations were. He may have been clueless when his problems started, but if he is still clueless in 2014 it is because he did not make a reasonable effort to get a clue, and he is responsible for his failure to correct his deficiencies, whatever their origin. His persistent behavior clearly appears predatory, and since he is unwilling or unable to change that behavior, he should be treated as a predator.

By Kit on 2014 08 18, 5:30 am CDT

The Bar has been lowered. I wonder how bad your conduct has to be to be disbarred in this state.

By Bruce Ailion on 2014 08 19, 1:38 am CDT

How do they know whether the guy doesn't swing both ways? Hasn't anyone looked at the EEOC statistics and noticed the increase in men-on-men sexual harassment incidents.

By danzzing on 2014 08 19, 2:32 am CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.