by Richard W. Millar, Jr.

With a title that will no doubt cause my editor to raise an eyebrow , I more or less back into what is, for me, the murky world of male-female, or what is now called gender discrimination. A world, I confess, I don’t fully understand. I never knew any guy who wanted to join a sorority, nor any girl who wanted to join a fraternity, particularly after she saw a kitchen in a frat house. Or a fraternity bathroom.

Of course, I was a product of an all-boys prep school, and college dorms were either all-male or all-female, and separated by distance as well as sex. If a guy wanted to visit a girl in a dorm, he would never get past Nurse Ratched’s twin who sternly monitored the front entrance. So, perhaps at an early age, I was doomed to be a gender troglodyte.

Thus, I was relieved to learn that the state disciplinary folks in Connecticut have what I will call gender suspension.

Yes, really.

One Ira S. Mayo, a lawyer in Torrington, Connecticut is, and was, the subject of state disciplinary proceedings. In 2005, after being accused in three complaints of having an improper sexual relationship with a female client, he was suspended for fifteen months and later reinstated in early 2007. As part of his reinstatement, he was not allowed to represent women in domestic relations matters and was not allowed to be alone with women in his office.

In 2009, the Statewide Grievance Panel, dealing with still another woman’s complaint, found that he had violated these terms.

In 2010, a court ordered him not to represent women in domestic violence and family law cases.

In July of this year, he was given a lifetime ban against representing female clients. Think about that for a moment. He was still allowed to practice law, but only on behalf of male clients. In other words, he was not a bad lawyer or a rule violator in general; just as to one class of clients. In connection with the lifetime one-half suspension (my words, not Connecticut’s), he was suspended for, hold your breath, four months. For four short months he cannot practice, but after that he is good to go so long as he represents men only. Sort of state-enforced specialization.

The four-month suspension was set to start October 1, 2014. Before the suspension could take effect, the state filed a motion to disbar him for (and if you can’t guess, you haven’t been reading) violating the lifetime ban. After receiving the lifetime ban, he allegedly agreed to represent another woman. I think it might be safe to say that he is a slow learner.

According to reports, Mr. Mayo claims that he misunderstood banning him from representing women in that he thought he had a “grace period” before the ban (to which he had agreed) took effect. That will not, I predict, “play well in Peoria,” or even in Connecticut.

I think they need to test the drinking water in Connecticut. You have a lawyer who has a track record of a potpourri of ethical and other violations against women and the remedy is to ban him from representing women but otherwise let him practice? His judgment is skewed only by gender?

Maybe he can turn the ban into a benefit and lard his waiting room with copies of GQ, Field & Stream, and Motor Trend, advertising that he is the only lawyer authorized by the state bar of Connecticut to represent men only.

Guys would flock to him.

Richard W. Millar, Jr. is a member of the firm of Millar, Hodges & Bemis in Newport Beach. He can be reached at millar@mhblaw.net.