The Supreme Court of Ohio has issued a two-year, fully stayed suspension to Bucyrus city law director Brian N. Gernert for ethical violations related to two separate drunken driving arrests and subsequent probation violations. Gernert, who was appointed as Bucyrus’ interim law director in October 2021, faced these issues before his election to the post in November 2023.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted that Gernert has shown a “commitment to working toward [his] sobriety.” The Court compared his conduct with other attorneys and judges who had committed similar offenses and found that an actual suspension from practicing law was unnecessary. The decision took into account the limited impact of Gernert’s alcohol use on his professional performance and character letters from others in the Bucyrus legal community.
Gernert's probation was extended until November 2025 following a violation in May 2023. The Court warned that any further violations would result in him serving the full two-year suspension. Additional conditions were also imposed on him.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters supported the opinion, while Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate.
In May 2022, Gernert was arrested after an incident involving suspected intoxicated driving when he struck a utility pole with his SUV. He refused a breathalyzer test and pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI). He received a jail sentence with most days suspended and was placed on community control with specific conditions including participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP).
Four months later, Gernert faced another arrest for similar charges while driving with limited privileges due to his suspended license. He again refused sobriety tests but pleaded guilty to OVI while other charges were dropped.
In May 2023, scheduled to prosecute a case for driving under suspension, Gernert called off proceedings shortly before trial due to intoxication at home—leading to another probation violation charge after being found "highly intoxicated" by a probation officer.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Gernert based on these incidents. The Board of Professional Conduct found that his actions reflected poorly on his fitness to practice law but acknowledged mitigating factors such as character references from colleagues vouching for his professionalism despite personal challenges.
The Supreme Court adopted recommendations for staying Gernert’s suspension provided he complies with OLAP requirements; completes continuing education focused on substance abuse; avoids further misconduct; adheres strictly to probation terms; serves monitored probation under supervision; and covers disciplinary proceeding costs.