The opinion
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
Disciplinary Counsel v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1790.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2025-OHIO-1790
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BLACK.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Black, Slip Opinion No.
2025-Ohio-1790.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice
law—Two-year suspension with six months conditionally stayed.
(No. 2024-1725—Submitted February 11, 2025—Decided May 22, 2025.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme
Court, No. 2024-012.
__________________
The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,
DEWINE, DETERS, HAWKINS, and SHANAHAN, JJ. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ryan Richard Black, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0097679, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2018.
Black was elected Hocking County prosecutor in November 2020 and took office
in January 2021.
{¶ 2} In an April 2024 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged
Black with three counts of misconduct arising from acts that occurred during his
tenure as Hocking County prosecutor. The first count alleged that Black engaged
in inappropriate sexual conduct with two employees of the prosecutor’s office. The
other two counts alleged that Black engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship
with a client of the prosecutor’s office and that he inappropriately used his public
office by threatening to arrest the Hocking County information-technology director
for obstructing official business after the director refused to stop what he was doing
to fix a computer issue for the prosecutor’s office.
{¶ 3} The parties entered stipulations of fact, and Black agreed that his
inappropriate sexual conduct with the two employees violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). The parties also stipulated to aggravating and
mitigating factors and submitted 14 stipulated exhibits. In addition, they agreed
that the appropriate sanction for the stipulated misconduct is a two-year suspension
with six months stayed on conditions primarily related to Black’s mental health.
{¶ 4} Black and one other witness testified at a hearing before a three-
member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. Following the hearing, the
panel unanimously voted to dismiss the second and third counts of relator’s
complaint. Based on the stipulations and evidence presented at the hearing, the
panel found that Black’s inappropriate sexual conduct with the two employees
adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. The panel recommended that he
be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with six months conditionally
2
January Term, 2025
stayed, and that certain conditions be placed on his reinstatement to the practice.
The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommended sanction. No objections have been filed.
{¶ 5} After reviewing the record and our relevant precedent, we adopt the
board’s finding of misconduct and its recommended sanction.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND MISCONDUCT
General Office Conduct
{¶ 6} After taking office as the Hocking County prosecutor in January 2021,
Black created an unprofessional work environment through his inappropriate
language and behavior. His use of obscenities and inappropriate sexual comments
made staff members uncomfortable. For example, while interviewing two
candidates for jobs in the prosecutor’s office, Black asked whether they would mind
the use of the word “fuck” in the office or receiving “dogshit pay.”
{¶ 7} Black’s office behavior was erratic. He frequently engaged in
screaming outbursts and refused to speak to staff members for several days at a
time. At least one employee was frightened of him and avoided being around him.
Black stipulated that if A.T., who worked as an assistant prosecutor in his office
beginning in November 2022, had been called as a witness, she would have testified
that Black “disparaged and exploited employees.”
{¶ 8} In A.T.’s affidavit, a stipulated exhibit in this case, she avers,
“Throughout my time at the prosecutor’s office, I have preferred to work outside of
regular work hours or work from home whenever possible to avoid the chaos.” She
further averred that she “came in only as necessary for [her] court hearings if
[Black] was in the office.” She also stated that she “built a wall of bookshelves”
around her workspace in an attempt to “hide away” and “just do [her] job.”
{¶ 9} Although Black was not charged with any misconduct arising from
these facts, they nonetheless offer some insight into Black’s leadership and the
office culture in which the alleged misconduct occurred.
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Inappropriate Sexual Conduct Involving S.R.
{¶ 10} S.R. worked as a Hocking County assistant prosecutor from January
through November 2021. During S.R.’s employment, Black, who was S.R.’s
supervisor, made inappropriate sexual comments to S.R. and to others about S.R.
On one occasion, in front of a colleague at work in March 2021, Black told S.R.
that her dress made him want her to “wrap [her] legs around [his] face until [she]
orgasmed,” then did an impression of himself performing oral sex.
{¶ 11} On July 20, Black sent S.R. a text message containing a photograph
of himself shirtless because he was looking for compliments. He later added:
“[T]hank you for being complimentary. It certainly makes my day and definitely
keeps me motivated to keep working lol. Means a lot.” The next day, Black and
S.R. attended a party. The host asked S.R. whether she wanted to feed his pet
donkey a carrot. Black interjected with a sexual innuendo, stating that he had a
“carrot” that he would like to feed S.R. He later sent S.R. a text message containing
four carrot emojis.
{¶ 12} Black and S.R. also exchanged text messages concerning Black’s
plan to seek a salary increase on S.R.’s behalf. Black told S.R. that he would try to
increase her salary “to the low- to mid-70s,” before stating, “Now, that said, I’d
give ya 200k if it meant I got flattered all the time .” He later added: “Besides I
don’t want some fancy county going and offering you more money for less stress
and stealing you away! I’d only be able to counter that other counties probably
have less guns and carrots. . . And abs you can occasionally belly rub when you’re
bored or feeling down hahahaha.” (Punctuation in original.) By the end of July,
Black texted S.R. three more photographs of himself shirtless.
{¶ 13} S.R. left her employment in the prosecutor’s office in November
2021.
4
January Term, 2025
Inappropriate Sexual Conduct Involving K.V.
{¶ 14} In April 2021, Black hired K.V. to work as a victim advocate in the
prosecutor’s office. He was her supervisor.
{¶ 15} K.V. discovered that she was unexpectedly pregnant in early 2022.
When she told Black about her pregnancy, he joked about helping her terminate it.
Later, after hearing that she had suffered a miscarriage, he joked about that as well.
{¶ 16} In May 2022, Black began to send K.V. inappropriate text messages.
On one occasion, K.V. sent Black a text saying that she had bought new clothes
and was feeling self-conscious about wearing them; he responded, “If you look
dashing and I grope you, don’t sue me lmao.”
{¶ 17} Among numerous text messages in June, Black sent K.V. a link to a
sexually explicit song titled “Pussy” by the German band Rammstein as well as
images of two cats cuddling. K.V. responded to one of the images with a text
stating, “Cats making out this time[,] aye? .” Black replied, “Lol
throwing out hints .” In another text conversation, K.V. stated that she was going
to a police department to discuss a protection order. Black stated that he needed to
go there, too. K.V. responded, “Sounds like a date! I’ll be waiting.” Black replied,
“Lol ok.” And then he added, “I feel like I missed an opportunity there for a dirty
comment. Damn it.”
{¶ 18} On July 14, Black disclosed to K.V. certain information regarding
his mental health. After making those disclosures, Black sent K.V. a text informing
her that he would be working closely with her and another employee to manage the
effects of his mental health on the office. K.V. responded, “I’m ready for it . . . I’ll
work as close as you want .” Black replied, “That sounds promising . . . .
Again, careful whatcha ask for. Might get what you want lol.” (Ellipsis in original.)
In a later text, Black asked K.V., “Want a progress physique pic since you didn’t
get any last summer of your own? Can consider it a bonus for good
5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
work.” K.V. replied, “ [A]bsolutely.” Black cautioned K.V. that she
was not to share the image, and then he texted her a photograph of himself shirtless.
{¶ 19} While at a hearing the next day, Black sent K.V. a text message
stating that he would let her know when he would be able to leave court for a
cigarette break. Shortly thereafter, he texted to inform her that he was outside, K.V.
replied, “Coming.” Black replied, “Oooh say that again lol.” Black has stipulated
that his response was “sexually charged and a reference to ejaculation.” In a text
exchange about desserts later that evening, Black told K.V., “Can’t compare ice
cream dessert to cake brownie desserts. They’re like different languages. But I can
make comments about eating your brownie all night .”
{¶ 20} On July 16, Black asked K.V. whether she was going out with two
other prosecutor’s-office employees that night, stating that he might stop by with
his fiancée to pay their tab. He told K.V. not to ruin the surprise and not to
misbehave. K.V. responded that she would not ruin the surprise but that she could
not promise she would not misbehave. Black replied, “Well at least try. No fun if
I can’t participate in debauchery! Make sure a tab[’]s started and I’ll pay what’s
on it when [my fiancée] and I get there. Probably stay here another 45m-hour then
we’ll come and [my fiancée] will have a beer with you gals and I’ll make
inappropriate comments.” Black then sent K.V. another shirtless photograph of
himself, this time with a towel wrapped around his waist.
{¶ 21} Black met K.V. and another employee at a local bar that night and
drove them home. The next day, he sent K.V. a text stating, “I’ll play [designated
driver] for you ladies any time.” K.V. responded that Black should not say that too
loud because they “might take advantage of [him] on the [designated driver]
aspect.” Black replied, “I like the ‘take advantage of you’ part . . . Lol.” (Ellipsis
in original.)
6
January Term, 2025
{¶ 22} Black continued to initiate sexually charged and suggestive
conversations with K.V. Around August 2022, Black told K.V. that he wanted the
female employees of the prosecutor’s office to wear bikinis to move a couch into
his office. Once he had moved the couch there himself, he also told her that he
planned to use it as a “casting couch” and insinuated that he was going to video
record sexual activity on it. In addition, K.V. once heard Black refer to the couch
as the “porn couch.”
{¶ 23} On August 2, K.V. texted Black to let him know that she had had a
dream about him and that it was “intense.” Black responded: “Damn. What an
excellent start to my day[;] I’m super flattered and all blushy now lol[.] Kinda sad
it was just a dream tho.” Then he texted: “And no shit that Rammstein song just
came up on my shuffle. Weird coincidence!” K.V. replied, “ [T]he
[L]ord[’]s work . . . over here getting us in trouble .” (Ellipsis in original.)
Black responded, “Only trouble if we got caught .” They agreed to meet for
lunch the next day to “talk about the possibility.”
{¶ 24} On August 4, during lunch at a restaurant where he had taken K.V.,
Black proposed that they begin a sexual relationship. Several days later, they had
sex. They later texted about the experience. Over the next several days, Black
continued to send K.V. text messages soliciting additional sexual activity. He also
suggested that they engage in sexual conduct in the prosecutor’s office, texting,
“We’re definitely going to have to make use of that couch at some point.”
{¶ 25} Black has stipulated that if K.V. had been called as a witness, she
would have testified that he pressured her into having sex again on August 17. After
that encounter, Black continued to text K.V., pressuring her to engage in additional
sexual activity. Initially, K.V. offered reasons why she could not meet Black.
Then, for several days, she stopped responding to his texts seeking to schedule
another rendezvous. On September 11, K.V. claimed that she had not been ignoring
7
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Black but that her phone had been missing. Black responded the next day with a
text stating, “Like that top you had on . . . .” (Ellipsis in original.) K.V. replied
with a meme that said, “Oh, stop it.”
{¶ 26} K.V. left her employment with the prosecutor’s office around April
2023. K.V. and another former prosecutor’s-office employee later filed a lawsuit
against Black, alleging that he had created a hostile work environment. The case
was settled out of court and dismissed. Black ultimately resigned his position as
the Hocking County prosecutor.
{¶ 27} The parties stipulated and the board found by clear and convincing
evidence that Black’s inappropriate sexual conduct involving K.V. and S.R.
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).
We adopt this finding of misconduct and find that Black’s pattern of sexual
misconduct involving two prosecutor’s-office employees who reported to him falls
within this catchall provision. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 2013-Ohio-
3998, ¶ 21.
SANCTION
{¶ 28} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions
imposed in similar cases.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
{¶ 29} In this case, the parties stipulated to, and the board found, three
aggravating factors—that Black acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged
in a pattern of misconduct, and harmed vulnerable victims. See Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(B)(2), (3), and (8). Mitigating factors stipulated by the parties and found by
the board consist of the absence of prior discipline, Black’s cooperative attitude
toward the disciplinary proceedings, and other interim rehabilitation in the form of
8
January Term, 2025
the mental-health and alcohol-abuse treatment discussed below. See Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (8).
{¶ 30} The board also found that several additional mitigating factors are
present. First, Black accepted responsibility for his misconduct. He testified that
the Hocking County Prosecutor’s Office “was one of the most, if not the most,
unprofessionally run office[s] in the state, and that was entirely [his] responsibility,
and is absolutely disgusting to [him] that [he] would permit that.” He described his
behavior toward K.V. and S.R. as “inappropriate,” “embarrassing,” “shameful,”
and—in light of his supervisor position—“grotesque.” He further testified: “I can’t
apologize enough for the fact that I made people feel that way . . . . I fostered an
environment that was beyond unprofessional and unacceptable.”
{¶ 31} Second, the board acknowledged that Black had submitted two
letters attesting to his good character and reputation. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5).
One of those letters was from a criminal-defense attorney who had represented
defendants in “a multitude of criminal cases” that Black had prosecuted. He stated
that Black had “consistently demonstrated . . . an obvious commitment to deliver
fair and even-handed justice when practicable” as well as “professionalism,
integrity, and an overall positive attitude, which greatly enhanced the ability of the
parties to reach an expeditious resolution on any number of case(s).” The other
letter was from a woman who worked in the prosecutor’s office for about a year
following K.V.’s resignation—first as a victim advocate, then as an office manager.
She stated that she “did not witness any behaviors that had been reported by
previous staff” and that she “would work for [Black] again if a chance presented
itself.”
{¶ 32} Third, the board noted that under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(9), an elected
or appointed judge’s voluntary resignation from office before the commencement
9
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
of disciplinary proceedings may be considered as a mitigating factor. 1 Although
Black was an elected prosecutor—not a judge—the board noted that Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(A) directs it to consider “all relevant factors” in determining the appropriate
sanction for an attorney’s misconduct. The board concluded that in the spirit of
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(9), an elected prosecutor’s voluntary resignation from that
position before the commencement of disciplinary proceedings warrants mitigating
effect. We agree that considering all relevant factors under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A),
Black’s voluntary resignation from his position as an elected prosecutor warrants
some mitigating effect in this case.
Mental-Health and Substance-Use Issues
{¶ 33} Under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7), mental and substance-use disorders
may be considered as mitigating factors when four factors are present: (1) a
qualified healthcare or chemical-dependency professional’s diagnosis of a disorder,
(2) a determination that the disorder contributed to cause the misconduct, (3) a
sustained period of successful treatment for a mental disorder or a certification of
the successful completion of an approved treatment program for a substance-use
disorder, and (4) a prognosis from a qualified healthcare or chemical-dependency
professional that the attorney will be able to return to the competent, ethical, and
professional practice of law under specified conditions.
{¶ 34} Although Black presented extensive evidence regarding his mental
health and alcohol abuse, he testified that he did not seek to establish any mental or
substance-use disorder as a mitigating factor in this case. That evidence is
nevertheless relevant to his state of mind when he engaged in his misconduct and
to his ability to resume the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.
{¶ 35} Although he was sober during the period when he was engaging in
the professional misconduct described above, Black has a lengthy history of
1. This mitigating factor was adopted by this court on September 9, 2020, and became effective on
November 1, 2020. 159 Ohio St.3d LXXXVII, XCV.
10
January Term, 2025
abusing alcohol. During his disciplinary hearing, he testified that he drank heavily
as an undergraduate and that “alcohol rehabilitation failure” later contributed to his
medical discharge from the United States Coast Guard.
{¶ 36} Black testified that he was arrested in October 2010 for operating a
vehicle while intoxicated “with an exceedingly high [blood-alcohol content].”
Thereafter, his experience living in a halfway house sparked his interest in attending
law school. In 2013, he started a ten-year stretch of sobriety after completing an
inpatient-treatment program. Black testified that after he got sober, he still did not
feel “quite right.” He experienced “very euphoric” manic episodes that he had
attributed to hyperactivity and productivity, but he also experienced “crushing
depression,” which he described as “a complete collapse into despondency.”
Concerned about the swing from productivity to depression, he sought help from a
mental-health professional and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
{¶ 37} Black passed the bar exam in 2018 and had very limited experience
as a lawyer—including just nine months of experience as an assistant prosecutor in
Vinton County—when he took office as the Hocking County prosecutor on January
4, 2021. The job turned out to be “significantly more” to manage than Black had
anticipated that it would be. He testified that he had “an extremely stressful and
mostly traumatic introduction to the job,” immediately making him feel that he was
“in over [his] head.” Black endured numerous stressors after graduating from law
school, starting with the illness and death of his first fiancée in January 2018. His
mother died in November 2021, and his father suffered a massive stroke in April
2022—shortly before Black began inappropriately texting K.V.
{¶ 38} Following a roughly ten-year period of sobriety, Black began
drinking alcohol again in October 2023. He voluntarily sought treatment for his
mental health and alcohol abuse in December 2023 and entered into a mental-health
recovery contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) in January
2024. He completed an inpatient-treatment program in March 2024. In addition to
11
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
“bipolar disorder-unspecified,” he was diagnosed with agoraphobia with panic
disorder.
{¶ 39} At the time of his disciplinary hearing, Black was participating in
counseling with Steven Gifford, M.Ed., L.P.C.C., L.I.C.D.C.-C.S. Black was also
regularly attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and participating in intensive
outpatient treatment through an alcohol- and drug-treatment center. Gifford
testified that Black had been taking lithium for approximately ten years but that it
was no longer effectively treating his bipolar disorder and that his agoraphobia and
panic disorder had gone untreated. Gifford also testified that there was a direct
correlation between Black’s diagnosed and untreated mental disorders and the
misconduct at issue in this case.
{¶ 40} According to Gifford, Black may not be able to control his impulses
during his manic episodes and could act without fully thinking through a situation
and the ramifications of his behavior. Gifford explained that bipolar disorder is
often associated with hypersexuality and that Black may have been “seek[ing] out
sexual partners without thinking through . . . if that’s an appropriate relationship or
not.” Gifford further testified that in response to uncomfortable or overwhelming
situations, Black abused alcohol. Indeed, Black himself testified that looking back,
he realized that his drinking would usually follow a deterioration of his mental
health and that he believed it to be “almost an intentional self-destructive device.”
{¶ 41} Black suffered a relapse and began drinking alcohol again in August
2024—the month before his disciplinary hearing. Gifford opined, however, that
Black could return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law “as
long [as he] continues with medications and therapeutic interventions.”
{¶ 42} Although the board found that Black’s disorders do not satisfy the
requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7) due to his August 2024 relapse into
alcohol abuse, the board nonetheless acknowledged his efforts to address his
12
January Term, 2025
mental-health and alcohol-use disorders. Moreover, the parties and the board have
addressed those disorders in their recommended sanction.
Relevant Precedent and Recommended Sanction
{¶ 43} The parties have acknowledged that Black needs additional mental-
health and addiction treatment and time to recover before he is fit to resume the
practice of law. Therefore, they have stipulated that the appropriate suspension in
this case is a two-year suspension with six months stayed on the conditions that
Black (1) commit no further misconduct, (2) submit to relator quarterly reports from
his mental-health and substance-abuse counselors regarding his compliance with
treatment recommendations, and (3) enter into an OLAP substance-abuse contract
that requires random drug and alcohol testing.
{¶ 44} In support of that recommendation, the board primarily relies on four
cases in which we imposed one- or two-year suspensions that were partially—or,
in one case, fully—stayed on conditions.
{¶ 45} In Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas, 2014-Ohio-2483, shortly after
interviewing a law student to work for him as a law clerk, an attorney sent her
inappropriate text messages suggesting that she perform sexual favors for him and
representing that her employment would depend on her compliance. After the
student began working for him, Mismas pressured her to travel out of state with
him. The law clerk resigned after less than two weeks of employment. Just two
aggravating factors were present: Mismas acted with a selfish motive and caused
harm to a vulnerable victim. Id. at ¶ 18. Mitigating factors consisted of Mismas’s
clean disciplinary record, his remorse and good-faith effort to rectify the
consequences of his misconduct, his cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings,
his good character and reputation, and the existence of a qualifying substance-use
disorder. Id. at ¶ 15-17. Recognizing that Mismas’s misconduct harmed not only
the law clerk but also the dignity and reputation of the legal profession as a whole,
13
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
we suspended Mismas from the practice of law for one year with six months
conditionally stayed. Id. at ¶ 23, 26.
{¶ 46} We also imposed a one-year suspension with six months
conditionally stayed in Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick, 2018-Ohio-2990.
Skolnick berated, verbally harassed, and humiliated his paralegal for more than two
years. In addition to criticizing her appearance and education, making fun of her
mother, and calling her “stupid, dumb, fat, ‘whorey,’ and bitch,” he proposed that
she and another employee perform a sexual act on him so that he could rate their
performances. Id. at ¶ 4-5. Just two aggravating factors were present: a pattern of
misconduct and harm to a vulnerable employee who could not afford to quit her job
until she secured new employment. Id. at ¶ 4, 9. Mitigating factors consisted of
Skolnick’s clean disciplinary record, good character, cooperation in the disciplinary
process, acknowledgment of his misconduct, and expression of remorse. Id. at ¶ 9.
Although Skolnick presented some evidence that he had been diagnosed with a
mental disorder, like Black, he did not establish it as a mitigating factor. See id.
{¶ 47} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, 2023-Ohio-4752, we imposed a
conditionally stayed two-year suspension on an attorney who, while serving as an
assistant United States attorney, sexually harassed a legal intern. Bennett had
conversations with the intern about his sex life, asked about hers, and suggested
that he could be her sexual partner. He solicited nude photographs from her, and
on one occasion, he inappropriately touched her breasts with the back of his hand
while maintaining eye contact with her. He also implicitly conditioned his
compliance with her request for a professional reference on her willingness to
provide sexual favors. Bennett’s communications with the intern through various
media eventually led her to block his telephone number and social-media accounts.
{¶ 48} Like Black, Bennett acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and
harmed a vulnerable victim. See id. at ¶ 21. He also had a clean disciplinary record,
cooperated in the disciplinary investigation, presented evidence of his good
14
January Term, 2025
character and reputation, and had other sanctions imposed for his misconduct—
namely, the loss of his employment. Id. Although Bennett presented evidence of
two mental disorders, he did not establish either as a mitigating factor. Id. at ¶ 22.
{¶ 49} The board recommended that Bennett be suspended from the
practice of law for six months. We distinguished the facts of Bennett’s case from
those of Mismas on the ground that a substantial sanction had already been imposed
for Bennett’s misconduct, and we concluded that it would be inequitable to impose
an actual suspension equal to the unstayed portion of Mismas’s suspension.
Expressing concern based on Bennett’s admission that his misconduct may have
been more widespread, we concluded that a conditionally stayed two-year
suspension would best protect the public by giving Bennett an incentive to comply
with his treatment regimen while affording us the opportunity to revoke the stay if
he violated any of its conditions or committed further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 53-55.
{¶ 50} Finally, in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 2000-Ohio-160, an
attorney committed multiple ethical violations by verbally abusing several
employees, several of whom were also students. Among other things, he made
comments directly and indirectly suggesting he was sexually interested in the
student-employees, suggested that he could positively or negatively affect their
future bar admissions, and inappropriately touched at least one of them. We found
that Young’s conduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law, implied that
he could improperly influence a tribunal, and constituted impermissible gender
discrimination. No aggravating or mitigating factors were specified in our opinion.
We imposed a two-year suspension with one year stayed on the conditions that he
serve one year of probation and receive at least six hours of instruction on
professionalism. Id. at ¶ 70.
{¶ 51} Despite the similarities between Black’s misconduct and the
misconduct at issue in Mismas, Skolnick, Bennett, and Young, the board noted one
important distinction: Black was an elected county prosecutor when he committed
15
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
his misconduct. “‘There must be no misunderstanding that the legal profession
demands adherence to the highest standards of honesty and integrity[,] and lawyers
who hold public office must be especially scrupulous in this regard.’ ” Disciplinary
Counsel v. Taft, 2006-Ohio-6525, ¶ 14, quoting the board’s report in that case. In
Disciplinary Counsel v. Dann, 2012-Ohio-5337, ¶ 23, we stated, “Like judges, the
attorney general has a heightened duty to the public by virtue of his elected office.”
We recognized in that case that just as “misconduct committed by a judge vested
with the public’s trust causes incalculable harm to the public perception of the legal
system,” id. at ¶ 22, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins, 2008-Ohio-3194, ¶ 81,
an attorney general’s ethical violations not only reflected poorly on his fitness to
practice law and on the legal profession as a whole but also caused “incalculable
harm” to the public perception of his office, id. at ¶ 23.
{¶ 52} In this case, we agree that Black must be held to a higher standard
because he was the elected Hocking County prosecutor at the time of his
misconduct. We therefore agree that the appropriate sanction for his misconduct is
a two-year suspension with just six months stayed on the conditions recommended
by the board.
CONCLUSION
{¶ 53} Accordingly, Ryan Richard Black is suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio for two years with six months stayed on the conditions that he (1)
commit no further misconduct, (2) submit to relator quarterly reports from his
mental-health and substance-abuse counselors regarding his compliance with
treatment recommendations, and (3) enter into and comply with an OLAP contract
that includes a requirement of random drug and alcohol testing. If Black fails to
comply with any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the
full two-year suspension. In addition to the requirements for reinstatement set forth
in Gov.Bar R. V(24), Black shall be required to submit from a qualified healthcare
16
January Term, 2025
professional an opinion stating that Black can return to the competent, ethical, and
professional practice of law. Costs are taxed to Black.
Judgment accordingly.
__________________
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond and Ryan
N. Sander, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
UB Greensfelder, L.L.P., and Alvin E. Mathews, for respondent.
__________________
17