Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Gernert

Citation: 2024-Ohio-1946

Docket Number: 2024-0173

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Gernert, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1946.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
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. 2024-OHIO-1946 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GERNERT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gernert, Slip Opinion No.  
2024-Ohio-1946.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations 
of 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct—
Conditionally stayed two-year suspension. 
(No. 2024-0173—Submitted March 12, 2024—Decided May 23, 2024.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2023-013. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Brian Nicholas Gernert, of Bucyrus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0089507, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2012.  On 
October 8, 2021, Gernert was appointed as the interim law director for the city of 
Bucyrus.  After winning the primary election in May 2023, he ran unopposed and 
was elected as the Bucyrus law director in November 2023. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
{¶ 2} In a June 2023 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged 
Gernert with two ethical violations arising from his use of alcohol, which had 
resulted in his conviction on two separate counts of operating a vehicle while 
intoxicated (“OVI”) as well as two parole violations.  Gernert’s alcohol use also 
had resulted in the dismissal of a driving-under-suspension case for which Gernert 
served as the prosecutor.  In his answer to relator’s complaint, Gernert admitted 
every allegation. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors as well as 21 stipulated exhibits, and the matter 
proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct.  Based on the stipulations and Gernert’s testimony, the panel found that 
Gernert committed the charged misconduct.  The panel recommended that Gernert 
be suspended from the practice of law for two years, fully stayed on conditions 
intended to foster his recovery and sobriety.  The board adopted the panel’s report 
and recommendation, and no objections have been filed.  After a thorough review 
of the record and our precedent, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and 
the recommended sanction. 
MISCONDUCT 
First OVI Offense—May 2022 
{¶ 4} On May 4, 2022, Gernert was driving his orange Honda SUV in 
Bucyrus.  Around 10:10 p.m., another driver called 9-1-1 to report a possible 
intoxicated driver in an orange Honda SUV traveling westbound on West Mansfield 
Street in Bucyrus.  The caller observed Gernert’s vehicle veering off Holmes Center 
Road into a ditch, striking a utility pole, and then driving away from the scene.  The 
caller followed Gernert’s vehicle until a Crawford County sheriff’s deputy located 
it and initiated a traffic stop near Bucyrus High School. 
{¶ 5} As the deputy approached Gernert’s vehicle, he noticed that it had 
sustained heavy damage to the passenger side.  The deputy spoke with Gernert, who 
January Term, 2024 
 
3 
was the only occupant in the vehicle, and smelled the odor of alcohol emanating 
from inside the vehicle.  After having Gernert exit the vehicle, the deputy asked 
how much Gernert had had to drink.  Gernert replied, “A drink or two.”  The deputy 
attempted to have Gernert perform field sobriety tests; however, Gernert lost his 
balance during the horizontal-gaze nystagmus test.  Gernert was arrested on 
suspicion of OVI. 
{¶ 6} After the deputy secured Gernert in the back of a cruiser, he and a 
second deputy observed an open beer can in the center console and a bottle of 
Crown Royal Black on the driver’s-side floorboard.  They also noticed a large 
chunk of wood, presumably from the utility pole, protruding from the passenger’s-
side door and fender.  The passenger’s-side mirror was missing from the vehicle, 
and the adjacent window was shattered.  A third deputy found a black Crown Royal 
bag and the broken passenger’s-side mirror from Gernert’s vehicle at the scene of 
the crash on Holmes Center Road. 
{¶ 7} The deputy who initiated the stop transported Gernert to the Crawford 
County Jail, where he offered Gernert the opportunity to submit to a breathalyzer 
test.  Gernert refused.  Gernert was charged with a first-degree misdemeanor OVI 
under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and a first-degree misdemeanor refusal to submit to 
chemical testing under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2). 
{¶ 8} Due to Gernert’s position as the interim city law director, a special 
prosecutor and visiting judge were appointed to his case.  On August 2, 2022, 
Gernert pleaded guilty to one count of OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), 
and the prosecutor dismissed the other charge.  The visiting judge sentenced 
Gernert to 180 days in jail with 177 days suspended and two years of community 
control and ordered him to pay a fine and court costs.  As conditions of his 
community control, the court prohibited Gernert from consuming or possessing any 
alcoholic beverages and required him to participate in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”).  Gernert’s driver’s license was also administratively 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
suspended for one year.  However, the court granted him limited driving privileges 
to drive to and from work and medical, court, and counseling appointments. 
Second OVI Offense—September 2022 
{¶ 9} On September 2, 2022, at approximately 11:30 p.m., an Ohio State 
Highway Patrol trooper observed Gernert driving a Jeep northbound on Spring 
Street in Bucyrus.  While following the Jeep, the trooper ran its license-plate 
number through the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (“LEADS”).  He 
learned that Gernert owned the Jeep and that he had an active driver’s-license 
suspension with limited driving privileges.  The trooper continued to follow the 
Jeep and observed it weaving in its lane and driving on the solid white line to the 
right.  He activated his overhead emergency lights and pulled Gernert over to the 
side of the road. 
{¶ 10} When the trooper approached the vehicle, he noticed Gernert in the 
driver’s seat and confirmed that his appearance matched the photo of the registered 
owner that he had seen on LEADS.  The trooper immediately noticed a strong odor 
of alcohol coming from the vehicle and that Gernert’s speech was heavily slurred.  
In response to the trooper’s request that Gernert exit his vehicle, Gernert shut the 
driver’s-side window and stared straight ahead.  The trooper knocked on the 
window and instructed Gernert to exit the vehicle, but Gernert opened the window 
slightly and shook his head to indicate that he would not comply.  When the trooper 
asked how much he had had to drink that night, Gernert told him, “None.”  And 
when asked again to exit the vehicle, Gernert said, “Call my parents.” 
{¶ 11} After the trooper informed Gernert that he would be charged with 
obstructing official business if he did not exit the vehicle, Gernert opened the door 
and swung his legs out.  He was not wearing any shoes, and he braced himself 
against the car frame to exit the vehicle.  Due to Gernert’s unsteadiness, the trooper 
assisted him back to the patrol car, where he administered the horizontal-gaze 
January Term, 2024 
 
5 
nystagmus test, which Gernert failed.  Gernert refused to complete any additional 
tests. 
{¶ 12} Gernert was arrested on suspicion of OVI and taken to the Crawford 
County Jail.  There, he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.  He was charged 
with three first-degree misdemeanor offenses—OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), 
refusal to submit to chemical testing under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2), and driving under 
suspension under R.C. 4510.14(A)—and a minor-misdemeanor seatbelt infraction.  
He was also charged with a probation violation in his May 2022 case.  Again, due 
to Gernert’s position as the interim city law director, a special prosecutor and 
visiting judge were appointed to the case. 
{¶ 13} After five days in custody, Gernert was arraigned and released on 
his own recognizance.  Upon his release, he was required to wear a Secure 
Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (“SCRAM”) ankle bracelet that would alert 
the probation department of any alcohol consumption. 
{¶ 14} On November 1, 2022, Gernert pleaded guilty to the OVI offense 
and the prosecutor dismissed the remaining charges.  Gernert also admitted that his 
conduct violated the terms of his community-control conditions imposed in his May 
2022 OVI case.  The visiting judge sentenced Gernert to 180 days in jail with 157 
days suspended and credit for five days served.  He also ordered Gernert to serve 
18 days of house arrest and two years of community control and to pay a fine and 
court costs.  Gernert’s probation in his May 2022 case was extended to November 
1, 2024, and his driver’s license was administratively suspended for one year.  
Although Gernert was eligible for limited driving privileges, he did not apply for 
them and did not drive during that suspension. 
Failure to Prosecute Crawford County Municipal-Court Case 
{¶ 15} In his capacity as the interim city law director, Gernert was 
scheduled to prosecute a driving-under-suspension case before the Crawford 
County Municipal Court on May 19, 2023.  Approximately ten minutes before the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
trial was scheduled to start, Gernert telephoned the court clerk.  The clerk had 
difficulty understanding Gernert because his speech was heavily slurred, but the 
clerk surmised that Gernert wanted to dismiss the charges based on his indication 
that he would “call off” the police officer in the case.  The clerk informed the 
magistrate presiding over the trial of Gernert’s call.  The magistrate interpreted 
Gernert’s call as a request for a continuance, denied the request, and dismissed the 
case for failure to prosecute. 
{¶ 16} Later that day, Gernert’s probation officer made an unannounced 
visit to Gernert’s home and found him “highly intoxicated.”  Gernert admitted to 
having consumed alcohol, and there was a half-empty bottle of Wild Turkey 
present.  As a result, Gernert was charged with a probation violation and ordered to 
wear a SCRAM device.  He pleaded guilty to those violations, and the court 
extended his probation to November 1, 2025. 
{¶ 17} Gernert relapsed again in September 2023.  The following month, he 
freely reported the relapse to his probation officer and asked to be placed on a 
SCRAM monitor for a year while he participated in Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) 
and counseling.  At his disciplinary hearing, Gernert testified that the SCRAM 
device was placed on his ankle on October 13, 2023, approximately six weeks 
earlier, and that he had not consumed any alcohol since that time. 
Findings of Misconduct 
{¶ 18} The parties stipulated and the board found by clear and convincing 
evidence that Gernert’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We adopt the board’s finding that Gernert’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). 
{¶ 19} A hearing panel must determine by clear and convincing evidence 
that an attorney has committed misconduct before a sanction may be imposed, 
January Term, 2024 
 
7 
Gov.Bar R. V(12)(I), and in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 
2013-Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21, we explained that in order to find a 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), the evidence must demonstrate that either (1) the 
lawyer engaged in misconduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law even though that conduct is not specifically prohibited by the rules or 
(2) the conduct giving rise to a specific rule violation is so egregious as to warrant 
an additional finding that it adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law.  Although not specifically found by the board and although not specifically 
prohibited by another disciplinary rule, we find that Gernert’s two OVI convictions 
and his failure, in his role as interim city law director, to prosecute a driving-under-
suspension case due to his own intoxication adversely reflect on his fitness to 
practice law.  We therefore adopt the board’s finding that Gernert violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
SANCTION 
{¶ 20} 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 
{¶ 21} In this case, the parties have stipulated and the board has found that 
two aggravating factors are present—a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) and (4).  The parties also have stipulated and the board 
has found that five mitigating factors are present: Gernert (1) has no prior 
discipline, (2) made full and free disclosure to the board and exhibited a cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, (3) submitted evidence of his good 
character and reputation, (4) had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his 
misconduct, and (5) has engaged in other interim rehabilitation.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1), (4), (5), (6), and (8). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
{¶ 22} Gernert submitted nine character letters from attorneys, judges, and 
the mayor of Bucyrus.  The authors of those letters attested to Gernert’s diligence, 
honesty, and professionalism.  They also expressed their belief that with treatment, 
Gernert would continue to be a productive member of Bucyrus’s small legal 
community.  Given his status as an elected official, Gernert issued a public apology 
in a local newspaper, taking full responsibility for his conduct and expressing his 
commitment to his treatment for his alcoholism. 
{¶ 23} Following his first OVI offense in May 2022, Gernert voluntarily 
contacted OLAP and was referred to a substance-abuse treatment center.1  He 
completed a 30-day inpatient treatment program, followed by an intensive 
outpatient treatment program (with sessions four times a week for three hours), then 
regular outpatient therapy for one and a half hours once a week.  Gernert testified 
that he plans to participate in his outpatient therapy “in perpetuity.” 
{¶ 24} Following his May 2023 relapse, Gernert wore a SCRAM device 
through July and completed another six to eight weeks of intensive outpatient 
therapy before resuming regular outpatient therapy.  He also attended three AA 
meetings a week from May through September 2023.  Throughout that time, 
Gernert checked in with and forwarded his treatment records to OLAP.  Gernert 
testified that in addition to receiving a monthly shot to ease his alcohol cravings, he 
takes a low-dose antidepressant and sees a psychiatrist once a month to discuss 
stress management. 
{¶ 25} Although there was substantial evidence regarding Gernert’s 
alcoholism and some evidence regarding his depression and stressors, the board 
noted that he did not offer a diagnosis of a disorder by a qualified healthcare 
professional.  Therefore, the board found that the parties did not submit sufficient 
 
1. The board found Gernert’s testimony that he was unaware of the option to sign a contract with 
OLAP until February 2023 to be credible.  Therefore, the board did not attribute any aggravating 
effect to his delay in entering into an OLAP contract. 
January Term, 2024 
 
9 
evidence to establish the existence of a mitigating substance-use or mental disorder 
under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). 
The Recommended Sanction and Precedent 
{¶ 26} Relator recommended that Gernert be suspended from the practice 
of law for two years, fully stayed on conditions intended to assist his recovery from 
alcohol dependence and to protect the public.  Gernert did not suggest a particular 
sanction but acknowledged that a stayed suspension was appropriate. 
{¶ 27} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Gernert’s 
misconduct, the board considered nine cases in which we sanctioned attorneys and 
judges for misconduct that occurred while they were under the influence of alcohol 
or drugs.  In two of those cases—Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 105 Ohio St.3d 
100, 2004-Ohio-6902, 822 N.E.2d 1235, and Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. 
Strauss, 165 Ohio St.3d 45, 2021-Ohio-1263, 175 N.E.3d 516—we imposed fully 
stayed suspensions of one year or less. 
{¶ 28} In Connor, a judge—who had previously been publicly remanded 
for an alcohol-related offense—was convicted of driving under the influence of 
alcohol in another state.  Following that conviction, Connor entered into an OLAP 
contract, fully complied with that contract, and dedicated himself to recovery.  He 
completed an inpatient treatment program, strictly complied with his after-care 
program, and had a sustained period of abstinence prior to his disciplinary hearing.  
Noting Connor’s commitment to his recovery and the fact that his performance as 
a judge “remain[ed] above reproach,” we found that he posed no risk to the public 
or the good of the judicial system.  Id. at ¶ 20.  We imposed a conditionally stayed 
six-month suspension for Connor’s misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 21. 
{¶ 29} In Strauss, the attorney drove while intoxicated, struck a police 
vehicle that was parked at the scene of another accident, and continued driving.  He 
later crashed into the median, abandoned his vehicle, and fled on foot.  Strauss 
pleaded no contest to six misdemeanor offenses arising out of that incident, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
including OVI, resisting arrest, leaving the scene of an accident, and unsafe 
operation of a vehicle in the vicinity of an emergency vehicle.  Mitigating factors 
consisted of Strauss’s clean disciplinary record, his full cooperation in the 
disciplinary proceedings, and the imposition of criminal penalties for his 
misconduct; no aggravating factors were found.  Id. at ¶ 10-11.  Notably, an 
assessment completed as part of Strauss’s criminal sanction found that he had no 
substance-use disorder.  Id. at ¶ 16.  We imposed a conditionally stayed one-year 
suspension for Strauss’s misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 18. 
{¶ 30} The board also considered four cases in which we imposed 
conditionally stayed two-year suspensions on attorneys who had engaged in deceit 
or client-related misconduct while under the influence of drugs or alcohol: 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ault, 110 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio-4247, 852 N.E.2d 
727; Disciplinary Counsel v. Wineman, 121 Ohio St.3d 614, 2009-Ohio-2005, 906 
N.E.2d 1117; Disciplinary Counsel v. Scurry, 115 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-
4796, 874 N.E.2d 521; and Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kelley, 164 Ohio St.3d 443, 
2021-Ohio-770, 173 N.E.3d 471. 
{¶ 31} Ault, a judge, was convicted of two misdemeanor offenses for 
deceiving multiple doctors into prescribing narcotics to satisfy his addiction to 
painkillers, but there was no evidence that Ault’s addiction had compromised his 
professional performance.  At the time of Ault’s disciplinary hearing, he had 
successfully completed a two-year OLAP contract and shown a sustained 
commitment to his recovery.  Ault at ¶ 17.  We imposed a two-year suspension for 
Ault’s misconduct and stayed that suspension on conditions designed to support his 
recovery—namely, that he enter into a new two-year OLAP contract and serve a 
two-year period of monitored probation.  Id. at ¶ 25. 
{¶ 32} In Wineman and Scurry we imposed two-year suspensions stayed on 
similar conditions on attorneys who handled—or attempted to handle—their 
professional affairs while intoxicated.  Wineman attempted to represent two clients 
January Term, 2024 
 
11 
in court while he was intoxicated.  He also met with a third client while obviously 
intoxicated and then represented that client at a municipal-court pretrial hearing and 
jury trial while he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol.  Although the 
client was convicted of the charged offense, the court later vacated that conviction, 
in part because of Wineman’s possible intoxication during trial.  Like Gernert, 
Wineman was found to have violated rules prohibiting attorneys from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that 
adversely reflected on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.  See Wineman at ¶ 5, 10.  
Unlike Gernert, however, Wineman was found to have failed to provide competent 
representation to one of his clients.  See id. at ¶ 10. 
{¶ 33} Scurry did not appear in court while under the influence of alcohol 
like Wineman, but he repeatedly met with clients, telephoned law-enforcement 
offices, and called the Madison County Municipal Court all while intoxicated to 
the point that he was incoherent.  Like Gernert, Scurry was found to have engaged 
in multiple instances of conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice 
law.  See Scurry, 115 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-4796, 874 N.E.2d 521, at ¶ 3, 6, 
8, 11.  But Scurry also violated two other rules requiring attorneys to maintain a 
respectful, dignified, and courteous attitude toward courts.  Id. at ¶ 11. 
{¶ 34} Compared to Gernert’s two aggravating factors, Scurry had just 
one—a history of prior discipline, id. at ¶ 14, and Wineman had none, Wineman, 
121 Ohio St.3d 614, 2009-Ohio-2005, 906 N.E.2d 1117, at ¶ 13.  While Wineman 
shared several mitigating factors in common with Gernert, both Wineman and 
Scurry established their diagnosed alcoholism as a mitigating factor and had 
sustained periods of successful treatment and sobriety by the time of their 
respective disciplinary hearings.  See Wineman at ¶ 13, 15; Scurry at ¶ 14-17. 
{¶ 35} In Kelley, the attorney committed multiple ethical violations when 
he abandoned at least 15 clients during a substance-abuse and mental-health crisis.  
Thanks to the action of another attorney, Kelley’s affected clients’ cases were 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
quickly reassigned to other attorneys.  Like Gernert, Kelley did not present 
sufficient evidence to establish his substance-use disorder as a mitigating factor, 
though he did present evidence that he was participating in treatment and was 
committed to his recovery despite several relapses.  See Kelley, 164 Ohio St.3d 443, 
2021-Ohio-770, 173 N.E.2d 471, at ¶ 13-14, 17.  We suspended Kelley for two 
years and stayed the entire suspension on conditions to support his recovery that 
were similar to those we imposed in Ault, Wineman, and Scurry.  See Kelley at  
¶ 19. 
{¶ 36} In addition to those decisions imposing conditionally stayed 
suspensions for substance-use-related misconduct, the board also considered 
several cases in which we imposed actual suspensions—specifically, two-year 
suspensions with 18 months conditionally stayed—for alcohol- or drug-related 
conduct that affected the attorney’s professional performance.  However, the board 
distinguished those cases on their facts, noting that they all involved attorney 
misconduct that caused harm to clients.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington, 
109 Ohio St.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-2423, 847 N.E.2d 435 (during periods of alcohol 
and cocaine use, attorney billed multiple clients for work he had not performed and 
converted retainer fees to his own use); Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoppel, 129 Ohio 
St.3d 53, 2011-Ohio-2672, 950 N.E.2d 171 (attorney accepted retainers from 
multiple clients, used that money to buy cocaine, and neglected his clients’ legal 
matters); Disciplinary Counsel v. Greco, 107 Ohio St.3d 155, 2005-Ohio-6045, 837 
N.E.2d 369 (while abusing alcohol and illegal drugs, attorney accepted retainers 
from numerous clients, neglected their cases, lied to conceal his neglect, and was 
slow to comply with requests for refunds of unearned fees). 
{¶ 37} With the exception of the one incident before the Crawford County 
Municipal Court that resulted in a dismissal for Gernert’s failure to prosecute, 
Gernert’s alcoholism does not appear to have affected his practice of law.  The 
board expressed concern that Gernert had not demonstrated a sustained period of 
January Term, 2024 
 
13 
successful treatment and had relapsed two months before his disciplinary hearing.  
However, citing the applicable mitigating factors—particularly Gernert’s voluntary 
outreach to OLAP, his commitment to working toward sobriety, his improved 
mental health, and the evidence of his good character and reputation—the board 
concluded that an actual suspension is not warranted in this case. 
{¶ 38} The board therefore recommends that Gernert be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, fully stayed on the conditions that he (1) remain in 
compliance with the terms of his February 13, 2023 suspension and extend that 
contract through the term of his stayed suspension, (2) complete, in addition to the 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, three hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) 
focused on alcoholism, substance abuse, or mental-health issues, (3) comply with 
his court-ordered probation, (4) serve a two-year period of monitored probation in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), and (5) engage in no further misconduct. 
The Court Adopts the Board’s Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 39} In crafting the appropriate sanctions for attorneys who have engaged 
in misconduct, “ ‘we examine each case individually and impose the discipline we 
believe appropriate based on the unique circumstances of each case.’ ”  Toledo Bar 
Assn. v. Hales, 120 Ohio St.3d 340, 2008-Ohio-6201, 899 N.E.2d 130, ¶ 21, quoting 
In re Disciplinary Action Against Ruffenach, 486 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Minn.1992); 
see also Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A).  “We are ever mindful that the primary purpose of 
the disciplinary process is not to punish the offender but to protect the public from 
lawyers who are unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the attorney-
client relationship.”  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kiesling, 125 Ohio St.3d 36, 2010-
Ohio-1555, 925 N.E.2d 970, ¶ 44, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 
Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 40} After thoroughly reviewing the record and our applicable precedent, 
we agree with the board’s assessment that Gernert’s misconduct is more serious 
than the misconduct at issue in Connor and Strauss.  Gernert’s misconduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
consisted of two OVI convictions and two separate violations of the terms of 
probation imposed for his criminal conduct—in contrast to the single driving-
under-the-influence incident charged in Connor.  Similarly, Gernert’s alcohol-
related misconduct spanned over a year and involved several relapses of an 
apparent alcohol-use disorder, in contrast to the misconduct at issue in Strauss, 
which occurred over a single drunken night that was apparently unrelated to any 
substance-use disorder.  Regardless, Gernert is aware of his previous shortcomings 
and the insidious nature of his disorder, and he has voluntarily sought the assistance 
of a SCRAM device to keep him accountable as he continues to work through AA 
and counseling on his journey toward recovery. 
{¶ 41} We also agree with the board’s determination that Gernert’s 
misconduct was less egregious than the misconduct at issue in Washington, Hoppel, 
Greco, and Kelley because Gernert caused no harm to clients through the 
conversion of client funds, the neglect of clients’ legal matters, or the complete 
abandonment of clients.  And, to his credit, Gernert did not appear in court or 
attempt to represent any clients while he was intoxicated as the attorneys in 
Wineman and Scurry had. 
{¶ 42} Although Gernert was once intoxicated when he was scheduled to 
be in court to prosecute a driving-under-suspension case in his capacity as the 
interim city law director, he called to alert the municipal court that he was unable 
to proceed.  While this conduct resulted in the dismissal of that case, there is no 
evidence to suggest that Gernert’s alcohol-use disorder otherwise impaired his 
professional performance.  On the contrary, the character letters that Gernert 
submitted—primarily from judges, attorneys, magistrates, and the mayor of 
Bucyrus—uniformly describe him as a prepared and effective attorney and 
expressly note that to the authors’ knowledge, his alcohol use had not caused any 
impairment or adverse consequences in the performance of his professional duties. 
January Term, 2024 
 
15 
{¶ 43} On these facts, we conclude that a two-year suspension, stayed on 
the conditions recommended by the board, will both protect the public and support 
Gernert’s recovery. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 44} Accordingly, Brian Nicholas Gernert is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years, fully stayed on the conditions that he (1) 
remain in compliance with the terms of his February 13, 2023 OLAP contract and 
extend the term of that contract through the term of the stayed disciplinary 
suspension, (2) complete, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, three 
hours of CLE focused on alcoholism, substance abuse, or mental-health issues, (3) 
comply with the terms of probation imposed in his criminal cases, (4) serve a two-
year period of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), and (5) 
engage in no further misconduct.  If Gernert fails to comply with any condition of 
the stay, the stay will be revoked and he will be required to serve the full two-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Gernert. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and DETERS, 
JJ. 
BRUNNER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Benjamin B. Nelson, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Coughlan Law Firm, L.L.C., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent. 
_________________