The Supreme Court of Ohio today extended the suspension of the former Bucyrus city law director after he was convicted of drunken driving while already under suspension for alcohol-related misconduct.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed on Brian Gernert. The suspension is to run consecutively to the two-year suspension imposed on him in October 2024. The opinion noted Gernert would have been eligible to apply for reinstatement in October 2026, but the new suspension extends the time before he can reapply.

At his August 2025 disciplinary hearing, Gernert reported he had completed both inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, followed by a 12-week aftercare treatment program to address an alcohol-use disorder. He had remained sober for more than a year. The Board of Professional Conduct recommended that he receive a fully stayed two-year suspension.

A Court majority found that an actual suspension of six months, with 18 months stayed with conditions, was “necessary to impart the seriousness of Gernert’s repeated violations and allow him to focus more fully on his nascent sobriety without the additional stress attendant to the practice of law.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Fourth District Court of Appeals Judge Michael D. Hess, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine and Joseph T. Deters stated they would adopt the board’s recommendation.

Lawyer Driving Four Times Over Legal Blood Alcohol Limit
In 2021, Gernert was appointed Bucyrus law director and was elected to the office in 2023. In May 2024, the Court imposed a fully stayed two-year suspension  after Gernert was convicted twice of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OVI) and failing to appear to prosecute a municipal court case because he was intoxicated.

Gernert violated the conditions of his stayed suspension and probation for his OVIs in August 2024 when he drove while intoxicated. A witness observed Gernert driving erratically on a state highway. The witness followed Gernert for about four miles and saw Gernert’s vehicle drive off the road and into a ditch before it went airborne, rolled, and landed in a field.

A sheriff’s deputy responding to the witness’s 911 call found that Gernert was unharmed but could not maintain his balance or walk straight. When the deputy asked Gernert how much he had had to drink, Gernert replied, “At least a 12-pack.” 

Gernert was transported to the Seneca County Jail. He refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test.
A blood test showed Gernert had a blood-alcohol level of 0.32, which is four times the legal limit of 0.08. He was charged with OVI and OVI refusal and released to the custody of his father, who immediately transported him to an intensive inpatient treatment program at a nearby hospital.

Gernert completed his inpatient treatment program in mid-September 2024 and resigned from office in October.

Gernert pled guilty to a high-test OVI in Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court, and the original charges against him were dismissed.  He was sentenced to 120 days in jail. The court suspended 30 days of the sentence, crediting him with the time he served in the treatment program. The court added a conditional 240-day sentence, which was suspended as long as Gernert complied with a five-year probation sentence. The probation sentence included having his driver’s license suspended for eight years and requiring him to wear a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor for two years.

Additional Sanctions Sought
In May 2025, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Gernert with the Board of Professional Conduct. The disciplinary counsel noted that Gernert committed the August 2024 OVI offense while under a stayed suspension, prompting the Court to lift the stay and suspend Gernert from practicing law.

The parties stipulated, and the board agreed, that Gernert engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

When recommending a sanction in a disciplinary case, the board considers aggravating circumstances that could increase the penalty and mitigating factors that could lead to a lesser sanction.

The board found Gernert had prior disciplinary offenses, but noted he fully cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings, provided evidence of good character and reputation, and received other penalties and sanctions for his misconduct.

The board indicated that Gernert established he was diagnosed with an alcohol-use disorder, which contributed to his misconduct, and completed approved treatment programs.

The Court noted Gernert was convicted of OVI after he was previously disciplined for similar alcohol-related offenses and that his actions placed himself and the public at significant risk. He also violated the terms of his previously stayed suspension, the opinion stated.

The Court stated that when a prior attempt at discipline proves ineffective, the discipline for a repeated offense may be greater than it would have imposed for a first offense.

Gernert’s new suspension will begin when his prior October 2024 suspension ends. The Court stayed 18 months of the suspension under the conditions that Gernert remain compliant with an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract he entered. He must also complete three hours of continuing legal education focused on alcoholism, substance abuse, or mental health, and comply with all the conditions of his criminal sentence and probation. He also must not engage in further misconduct and must pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

If Gernert is reinstated to the practice of law, he must then serve two years of monitored probation.

2025-1322. Disciplinary Counsel v. Gernert, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-529.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.