Elevating Ethical Accountability: Heightened Scrutiny of Elected Prosecutors under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h)

Introduction

Disciplinary Counsel v. Black (Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1790) addresses the disciplinary sanction imposed on an elected county prosecutor who engaged in a sustained pattern of sexual misconduct toward subordinates. Respondent Ryan Richard Black, Hocking County Prosecutor since January 2021, was accused of violating the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct by making repeatedly inappropriate sexual comments, exchanging explicit images, and pressuring two employees into a sexual relationship. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed findings by the Board of Professional Conduct and imposed a two-year suspension (six months conditionally stayed) with mental-health and substance-use conditions. Key issues include:

• The application of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (“conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law”) to sexual misconduct by a public official;
• The weight of aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental-health and substance-abuse evidence;
• The impact of holding elected attorneys to a heightened duty of professional conduct; and
• The appropriateness of a conditionally stayed suspension tied to rehabilitation requirements.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court adopted the Board of Professional Conduct’s findings that Black’s conduct with two subordinate employees—assistant prosecutors S.R. and K.V.—violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). After stipulating to facts and aggravating/mitigating factors, Black testified at a hearing before a three-member panel, which dismissed two counts but found sexual misconduct sufficient to warrant discipline. The parties agreed on a two-year suspension with six months stayed, conditioned on compliance with mental-health treatment, quarterly counselor reports, and enrollment in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP) with random testing. No objections were filed. The Supreme Court agreed that the nature of the misconduct, together with Black’s status as an elected prosecutor, justified the proposed sanction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court drew on a series of prior disciplinary decisions to calibrate the sanction:

• Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker (2013-Ohio-3998): Held that a pattern of sexual impropriety by a supervisor violated Rule 8.4(h).
• Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mismas (2014-Ohio-2483): Imposed a one-year suspension (six months stayed) on an attorney who solicited sexual favors from a young law clerk.
• Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick (2018-Ohio-2990): Imposed a one-year suspension (six months stayed) for verbal abuse and sexual propositions to a paralegal.
• Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett (2023-Ohio-4752): Conditionally stayed two-year suspension for sexual harassment of a law intern, recognizing prior loss of employment as a mitigating factor but emphasizing deterrence.
• Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young (2000-Ohio-160): Two-year suspension (one year stayed) for sexual advances and gender-based misconduct toward student employees.
• Disciplinary Counsel v. Taft (2006-Ohio-6525) and Dann (2012-Ohio-5337): Established that elected or judicial officers bear a heightened duty to maintain public confidence.

These authorities illustrate that sexual misconduct toward subordinates breaches fundamental professional duties and that public‐office holders merit elevated sanctions to preserve trust in public institutions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in four steps:

1. Misconduct Finding: Stipulations and hearing testimony established repeated sexually charged comments, unsolicited explicit images, and improper proposals to employees—conduct that “adversely reflects” on fitness under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).
2. Aggravating Factors (Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)):
   • Dishonest or selfish motive;
   • Pattern of misconduct;
   • Harm to vulnerable victims (subordinate employees);
3. Mitigating Factors (Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)):
   • No prior discipline;
   • Timely cooperation;
   • Rehabilitation efforts (mental health and substance-use treatment, voluntary resignation from office, character letters);
   • Acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse;
4. Sanction Selection: Compared to Mismas, Skolnick and Bennett, but elevated the sanction because Black held elected public office. The Court affirmed a two-year suspension with six months stayed on strict conditions to protect public confidence and promote rehabilitation.

Impact

Disciplinary Counsel v. Black reinforces several trends in Ohio professional discipline:

• Affirmation that sexual misconduct by supervisory attorneys—even in non‐courtroom settings—falls squarely within Rule 8.4(h).
• Recognition that individuals in elected legal offices are held to a heightened ethical standard, with greater deterrence through harsher sanctions.
• Integration of mental‐health and substance‐use evidence into the sanction: conditions tailored to an attorney’s rehabilitation and fitness to return.
• Emphasis on structured, conditionally stayed suspensions—balancing public protection with meaningful paths to reinstatement.

Future disciplinary panels will look to this decision when handling complaints against prosecutors, county officials, and other elected or appointed attorneys.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h): Prohibits any lawyer conduct that damages the public’s perception of the legal profession or suggests unfitness to practice.

Conditionally Stayed Suspension: Part of the suspension is “stayed” (not served) so long as the attorney meets specific conditions—such as counseling, random testing, and compliance with treatment—during the stay period.

Gov.Bar R. V(13) Aggravating vs. Mitigating Factors: A checklist that guides the severity of sanctions. Aggravating factors increase sanction; mitigating factors reduce it or allow a stay. Factors include prior discipline, level of cooperation, remorse, character evidence, and evidence of mental-health or substance-use disorders.

Board of Professional Conduct Process: A three-member panel hears evidence, makes recommendations to the full Board, whose report is then reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Conclusion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Black marks an important reaffirmation that attorneys in elected office must adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct. By imposing a two-year suspension (with a limited stay), the Supreme Court of Ohio underscored the gravity of sexual misconduct toward subordinates, the importance of protecting public confidence, and the role of targeted rehabilitation measures. This decision will guide future disciplinary proceedings involving public-office attorneys and reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to both accountability and the ethical recovery of practitioners.