Former Prosecutor Suspended for Inappropriate Conduct Toward Employees

The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended former Hocking County Prosecutor Ryan Black for two years, with six months stayed, for engaging in a pattern of sexual misconduct with two of his office employees.

Black won the prosecutor’s office in November 2020 and resigned in April 2024. A Supreme Court majority found Black engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. At his disciplinary hearing, Black 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 he was entirely responsible for that.

“I fostered an environment that was beyond unprofessional and unacceptable,” he said.

The Court’s per curiam opinion noted that about four months before his resignation, Black sought treatment for alcohol abuse and mental health conditions, which included bipolar disorder. The Court stayed the final six months of his suspension from the practice of law on the condition that he not commit further misconduct, submit quarterly reports that he is undergoing mental health and substance abuse treatment, and participate in an Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program requiring random alcohol and drug testing.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Prosecutor Admits Inappropriate Behavior
Black admitted he experienced alcohol abuse issues prior to attending law school, noting that “alcohol rehabilitation failure” contributed to his medical discharge from the U.S. Coast Guard. He also stated he was arrested in October 2010 for drunken driving with “an exceedingly high” blood-alcohol content, and his subsequent time in a halfway house sparked his interest in attending law school. He testified that in 2013 he began a 10-year stretch of sobriety. During that time, while completing an inpatient treatment program, he found he was suffering from euphoric and depressive episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

He passed the bar exam in 2018 and spent nine months as an assistant prosecutor in Vinton County before being elected Hocking County prosecutor in 2020. He testified the job was “significantly more” to manage than he anticipated.

Employees reported Black’s behavior in the office was erratic and he frequently engaged in screaming outbursts and refused to speak to staff members for several days at a time. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct in April 2024 charging him with several ethics violations.

The disciplinary counsel and Black stipulated that his inappropriate sexual conduct with two employees constituted two rule infractions. A three-member board hearing panel then unanimously dismissed the remaining charges against Black.

Board Examined Employee Allegations
Only Black and his counselor, Steven Gifford, testified at Black’s disciplinary hearing. Several former prosecutor’s office employees submitted affidavits in lieu of their testimony. The disciplinary counsel alleged that Black made inappropriate sexual comments to and about an assistant prosecutor identified in court records as “S.R.” who he hired in January 2021. During her employment, he sent her text messages containing shirtless photographs of himself and made sexually suggestive comments. In one instance, Black and S.R. attended a party where the host had recently bought a pet donkey. The host asked S.R. if she wanted to feed a carrot to the donkey. Black responded by sending a text to S.R. with a carrot-related sexual innuendo.

S.R. left the prosecutor’s office in November 2021.

A victim’s advocate in the prosecutor’s office, identified as “K.V.,” and another former employee filed a lawsuit against Black in February 2024, after both left the office in 2023. Black and K.V. began texting flirtatious messages in 2022 and eventually had sex twice. K.V. indicated that she then attempted to end their sexual relationship, which caused their work relationship to deteriorate. She accused him of engaging in retaliatory actions with the intent of getting her to resign. The lawsuit, which the parties settled, accused Black of creating a hostile work environment.

Supreme Court Adopted Recommended Sanction
When recommending a proposed sanction to the Court, the board examined Black’s mental health and alcohol abuse. The board noted that Black was sober during the time he engaged in professional misconduct, but he relapsed and began drinking again in October 2023. He entered treatment for alcohol abuse and received a diagnosis of agoraphobia with panic disorder along with his previously diagnosed bipolar disorder.

Gifford testified that Black’s “diagnosed and untreated mental disorders” contributed to his behavior at work.

“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,” the opinion stated.

Black and disciplinary counsel agreed that Black needs additional treatment and time to recover before he is fit to resume the practice of law. In order to be reinstated, Black must submit quarterly reports from his counselors regarding his compliance with their treatment recommendations, submit to random drug and alcohol testing, and obtain an opinion from a qualified healthcare professional that he can return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law, the Court stated.

The Court also charged Black for the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2024-1725. Disciplinary Counsel v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1790.

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.