ILNews

Ex-coroner settles malpractice suit against Brizzi

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of two legal malpractice suits filed against former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi has been settled.

Former Hancock County Coroner Tamara Vangundy sued Brizzi over his representation after his term as prosecutor had concluded. Vangundy claimed Brizzi provided negligent legal advice she relied on in pleading guilty to a felony charge of official misconduct, after which she was removed from office.

Attorneys for Vangundy and Brizzi on Monday filed a stipulation of dismissal that said the case had been settled following mediation earlier this month. Court filings contained no further information about the settlement. “All I can say is the parties have reached an agreement and the lawsuit has been dismissed,” said Irwin Levin of Cohen & Malad LLP, who represented Vangundy.

The settlement in Tamara Vangundy v. Carl Brizzi, et al., 49D01-1305-PL-20824, is awaiting approval from Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed.

Brizzi also is facing another malpractice suit from a convicted former elected official he represented, ex-Secretary of State Charlie White. In that case, Charles White v. Carl Brizzi, et al., 49D03-1307-CT-28488, Brizzi is accused of pursuing a jury nullification strategy and failing to present a defense.

Allegations in that case mirror many of those in White’s post-conviction petition, which a judge last week rejected. Brizzi in November filed a motion to dismiss that case before Marion Superior Judge Patrick McCarty. No further proceedings have been scheduled.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT