Attorneys to get big cut of $300K OmniSource settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An OmniSource executive says the company wouldn't have made the settlement with the Marion County prosecutor if it knew more than a third of the cash wouldn't be going to Indianapolis police for training programs.

When Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry announced he was dropping criminal and civil charges against scrap-metal recycling firm OmniSource Inc., he said the company had agreed to make a $300,000 contribution, as a show of good faith, to fund law enforcement training programs.

In reality, the funds are being processed like any other civil forfeiture involving an illegal business enterprise, and less than $200,000 of the settlement cash will actually make it to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

First in line to be paid: Contingent-fee private attorneys Greg Garrison, who filed the initial civil forfeiture case while under contract with former Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, and Mark K. Sullivan, an outside attorney brought on by Curry as Garrison's co-counsel. The pair will split 15 percent of the settlement, or $45,000, plus filing fees.

The remaining $255,000 will be split, with 20 percent going to the prosecutor's office, 75 percent going to IMPD, and 5 percent for a joint fund administered by the prosecutor and director of public safety, said Chief Deputy Prosecutor David Rimstidt.

The total going to IMPD, about $191,250, does not sit well with OmniSource officials.

The company would not have agreed to the deal if they knew the settlement would pay an "ounce of tribute to this scurrilous investigation," said Ben Eisbart, a vice president at Fort Wayne-based Steel Dynamics Inc., OmniSource's parent company.

OmniSource intended the "donation" to be used for law enforcement programs, including training on how to prevent scrap-metal theft, an extension of the company's own more-than-$1 million investment in anti-theft measures at its five local scrap yards, Eisbart said.

"The citizens of Indianapolis will be infinitely better served by having well-trained individuals than by paying some lawyers," he said. "We're beside ourselves. We want to meet with the prosecutor to find out where it went off the track. This was never about money."

The $300,000 roughly matches the amount of cash authorities seized from local OmniSource scrap yards in 2009, after a year-long investigation into the company's alleged purchases of stolen cars, boats, gutters and wiring.

A Marion County grand jury returned a 16-page indictment against OmniSource in October 2010, charging the company with three counts of corrupt business influence and five counts of attempted receipt of stolen property.

There was plenty of evidence to prove employees of OmniSource bought stolen property, Curry said. The problem was proving employees knew the metal had been stolen. And after a judge threw out the corrupt business influence charge, that left just five counts of attempted stolen property.

Curry said he decided against investing the resources in pursuing the charges that at most would result in a fine of $10,000 per count and no jail time for anyone. The seized cash will be returned to OmniSource, which will then make its $300,000 contribution.

"It's fair to say there was a negotiation on all the terms of the ultimate agreement," Curry said. "We will process it as a civil forfeiture."

The prosecutor's office is no longer using outside contingent-fee attorneys to handle civil forfeitures, Curry noted, though he said he had no choice but to honor the prior agreement between Brizzi and Garrison.

Even though Garrison stands to collect a cut of the settlement, he said he was livid when he heard Curry would be dropping the charges.

In his forfeiture filing against OmniSource of behalf of Brizzi, Garrison wrote that the company buys millions of dollars worth of stolen metal per year as its “regular way of doing business” and operates in a similar fashion all over the state.

"Letting those guys go in the face of the powerful evidence that supported both the criminal and civil cases is inconceivable to me," Garrison wrote in an e-mail to Indianapolis Business Journal on Thursday. "Damn."

OmniSource had described the civil suit, which sought the forfeiture of five Indianapolis-area scrap yards and a foundry facility in Hendricks County, as part of a plan by Brizzi and Garrison to “extract money” under threat of civil forfeiture. Garrison filed the case during Brizzi's last week as prosecutor.

This story originally ran in the July 15, 2011, IBJ Daily. The IBJ is a sister pubilcation of Indiana Lawyer.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues