Ex-Marion County Prosecutor Brizzi suspended for misconduct

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana after the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission found he violated prohibitions against representing a client in a case in which he had a personal interest.

After previously being cleared from disciplinary charges related to a failure to disclose financial interests, Brizzi was charged with additional disciplinary violations related to a 2009 drug case.

In that case, former criminal defense attorney Paul Page, with whom Brizzi had a business relationship, was representing a person facing drug charges in Marion County, including a Class B felony, the highest charge. Page worked out a plea agreement with Brizzi’s deputies calling for the client to plead guilty to a Class C felony and forfeit $17,550 in cash. However, when Page brought the issue directly to Brizzi, the prosecutor instructed the deputies to allow the client to plead guilty to a Class D felony, with eligibility for alternate misdemeanor sentencing, and to return a portion of the seized cash.

“Intervention of this nature was highly unusual; the chief deputy indicated he had never previously been given such an instruction by Respondent in a narcotics case, and both deputies knew of no reason to reduce the lead charge to a Class D felony or to return any of the seized funds, as they felt the case against (the client) was very strong,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote in a Wednesday disciplinary order.

Based on that situation, the disciplinary commission charged Brizzi with violating Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(a)(2), which prohibits representing a client if “there is a significant risk that the representation … will be materially limited by … a personal interest of the lawyer.” Brizzi then told the commission that his deputies had offered the client a Class D felony plea agreement prior to his involvement, so the commission charged him with a violation of Rule 8.4(c) for making a knowingly false statement. The hearing officer in Brizzi’s case agreed with the first charge, but found insufficient evidence to support the knowingly false statement accusation.

The hearing officer recommended a 30-day suspension for Brizzi, and the Indiana Supreme Court, excluding Justice Mark Massa, who did not participate, agreed. Thus, Brizzi will be suspended for 30 days effective May 1 with automatic reinstatement, provided there are no other suspensions in effect. The costs of the proceeding were also assessed against him.

The state’s high court has previously disciplined Brizzi, imposing a public reprimand against him five years ago for statements he made about a high-profile murder case. Additionally, in 2010, Massa, who was a Republican candidate for prosecutor at the time, called on Brizzi to resign.


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. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  2. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  3. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  4. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  5. 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!