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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.