ILNews

Judge denies Brizzi’s bid for gag order in malpractice suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge Tuesday denied former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi’s request for a gag order in the legal malpractice claim filed against him by defrocked Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White.

Marion Superior Judge Patrick McCarty refused a motion that would have barred parties from commenting to the media about the case. White sued Brizzi claiming legal malpractice in July over Brizzi’s representation in the criminal case that led to White’s removal as secretary of state. White was convicted of six of seven charges, including false registration, voting in another precinct and theft.

The suit alleges that Brizzi failed to present a defense and was ignorant of several areas of the law, among other things. Those allegations mirror many of the arguments White raised in his petition for post-conviction relief pending in Hamilton Superior Court.

White’s malpractice suit against Brizzi is the second filed against him by an elected official he represented who subsequently was convicted of a felony and removed from office.

Former Hancock County Coroner Tamara Vangundy sued Brizzi in May, claiming she paid for negligent legal advice from Brizzi regarding election law and the implications of a public official pleading guilty to a felony. Vangundy claims she did so on advice from Brizzi and was promptly removed from office.

Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed appointed a mediator in Vangundy’s case last month, but the mediator withdrew on Oct. 31, according to the case docket. A three-day jury trial in Vangundy’s case is scheduled to begin July 15, 2014.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT