IBJNews

Brizzi hires ex-partner to handle public records requests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi has hired his former legal partner and personal attorney to field public records requests.

Under the deal, signed in June, locally based Collignon & Dietrick PC is responsible for the review and production of Prosecutor’s Office e-mails, contracts, case files and other documents requested by members of the media or public.

The firm was known as Brizzi Collignon & Dietrick before Brizzi sold his stake and left to run for prosecutor in 2002. Principal Thomas D. Collignon, who is leading the Prosecutor’s Office account, also represents Brizzi personally on matters he declined to discuss.

Brizzi Brizzi

“Obviously, I don’t think I have any conflicts,” Collignon said. “Public records requests need to be handled, and [attorneys in the Prosecutor’s Office] have another important job to do.”

A contract calls for the firm to bill the Prosecutor’s Office between $95 and $225 per hour, depending on who handles the work. Collignon, who bills at $225, will have primary responsibility. Collignon & Dietrick was not paid a retainer and has not yet sent its first invoice.

The contract, which does not cap the payments, is a new expense for the Prosecutor’s Office. Public records previously had been produced as part of an ongoing agreement with the city’s in-house legal division.

The Office of Corporation Counsel withdrew itself from handling Prosecutor’s Office media requests in May, citing “an unavoidable and concurrent conflict of interest” relating to another municipal agency it represents. Attorneys in the office have declined to elaborate.

Corporation Counsel Samantha S. Karn gave Brizzi permission to hire an in-house or outside counsel to help with pending and future requests, and shipped over a pile of records requests in process.

Records requests have poured in as an IBJ investigation that began late last year raised questions about Brizzi’s business dealings while in office and whether those deals influenced his actions as prosecutor.

The agreement with Collignon & Dietrick has a conflict-of-interest provision that pledges that none of the firm’s employees have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office.

Prosecutor’s Office spokeswoman Susan Decker, of locally based Hirons & Co., did not respond to a phone message or e-mail by press time but later offered a statement explaining the rationale for hiring Collignon.

"It was quickly determined that Collignon & Dietrick was a good choice due to their experience and knowledge of city legal and work with the Prosecutor's Office," Decker wrote.

Karn declined to comment on whether Brizzi’s choice of Collignon to handle records requests is appropriate.

“As far as their contracts go, our office approves outside contracts for them but they then choose who they use,” she said.

The deal with Collignon & Dietrick isn’t the department’s only outsourcing deal. The Prosecutor’s Office is paying Hirons $6,500 per month to field media requests until Brizzi’s term ends Dec. 31. And locally based Garrison Law Firm handles selected civil forfeiture work in exchange for keeping 20 percent to 30 percent of the take. Parceling out civil forfeiture work isn’t as rare as the other deals.

The state’s Access to Public Records statute describes the production of documents as “an integral part of the routine duties of public officials and employees.”

Delegating instead to a private vendor is an unusual and questionable move, said Steve Key, general counsel at the Hoosier State Press Association.

“In general, public agencies have a better feel for where their records are, what’s in them, and whether those records fall into a category that would give them discretion or mandate to keep them confidential, as opposed to sending off to a third party that would not know the inner workings of the agency,” Key said. “On top of that, we’re talking about an agency staffed with numerous attorneys who would be able to understand basics of the Access to Public Records Act.”

It is unusual for a government agency in Indiana to outsource responsibility for producing public records, but it is not prohibited by law and can be helpful when agencies are overwhelmed, said Indiana Public Access Counselor Andrew Kossack.

Hiring outsiders can “actually speed things along” in some cases, Kossack said, including in the recent Carmel hazing case, in which the Noblesville law firm Church Church Hittle & Antrim helped field requests.

“It can be advantageous if it’s an attorney with a specialty in records requests,” Kossack said.

Collignon focuses his practice on “complex litigation matters including breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, breach of contract, real estate disputes, usurpation of corporate opportunities and shareholder disputes,” according to the firm’s website. Other areas of expertise include professional disciplinary proceedings and family-law matters.

Kossack said it’s not necessarily a conflict that Collignon also represents Brizzi individually, including on a case where the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission alleges Brizzi in 2006 gave inappropriate statements about active cases including the murder of seven people on Hamilton Avenue.

At least one reporter, Russ McQuaid of WXIN-TV Channel 59, has called off a months-old request for hundreds of e-mails sent or received by particular members of the Prosecutor’s Office staff. He sent a letter to Collignon explaining that he didn’t want taxpayers to get a big bill to produce sanitized documents.

IBJ has received responses to most of its requests, which have not been as broad.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • PUKE FACE
    Will Brizzi go back and become an equity owner at that firm? That work is not $95 to $225 a hour.

    I agree any payment to that firm appears dubious based on Mr. Brizzi's prior decision making.

    City legal should be performing the work and it would cost < than $40 an hour. There supposed (undisclosed) conflict is a joke.

    I view McQuades removal of his FOIA requests essentially as spitting in Brizzi's face...

    FOX did a great job of showing just what an unsavory character Brizzi is.
  • obvious
    It is obvious why this is questionable. The prosecutor's office is supposed to convict criminals.

    But everything about Signore Brizzi's work has a questionable financial angle. The streak of these dealings is really amazing. Have we already forgotten letting a murderer off early after her family made a nice campaign donation?

    He has brought the microscope on himself and he deserves to have every decision questioned.
    • Why
      Of all the law firms to choose from, why does he select a firm that he has personal ties with?? Does he have any idea how this appears or does he care???
    • Is this a story?
      If the media stopped making so many requests, there would be no need to outsource. It's likely that Mr. McQuaid "called-off his requests" on advice of counsel. His piece on Mr. Brizzi was not well done and likely put the station at risk of legal action (why was Fox the only station to run such a piece - and why no follow-up). Restaurant reviews are more interesting than these stories!
    • witch hunt
      lets keep the witch hunt going.you better be right.

    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 IBJ 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT