ILNews

Anderson attorney resigns following child porn charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the resignation of an Anderson attorney who faces federal criminal charges for possession and distribution of child pornography.

An order dated May 20 was posted by the Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office Tuesday in the case In The Matter of Samuel C. Hasler, 48S00-DI- 276, which dismisses the ongoing disciplinary action against the longtime family law attorney who has a pending case against him in the U.S. District Court’s Southern District of Indiana.

A sole practitioner admitted to the bar in 1987, Samuel Hasler was arrested in March on two counts of distributing child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography following a joint investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and police in Carmel and Fishers. The complaint says that Hasler used a computer to distribute multiple images of child pornography through the Internet to someone in another state on Dec. 3, 2009. Then on Feb. 14, he allegedly used a computer to distribute more images of child pornography by sending them through the Internet to an undercover police officer, and the complaint also alleges Hasler kept images and videos of child pornography in his law office on an external hard drive.

Following his arrest, Hasler has been at a community confinement facility and a drug test there revealed he was positive for cocaine. As a result, the federal court on May 12 modified his conditions of release to include drug testing and treatments, if necessary. A trial date hasn’t been set and the case remains pending. If convicted, he faces between 5 and 20 years in prison for distribution and up to 10 years in prison for the possession charge. He also faces up to $250,000 in fines per count and a term of supervised release, possibly for life.
 

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