ILNews

Lawyer arrested for trying to exchange representation for sexual favor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County attorney has been charged with offering legal services to an undercover police officer in exchange for sex.

Christopher A. Hollander, 36, who works for the Marion County Public Defender Agency, was arrested Dec. 4 after he went to a hotel to meet up with a woman he thought was a prostitute to offer her legal services. Hollander had found the woman, Harmony Scott, through a website used by escorts and prostitutes to post advertisements, and he discovered that she had been arrested when looking through the initial hearings that come through the agency’s misdemeanor division.

He sent text messages to Scott’s phone, which was being used by Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Sgt. Joshua Shaugnessy and arranged to meet the woman at a hotel to discuss providing legal services.

The woman at the hotel was actually Det. Tabatha McLemore, also of the IMPD Human Trafficking and Vice Unit. While in the hotel room, Hollander tried to exchange legal representation for sex. He also suggested engaging intercourse at that time. That’s when police entered the room.

Hollander admitted that he had used information obtained through his job to meet prostitutes at their hotel rooms under the pretense of discussing pending criminal charges, but denied patronizing any of those prostitutes.

The criminal charge was filed against Hollander Thursday. According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, he is in good standing and was admitted in 2007.

 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT