Title: In the Matter of:  Christopher A. Hollander
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 49S00-1402-DI-118
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: March 24, 2015

RESPONDENT PRO SE 
Christopher A. Hollander 
Carmel, Indiana 
ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT  
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION 
G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary 
Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S00-1402-DI-118 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHRISTOPHER A. HOLLANDER, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent. 
_________________________________ 
 
Attorney Discipline Action 
_________________________________ 
 
 
March 24, 2015 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
We find that Respondent, Christopher A. Hollander, engaged in a course of attorney 
misconduct in connection with his efforts to patronize a prostitute.  For this misconduct, we 
conclude that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for at least 
one year without automatic reinstatement.   
  
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a "Statement of 
Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline" stipulating agreed facts and proposed 
discipline.  The Respondent's 2007 admission to this state's bar subjects him to this Court's 
disciplinary jurisdiction.  See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.  The Court approves the agreement and 
proposed discipline.   
 
Mar 24 2015, 8:21 am
 
Stipulated Facts 
 
 
H.S., using a fictitious name, had placed an online classified advertisement for escort 
services that listed her cell phone number.  At some point, H.S. was arrested by the Indianapolis 
Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) for engaging in prostitution.  
 
 
At relevant times, Respondent was employed as a public defender.  Respondent had seen 
and remembered H.S.’s classified advertisement, and when Respondent came across a police 
report containing the same phone number, he was able to determine specific arrest information 
regarding H.S. and thereafter identify her. 
 
 
On or about November 30, 2012, Respondent sent a text message to H.S.’s cell phone, 
apparently without realizing that H.S.’s phone was in IMPD’s possession.  An officer 
impersonating H.S. responded to that text as well as several other texts and calls from 
Respondent during the next several days.  In those communications, Respondent indicated he 
could help H.S. with her situation, falsely stated he had been given information about her from a 
former client, said he would “work with” H.S. regarding her attorney fees, and set up an 
appointment to meet her.  
 
 
On December 4, Respondent met in a hotel room with an undercover IMPD officer 
impersonating H.S.  Respondent attempted to hug and kiss the officer, made statements 
conveying that he wanted sex in return for his legal services, and began to undress.  Respondent 
then was arrested for patronizing a prostitute.  After his arrest, Respondent gave a statement to 
police admitting that he had used information obtained through his employment as a public 
defender to attempt to meet H.S. under the pretense of discussing her pending criminal case, and 
that his intention in doing so was to have sex or fellatio in exchange for providing legal services. 
 
The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 
prohibiting the following misconduct: 
 
 
2 
1.2(d): Attempting to counsel or assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows to be criminal. 
1.5(a): Attempting to charge an unreasonable fee (sex for legal services). 
1.7(a): Attempting to represent a client when the representation involves a concurrent 
conflict of interest.    
1.8(j): Attempting to engage in a sexual relationship with a client unless it began prior to the 
representation. 
7.3(a): Improperly soliciting employment in-person, by phone, or by real time electronic 
contact from a person with whom the lawyer has no prior relationship when a significant 
motive is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. 
8.4(a): Attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
8.4(b): Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
 
The parties cite no facts in aggravation.  The following facts are cited in mitigation: (1) 
Respondent has no prior discipline; (2) following his arrest, Respondent sought help from the 
Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”), he has been under a JLAP 
monitoring agreement, and he has been receiving psychological therapy and treatment; (3) 
Respondent was candid with police immediately following his arrest; and (4) Respondent has 
expressed remorse for his behavior. 
 
Discussion and Discipline 
 
 
Our analysis of appropriate discipline entails consideration of the nature of the 
misconduct, the duties violated by the respondent, any resulting or potential harm, the 
respondent's state of mind, our duty to preserve the integrity of the profession, the risk to the 
public should we allow the respondent to continue in practice, and matters in mitigation and 
aggravation.  See Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792, 800 (Ind. 2011). 
 
 
3 
The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, to which we frequently look for 
guidance regarding appropriate discipline, provide: 
 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in 
criminal conduct . . . that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice. 
 
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in 
conduct that is a violation of a duty as a professional and causes injury or 
potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. 
 
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 5.12, 7.2.  We conclude that each of these 
standards obtains in respect of the matter before us. 
 
In the current case, Respondent and the Commission propose that Respondent receive a 
one year suspension from the practice of law, without automatic reinstatement, for his admitted 
misconduct.  Concluding that this is appropriate discipline under the circumstances, the Court 
approves the proposed discipline.  To regain his privilege to practice law, Respondent would be 
required to petition this Court for reinstatement, with the burden of demonstrating by clear and 
convincing evidence remorse for his misconduct, a proper understanding of the standards 
imposed upon members of the bar, and his rehabilitation and fitness to practice law, among other 
things.  See Admis. Disc. R. 23(4)(b).     
 
Conclusion 
 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 
by, among other things, patronizing a prostitute and attempting to obtain sex or fellatio in 
exchange for legal services.  For Respondent's professional misconduct, the Court suspends 
Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of not less than one year, without 
automatic reinstatement, effective immediately.  Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a 
suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).  At the conclusion of the 
minimum period of suspension, Respondent may petition this Court for reinstatement to the 
practice of law in this state, provided Respondent pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills the 
 
4 
duties of a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and 
Discipline Rules 23(4) and (18).   
 
The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent.  The hearing officer 
appointed in this case is discharged. 
 
All Justices concur. 
  
 
5