ILNews

Against court orders, Conour auctioned art for $10k

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former personal injury attorney William Conour claims his ex-wife is in possession of most of the items the government says are missing from his Carmel home, but he acknowledged auctioning sculptures for $10,000 in an apparent violation of bond conditions in his federal wire fraud case.

The admission is contained in Conour’s response to the government’s claim that numerous items inventoried by federal agents at his home, law office and Sheridan horse stables after his arrest more than a year ago could not be located during a recent follow-up inventory.

Conour said in a Friday filing that more than 75 items the government lists as missing from his home – including art, furniture, televisions, sports memorabilia and other items – “were awarded to Jennifer Conour as part of the dissolution of marriage property settlement and are at her residence.”

But one item isn’t. “Item 151 (‘large matching sculptures, Asian birds and flowers’) was sold at auction in November. Mr. Conour received approximately $10,000 for that sale in February 2013 and used that money for living expenses,” according to the filing by his federal public defender, Michael J. Donahoe.

Conour is set to stand trial September 9 in federal court in the Southern District of Indiana. He is accused of defrauding more than 25 clients of more than $4.5 million, though victims and attorneys familiar with the case believe the figure might be several million dollars more. Conour was arrested in April 2012 and resigned from the bar in June 2012.

The government last month sought to revoke Conour’s bond, arguing that he violated its terms when he dissipated inventoried items. Southern District Chief Judge Richard Young ordered a new inventory and ordered Conour to reacquire and place back in his possession items that had been dissipated.

In a May 10 entry, Young wrote that Donahoe “represented that most of the missing assets were transferred to (Conour’s) ex-wife pursuant to an uncontested divorce decree … (T)he inventoried assets were not to be transferred without permission of the court.”

Young earlier this month took federal prosecutor Jason Bohm’s request for bond revocation under advisement pending the outcome of the government’s latest inventory. As of midday Monday, Young had taken no further action.  

Weeks after Conour was charged and bond conditions set, Jennifer Conour filed a divorce action in Kosciusko Superior Court. In December, a judge in Warsaw approved a dissolution of marriage that divided the couples’ assets, awarding Jennifer Conour the Sheridan horse farm, among other things.

Conour addresses the divorce in his most recent filing. “Clearly, the dissolution decree from the Kosciusko Superior Court constitutes a ‘court order’ as that term is used in the release conditions,” his response says. “Furthermore, any objective valuation of the marital estate would demonstrate that the personal property was divided with Mr. Conour receiving well over 50 percent of the personal property despite the presumption under Indiana law that ‘… an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable.’

“Had that case proceeded to a contested hearing the property division would, in all likelihood, have been far less favorable than that provided by the negotiated settlement,” Conour claims in the filing.

Meantime, Conour says in the filing that his ex refuses through her attorney to return property, and much of it would have been subject to Jennifer Conour’s claim of ownership before their marriage. “In other words, the ability to use that property for restitution has not been compromised by the property settlement and relocation.”

The filing also asserts that several inventoried items that the government says are missing are in Conour’s home and apparently were overlooked in the follow-up asset check.

After Conour put the large matching sculptures of Asian birds and flowers on the auction block, Donahoe was appointed his public defender. After Conour received the approximately $10,000 from the sale, he requested a separate $10,000 for living expenses from a court fund that had been established for restitution and other purposes.

That request was withdrawn when the government opposed it and raised the issue of asset dissipation. “The United States remains concerned that the defendant may attempt to liquidate all his assets leaving little for possible restitution for the victims,” the government argued in March.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT