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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT