ILNews

Conour now accused of taking $4.5M from clients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Special U.S. Attorney Richard Cox filed an information in federal court Tuesday which accuses William Conour of stealing more than $4.5 million from 25 clients.

The government alleges that Conour, whose practice focused on personal injury claims until resigning from the bar in June, schemed to defraud his clients. The information says that Conour didn’t deposit the full amount of settlement funds into trust accounts and instead kept more than $3 million. He is also accused of using settlement funds from clients to make settlement payments to other clients.

The information also alleges that he negotiated a $450,000 settlement on behalf of a client without the client’s consent or knowledge, and he used the money to pay personal and business expenses as well as pay settlements and fees associated with other clients.

The government has charged him with wire fraud for faxing from his office on Oct. 6, 2011, to a company in New Jersey a document that contained that client’s release and indemnification agreement.

The claims are the same as those filed in a complaint April 27 in federal court in Indianapolis, but that complaint alleged that Conour had stolen more than $2.5 million. The government sought an extension of time to get an indictment in the case, and it instead filed this information. When informations are filed, it can be an indication that communications have taken place between the defendant, counsel and the government and that the defendant will plead guilty.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of Illinois is handling the case because the Southern District of Indiana has been recused.

Conour has been disbarred in the federal courts.

 

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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT