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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT