ILNews

Conour claims restitution paid, that he's owed money

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former attorney and convicted fraudster William Conour has asked the federal court where he admitted he stole $6.5 million from dozens of wrongful-death and personal-injury clients to cut him a check for $184,214.26.

He claims the $634,214.26 made to date in restitution is greater than he owed the single victim to which he stipulated in court filings. He wants the difference sent to his commissary fund at the Morgantown Federal Correctional Institution in West Virginia.

Conour’s motion comes as he appeals to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals his 10-year sentence for conviction of a single count of wire fraud.

Conour “continues to deny that the correct and legal restitution figure is $6,530,266.32 as alleged by (the government),” his pro se motion says. Instead, he claims he is only required to make restitution to one victim identified as J.F, who he stipulated  he defrauded out of a $450,000 settlement executed without the client’s knowledge.

The government at Conour’s sentencing hearing in October “sought to enhance (Conour’s) sentence of imprisonment and restitution by adding cases under the ‘relevant conduct’ aggregation rule in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines,” his motion states. Conour argues in the filing that doing so is impermissible. Federal prosecutors dismiss those arguments.

Conour’s May 20 filing is in marked contrast to his demeanor when he sought leniency at sentencing from Chief Judge Richard Young of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. At sentencing,  Young read a list of names and the amount each former client lost in settlement proceeds Conour used to support a lavish lifestyle.

“Paying this debt to my former clients is my No. 1 priority,” Conour said at his sentencing.

Young told Conour at sentencing that he believed his remorse and intention to work toward full restitution for all his victims was sincere. He gave Conour a 10-year sentence, half of what prosecutors wanted and far below the 14- to 17.5-year range recommended in a pre-sentencing report.

The government has objected to Conour’s motion, which was in response to a motion for writ of garnishment that prosecutors filed in April. That motion claimed the Federal Defender’s office in Indianapolis holds about $2,500 in Conour’s money that could be deposited in the court’s restitution fund. Conour says that money, too, should be transferred to his commissary account.

Young has not yet ruled on the motions.

One day after the government filed its garnishment motion April 28, Indianapolis-based public defender Sara Varner filed a motion to withdraw as Conour’s attorney, citing an unspecified conflict. “Discussion with Mr. Conour has revealed a conflict of interest that prevents counsel from advising Mr. Conour further regarding his issues on appeal,” Varner’s filing said.

The government said in response to Conour’s bid to reduce his restitution that any hearing before the District Court should be narrow in focus.

“To the extent the Court wishes to consider Defendant’s premature Pro Se Answer and Objection to Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Garnishment on its merits, it should be overruled,” the government responded this week.

Conour’s appeal at the 7th Circuit isn’t expected to be fully briefed until July.
 
 

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. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT