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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.