ILNews

Conour appeals fraud conviction, 10-year sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former attorney William Conour will appeal his conviction and 10-year prison sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud.

Conour’s notice of appeal  was filed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, just days after federal prosecutors filed a notice preserving the government’s ability to appeal a sentence they believed was too lenient given the scope and nature of the offense.

Michael Donahoe, Conour’s court-appointed federal public defender in the District Court proceedings, could not be immediately reached for comment Thursday.

Conour, 66, pleaded guilty in July to a single count of wire fraud. At his sentencing in October, he admitted to government information that alleged he stole about $6.7 million from more than 30 former wrongful-death and personal-injury clients for whom he had negotiated settlements.

Prosecutors asked Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to impose the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and a presentencing report advised a sentence of 14 to 17.5 years in prison. But when he sentenced Conour to 10 years in October, Young said punishment would send a deterrent message while allowing Conour to have some role in providing victims the $6.5 million in restitution ordered by the court.
 
The 7th Circuit on Wednesday consolidated the defense and government appeals as USA v. William Conour, 13-3753, and ordered Conour’s appellate brief filed by Jan. 21. The appeal is to be fully briefed by April 7.

The 7th Circuit docket also reflects Donahoe terminated his representation of Conour on Wednesday. Conour now is represented by Sara Varner of Indiana Federal Community Defenders Inc. Varner could not be immediately reached for comment Thursday.

Conour is housed in the minimum security Morgantown (W.Va.) Federal Correctional Institutional, with a projected release date of March 6, 2022, according to the Bureau of Prisons.
 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT