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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT