ILNews

Conour assets raise more than $105,000 at auction

Dave Stafford
November 22, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An auction of art, wine and household furnishings seized from the former Carmel home of convicted ex-attorney William Conour fetched more than $105,000, most of which will go toward restitution for his client victims.

The auction by Texas-based Gaston & Sheehan Auctioneers concluded Tuesday with a final tally of $105,259. Results of the online auction include the sale of three original oil paintings by Indiana artist C.W. Mundy for more than $4,500 each. The total raised does not reflect auction house commissions or fees to be subtracted, and a representative of Gaston & Sheehan on Friday declined to provide such details.

Several lots did not receive bids meeting reserve prices. Those included six lots of various vintages of wines with reserve prices totaling $6,220, and two lots of stereo and home theater components each with reserve prices of $750. Those assets will be placed in a future marshals’ sale, according to the auction house.

United States Marshals inventoried Conour’s assets after he was charged last year with wire fraud, and he agreed to the sale after pleading guilty in July. Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana sentenced Conour to 10 years in prison last month.

Conour admitted to defrauding more than 30 former wrongful-death and personal-injury clients of about $6.7 million, the government says.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Need more facts
    Says above "Conour admitted to defrauding more than 30 former wrongful-death and personal-injury clients of about $6.7 million, the government says." CAN we be told over a how many year period, please? I mean, given the great resources Indiana marshals to ensure that no attorney speaks ill of a judge or the judicial process, there is no way this went on for more than a few months, correct?
  • best wishes to victims
    Well the Mundy paintings really are lovely and worth every cent paid. Also they fetched plenty per lot for the wine etc. On the other hand, lots of nice drop leaf tables went cheaply.

    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