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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT