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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT