ILNews

Conour defender asks to withdraw from 7th Circuit appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The public defender appointed to represent convicted fraudster and former leading personal-injury attorney William Conour has asked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to withdraw from the case, citing an unspecified conflict of interest.

Conour, 66, was convicted last year in federal court in Indianapolis of stealing approximately $6.7 million from about 30 clients for whom he secured settlements of wrongful-death and personal-injury cases. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison on a single count of wire fraud – 10 years less than federal prosecutors sought and also less than the 14- to 17.5-year terms recommended in a presentencing report.

Attorney Sara J. Varner of Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., moved to withdraw as Conour’s attorney last week. “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 says.

The filing comes just a couple of weeks after the government announced it wouldn’t pursue an appeal of Conour’s sentence that prosecutors believed was too lenient.

Varner’s motion also indicates apparent misunderstanding regarding Conour’s appellate posture.

“Following the dismissal of the United States appeal, counsel has been in contact with Mr. Conour regarding his intentions to proceed with his appeal. Prior to the United States dismissal, it was understood by counsel that Mr. Conour did not intend to proceed if the United States dismissed. That is no longer the case,” Varner wrote.

A day after Varner’s filing, the 7th Circuit ordered briefing in Conour’s appeal suspended pending a ruling on Varner’s motion to withdraw. Conour’s appellate brief had been due May 23. The case is United States of America v. William F. Conour, 13-3753.

Conour is serving his sentence at the Morgantown (W.Va.) Federal Correctional Institution. His projected release date is March 6, 2022.



 

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. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT