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

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT