ILNews

Conour drops attorneys, gets $15k from shrinking trust

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ex-attorney William Conour and his defense lawyers officially parted ways on Thursday. A federal judge afterward granted Conour’s request that he receive $15,000 from a $100,000 trust fund set up for compensating client victims he is accused of defrauding.

The ruling came after testimony that the trust fund established from Conour’s assets after he was charged in April with a single count of wire fraud had been depleted by almost half since its establishment.

U.S. District Chief Judge Richard L. Young approved Conour’s pro se request for money from the trust. Conour said he needs $15,000 every two months to pay bills and hire a defense attorney. “I’m just trying to support my family, your honor,” Conour said.

The government alleges Conour stole $4.5 million from clients’ personal injury settlement trust funds in a Ponzi scheme.

The disbursement from the trust came near the close of a brief hearing in which Conour’s attorney, Richard Kammen, told Young he and Dorie Maryan sought to withdraw as Conour’s attorney. “The relationship between he and I is irreparably broken,” Kammen said. “I think it’s appropriate that I withdraw.”

Conour told the judge, “I don’t object to it, and I consent to it.”

Kammen and Maryan began representing Conour in May after his initial defender, Jim Voyles, withdrew. Early on, the $100,000 trust was established with the court and was to collect and disburse assets to compensate victims and pay other claims as approved by the court.

Kammen told the court that since he began representing Conour, the fund’s balance had shrunk to $54,000 from various disbursements.

Conour said he was surprised by how low the balance was and that he had not received an accounting of the trust.

Young asked Conour about his remaining assets. He said he had some artwork for sale with a dealer in Carmel and was trying to sell a home appraised at $2.5 million, but which has a lien of more than $1 million.

He said he also was owed legal fees of nearly $2 million, but collecting would be a problem, especially since Conour resigned from the bar in July. “We might be able to get half that,” he said.

Marcia Anderson fumed during the proceeding. Injured in a car crash, she reached settlements through Conour’s representation of $175,000, but said she had received only $10,000 in the form of a loan.

“I have not seen any of it since,” Anderson said after the hearing. “I will probably never see a penny of it, either.” She said she will keep coming to court until she sees Conour led away in handcuffs.

Young set a progress hearing for Oct. 17, at which time he said Conour’s scheduled trial date of Oct. 22 likely would be reset.

Conour asked Young whether he should file another motion to request funds from the trust if he can’t secure counsel before the Oct. 17 hearing. Young told him that would be appropriate.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Confused
    I'm confused. Conour steals $4.5M from his disabled clients so the court sets up a $100K trust fund to help compensate Conour's victims. Meanwhile, the "justice system" lets Conour take more money from those clients by using that same trust fund so Conour can maintain his lifestyle. Where is he living? What kind of car does he drive? He already paid and fired 2 sets of high-buck attorneys (an obvious ploy to stall the case) so why isn't he told to use a public defender? Then Judge Young tells Conour that he can file yet another motion to request funds from his victims' trust fund to secure another high-buck attorney? I may be uneducated about the law, but it seems to me that Conour should be told to keep his greedy hands off that trust fund and be forced to use a public defender.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT