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.



  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.