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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT