ILNews

Conour gets 10-year fraud sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former attorney William Conour has been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for defrauding more than 30 wrongful-death and personal-injury clients of close to $7 million.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana imposed the sentence Thursday in Indianapolis, culminating a hearing that featured testimony from several of Conour’s victims.

Conour, 66, was charged in April 2012 with a single federal count of wire fraud in which the government alleged former clients had been bilked of $2.5 million. As time passed, investigators identified more victims who hadn’t received funds from structured settlements. The government claimed at sentencing that Conour stole $6.7 million from victims.

Federal prosecutors asked Young to impose the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, citing his lack of remorse and pushing to enhance the advisory sentence of 14 to 17.5 years in prison. The government’s sentencing memorandum argued that vulnerability of victims, number of victims and Conour’s deception of the court supported imposing the maximum penalty,

In arguing for leniency, Conour’s sentencing brief claimed he had taken responsibility, had a “stellar” prior career, and that he should receive a lighter sentence than the advisory range.

This story will be updated.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • We are on the same page
    Null, the longwinded posts have everything to do with Conour. You see, Conour is the fox and his victims the hens. The Disciplinary Counsel is the state agency that was supposed to be the hound, supposed to keep the fox from eating the chickens. But over and over again someone yelled "fox" and the hound just looked elsewhere. Where? Toward political correctness and chasing squirrels like me, like Ogdon, Dixon, Wemhoff, like the one quoted below (Rocchio, read it!], like JB Barker, like DA Farmer, like Wilkins, like many other attorneys who were neither (1) eating chickens nor (2) well connected. Conour was doing both (1) eating chickens while (2) well connected. You see, well connected attorneys in Indiana get a pass, as Conour did, over and over again. Unconnected attorneys, even when they are harmless to their clients, still get chased by the hound, for why chase foxes when you can chase those who cannot bite back instead? Now here is the point the NULL should like most ... if we can get the hound to just do its job (and the hound did not even file mandatory annual reports for years, the kind of omission that the hound would bite private attorneys for failing to do), if we can just get this hound to do its job and guard the henhouse, well then another Conour is far less likely to happen. THEREFORE, the State really needs an investigation into why Conour was not investigated and stopped before he killed so many hens and economically ruined so very many great Hoosiers. See Ogden's post below for most explanation on this GREAT NEED for a bipartisan investigation that comes from outside of Indiana's judical branch.
  • WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SLIME BUCKET CONOUR?
    Long Winded Comment has nothing to do with SLIME BUCKET CONOUR? Please stick with commentsw about this miscreant!
    • Prophetic?
      Check out what disciplined WW2 vet Patrick Rocchio wrote to the DC in 2011 What I did do was type and send a letter to a person who I believed might benefit from speaking to me or another attorney about her legal rights, specifically, her lawful right to obtain insurance compensation to cover her medical care expenses and possibly her loss of income, if any. That’s it. And, because of that single and simple letter, I have been forced to devote uncountable hours to defending my reputation, my integrity, my livelihood, and my honor. There has been no victim of my alleged misconduct. No one has been harmed, no one has been hurt, no one has been violated, and no one has suffered any financial loss. The Disciplinary Commission’s staff attorney should be investigating and pursuing charges against a person who has victimized an innocent client, who has dishonored the legal profession, or who has displayed disrespect for our peaceful system that utilizes the rule of law to reconcile disagreements. http://www.peoplevstate.com/?p=885
      • WRETCH HAVE FUN IN THERE. WATCH OUT. WHERE ARE THE ASSETS-(EX?)
        At least this miscreant will have to spend most of the 10 years in prison unlike if he were in state system. Maybe a relative of a victim will be in his prison. And where are the assets? His and wifey's names are no longer on IU atrium. Ariel Castro's fate would befit this slime bucket. Guards should not waste time watching Conour closely. Maybe he can play shuffleboard or take some additional Presbyterian theological courses like he did in Scotland and become the Reverend C.
      • The Disciplinary Commission Failed to Protect the Public
        Our Supreme Court needs to look into why the Disciplinary Commission failed to do anything to stop Conour from preying on his victims. It took the good work of the FBI to uncover the misuse by Conour of his trust account. The FBI criminal complaint filed on 4/27/2012 indicated he had been defrauding clients of his law practice since December of 2000. Yet the DC did not even file a complaint against Conour until 5/24/2012, long after the federal charges were in the works. Yet the DC had several pending grievances against Conour. The top priority of the DC need to be protecting the public from dishonest attorneys. That is clearly not the case with Executive Secretary Michael Witte and the DC Board. The DC will spend an enormous amount of time and resources going after attorneys for criticizing judges, yet can't seem to find the time or resources to protect the public from attorneys like Conour. It is outrageous and it is unacceptable.
      • Investigation needed?
        When did the first filing against Conour take place that should have put the DC on notice to check him out? How many years and how many victims and how much money flowed into Conours accounts after that first complaint that should have resulted in an aggressive investigation? Does anyone know? What has been done to ensure that this is not repeated? I do not think 11.5 hour hearings and deep probings of attorneys like Paul Odgen will keep patterns like this at bay>

      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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

      2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

      3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

      4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

      5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

      ADVERTISEMENT