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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

      2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

      3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

      4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

      5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

      ADVERTISEMENT