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. 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

      2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

      3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

      4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

      5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

      ADVERTISEMENT