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

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Indiana State Bar Association

      Indianapolis Bar Association

      Evansville Bar Association

      Allen County Bar Association

      Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

      facebook
      ADVERTISEMENT
      Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
      1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

      2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

      3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

      4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

      5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

      ADVERTISEMENT