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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

      2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

      3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

      4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

      5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

      ADVERTISEMENT