ILNews

Conour now accused of taking $4.5M from clients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Special U.S. Attorney Richard Cox filed an information in federal court Tuesday which accuses William Conour of stealing more than $4.5 million from 25 clients.

The government alleges that Conour, whose practice focused on personal injury claims until resigning from the bar in June, schemed to defraud his clients. The information says that Conour didn’t deposit the full amount of settlement funds into trust accounts and instead kept more than $3 million. He is also accused of using settlement funds from clients to make settlement payments to other clients.

The information also alleges that he negotiated a $450,000 settlement on behalf of a client without the client’s consent or knowledge, and he used the money to pay personal and business expenses as well as pay settlements and fees associated with other clients.

The government has charged him with wire fraud for faxing from his office on Oct. 6, 2011, to a company in New Jersey a document that contained that client’s release and indemnification agreement.

The claims are the same as those filed in a complaint April 27 in federal court in Indianapolis, but that complaint alleged that Conour had stolen more than $2.5 million. The government sought an extension of time to get an indictment in the case, and it instead filed this information. When informations are filed, it can be an indication that communications have taken place between the defendant, counsel and the government and that the defendant will plead guilty.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of Illinois is handling the case because the Southern District of Indiana has been recused.

Conour has been disbarred in the federal courts.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT