ILNews

Conour victims number 33, court filing reveals

Dave Stafford
September 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defense request for more time to object to a presentence investigation report discloses that the number of victims of former leading personal-injury attorney William Conour is 33, more than the number the government has previously alleged.

Conour is awaiting sentencing in federal court on Oct. 17. He has been jailed since June 27 on a wire fraud charge based on information that alleged he defrauded at least 25 victims of more than $4.5 million. He pleaded guilty a few days after he was ordered jailed for dissipating assets without court approval.

Conour’s public defenders, Michael Donahoe and Joseph M. Cleary, on Wednesday asked the court for more time to respond to the confidential presentence investigation report received Sept. 5. The filing indicates prosecutors have no objection to the request.

Objections to the report are scheduled to be submitted by Sept. 23, according to rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

“Counsel cannot comply with the time line for objections,” according to the filing. “There are approximately 33 individual victims, each one reflecting a separate personal injury case. These cases were litigated over a period of ten years. In order to accurately ascertain the loss amount it is necessary to review each case and determine the amount of expenses advanced by the defendant and the third party liens paid from each settlement. The task of recovering the data necessary to complete this loss analysis will require an additional two weeks.”

Southern District Chief Judge Richard Young has not yet ruled on the request.

Conour faces a sentence of up to 20 years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000.

 
 

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT