ILNews

Disciplinary Commission investigates Conour

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission is recommending the justices discipline Indianapolis attorney William Conour for allegedly settling a client’s case without the client’s knowledge and depositing the settlement into his trust account.

Conour is accused by federal authorities of stealing more than $2.5 million from clients and faces a charge of wire fraud. The April 27 criminal complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleges that he defrauded clients by using money from new settlements to pay for old settlements and debts. That federal complaint mentioned an instance where Conour didn’t tell a client that a settlement had been accepted, took the money on the client’s behalf and never sent the settlement to the client.

That settlement dispute is at the heart of the Disciplinary Commission’s verified complaint for disciplinary action, filed May 24. According to the verified complaint, an Indiana resident was severely injured on a construction project in Delaware in July 2010 and hired Conour and his law firm to represent him in a personal injury action. Conour allegedly settled the case without that client’s consent or knowledge for $450,000 and deposited the money into his trust account. The check contains a signature purporting to be the client's, but he maintains he didn’t sign the check.

G. Michael Witte, executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission, wrote that based on this conduct, Conour violated Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a) by not getting the client’s consent and approval before settling; 1.4(a)(1) by failing to promptly inform the client about the settlement, the amount and the deposit of the settlement funds without first receiving the client’s informed consent; 1.4(b) by failing to explain the settlement terms and amount to the client to the extent reasonably necessary to allow the client to make an informed decision about it; and 1.15(a) for not safeguarding the client’s settlement proceeds.

It will be up to the Indiana justices to decide what, if any, discipline Conour will receive. Conour has no history of discipline and is currently listed as in good standing with the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. He was admitted to practice in 1974.
 

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT