ILNews

Government may appeal Conour’s 10-year sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal prosecutors who argued for tougher punishment may appeal the 10-year sentence imposed in October for former attorney William Conour who pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud.

The notice of appeal was docketed last week in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the government will have until Jan. 6 to file pleadings or request more time to argue that Conour’s sentence was too lenient. The case on appeal is USA v. William Conour, 13-3643.

Whether prosecutors will proceed with a rare sentencing appeal is uncertain, but the notice was filed ahead of a deadline that preserves the government’s right to appeal.

Federal public defender Michael Donahoe represented Conour before Chief Judge Richard Young and said he was surprised to see the appeal notice filed. He said federal prosecutors told him no final decision had been made on whether the appeal would proceed, and he characterized the filing as a “placeholder” in case U.S. attorneys chose to appeal the sentence.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Bohm argued before sentencing that Conour, 66, should receive the maximum 20 years for stealing settlement proceeds from more than 30 former clients he represented in wrongful-death and personal-injury cases. Conour’s sentence also calls for him to make restitution of more than $6.5 million.

Victims said they were disappointed by the 10-year sentence, but Young said the sentence sent a deterrent message while also providing some hope that Conour might be able to make restitution. Young’s sentence was adjusted downward from the advisory sentencing range of 14 to 17.5 years calculated in a presentencing report prepared by the court's federal probation department.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Conour’s projected release date is in March 2022.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Sentencing
    Think the only reason he shows any sign of remorse is he got caught. I don't believe once he's freed that he 'll make any attempt to pay his victims' back. He'll probably just try and disappear.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT