ILNews

In arguing for leniency, Conour cites previous ‘stellar’ career

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Convicted former attorney William Conour argues in a court filing Wednesday that he deserves leniency in sentencing and should receive less than the minimum advisory range of 14 to 17.5 years in federal prison for defrauding three-dozen clients of nearly $7 million.

Michael Donahoe, the court-appointed federal defender representing Conour, prepared a sentencing memorandum that argues the former leading wrongful-death and personal-injury attorney has shown remorse and taken responsibility since pleading guilty in July to a single count of wire fraud.

Conour’s sentencing memorandum comes a day after the government argued for the maximum statutory sentence of 20 years.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana will sentence Conour at 2 p.m. Thursday in Room 347 of the Birch Bayh Federal Courthouse in Indianapolis. At least seven victims from whom Conour stole settlement proceeds have said they want to provide impact statements prior to sentencing.

“No one, least of all the defendant, disputes the gravity of the crime and the need for severe punishment. Mr. Conour recognizes the extensive and irreparable harm he has caused his clients, the legal profession, and his family,” the filing says. “He accepts full responsibility for his actions and is extremely remorseful for the consequences of his behavior.”

The brief says Conour should receive less than the advisory sentencing range calculated in a confidential pre-sentencing report prepared by federal probation. “The defense objects to the enhancements for vulnerable victims and obstruction, and the failure to recognize acceptance of responsibility in the guideline calculation.” Conour’s sentence also should not be enhanced because of the number of victims, the brief argues.

“William Conour is now 66 years old. The sentence sought by the government would almost certainly amount to a life sentence. Aside from retribution and vengeance it is difficult to find another purpose that would be served by achieving that result,” the memorandum says.

“Society reaps little benefit from imposing lengthy sentences on elderly, non-violent first offenders. In most cases the cost of such incarceration far outweighs any benefit. … Considering that this is Mr. Conour’s first offense, and it is certain that he will never practice law or hold a position of trust again, the chance that he will commit future crimes is miniscule,” the memorandum says.
 
The brief argues for a lesser sentence in part because of Conour’s success before his fall. “Mr. Conour enjoyed a stellar career spanning 38 years characterized by giving back to his profession and community. He was regarded by his peers as a leader, innovator, teacher and visionary. He accepted very difficult cases and the high risks that accompanied them, and more often than not was successful.

“He represented over 1,000 clients during his distinguished career and all, with the exception of the victims in this case, were paid at the conclusion of their case. It should be noted that the total number of victims amounts to less than one-third of 1 percent of his total clients, illustrating that illegal conduct was not predominate and did not characterize or define his law practice.”

The brief also seeks to downplay a government claim that Conour showed no acceptance of responsibility in a jailhouse interview with The Indianapolis Star.

“The opinions expressed by Mr. Conour reflect his subjective belief about the characterization of his conduct, as he views it, vis-à-vis how he feels the government views it. He has never questioned the seriousness of his criminal conduct. Many defendants who plead guilty disagree with the government about the relative harm caused by the offense. A common example would be a defendant charged with marijuana dealing who disagrees with the government about the harm from that activity,” the brief says.

While arguing in the brief that he accepts responsibility, Conour takes exception to how his crimes are labeled. “Mr. Conour also expressed his opinion that his behavior should not be characterized as a Ponzi scheme. The term ‘Ponzi scheme’ is not a legal term of art and is not defined in the federal criminal code. Whether certain fraudulent behavior deserves that label is a matter of opinion, and ultimately irrelevant. Both the government and Mr. Conour are entitled to their respective opinions on that topic,” the filing says.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • It's a Ponzi
    The only remorse Conour has shown is for getting caught in his “cash flow problem.” Strange that this cash flow problem didn’t slow down his spending on himself, even when he was under investigation and court orders. He kept all the trappings of a lavish lifestyle right up to the time he was imprisoned. Justifying Conour’s abhorrent behavior and putting words of attrition in his mouth may be Donahue’s duty, but it’s still revolting…especially for using his youngest children to create sympathy. Good father? Didn’t I read that he left them for several years to live in Scotland while studying for a masters in theology? I’d suggest gargling with Purell, Donahue. I hope the court deems to show as much mercy towards Conour as he did towards his disabled clients. They are left with a life sentence of no funds to help them cope. Conour should have the same life sentence and deal with it…he earned every minute.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT