ILNews

Indianapolis attorney charged with defrauding clients out of $2.5M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney has been charged with misappropriating more than $2 million from his clients.

William F. Conour, 64, turned himself in to federal authorities Friday morning and made his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in Indianapolis. He’s been charged by information with wire fraud based on an Oct. 6, 2011, transmission by wire communication through a fax from Indianapolis to Zurich American Insurance in New Jersey.

According to the criminal complaint, Conour is accused of engaging in a scheme from December 2000 to March 2012 to defraud his clients, using money obtained from new settlement funds to pay for old settlements and debts. He allegedly kept most of his clients’ settlement proceeds for his own use. In one case, Conour didn’t tell a client that a settlement had been accepted, and Conour accepted the money on the client’s behalf. That client has not received any of the settlement proceeds.

The Indianapolis Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation received information July 2011 that Conour may be misappropriating his clients’ funds through the creation of trust accounts with an Ohio bank. According to the complaint, he has at least 14 client trusts with this bank. Conour did not deposit all the settlement funds with the bank, and instead funded the trusts on a yearly basis with funds only sufficient enough to enable the bank to issue monthly checks to the clients for a year.

Conour, who focuses his practice on construction liability cases involving serious injury and death, has practiced law under firm names including Conour Law Firm; Conour Daly; Conour Doehrman; Conour Devereux; and Conour Devereux Hammond.

He was released on his own recognizance with conditions, including that he can’t sell, transfer, encumber or otherwise dispose of his personal or business assets without court approval. If convicted, Conour faces up to 20 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, he was admitted in 1974 and has no disciplinary history.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has been recused in the matter. The U.S. Attorney General appointed the Central District of Illinois to handle the prosecution.

Anyone who is believed to be a victim of the alleged criminal conduct of Conour is encouraged to contact the FBI at 1-877-542-8979.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • stranding a passenger
    is it illegal to strand a passenger of your vehicle, while on a trip??

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT