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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT