Indianapolis attorney facing fraud charges released from jail

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A high-profile Indianapolis attorney accused of misappropriating $2.5 million in client funds was released from the Decatur County Jail on Monday after being held on a contempt of court charge.

William F. Conour, 65, was arrested on a warrant from the Decatur Circuit Court on July 25 after he failed to appear for a hearing to determine whether he had the funds from a $62,395.75 settlement he won for a client.

According to a criminal complaint filed in April, 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. Prosecutors charge he kept clients’ settlement proceeds for his own use.

Conour won the settlement that prompted the hearing in Decatur Circuit Court for a toddler who was injured in an auto accident. When Conour refused to produce information from the settlement, a lawyer for the girl’s mother filed a motion in June seeking a court hearing to get answers from him.

Conour failed to appear for the hearing on July 19, and the warrant was issued for his arrest.

He had been held at Decatur County Jail in Greensburg southeast of Indianapolis since July 25. Decatur Circuit Court Judge John A. Westhafer released him on Monday after his attorney, Richard Kammen of Indianapolis, filed an emergency motion to vacate the contempt charge.

Conour appeared at the hearing dressed in an orange jumpsuit with his hands and feet shackled. He did not speak.

Kammen won Conour’s release from jail after showing the judge a federal court order freezing his client’s funds until after the federal charges are resolved. Kammen told the judge that he would keep him informed of the court proceedings and that Conour would need to pay restitution to his clients if convicted.

“Under the law, we think that his incarceration should be terminated,” Kammen said when arguing for Conour’s release.

Westhafer said he would defer to federal authorities in their case against Conour because they have jurisdiction.

Timothy Devereux, of Ladendorf & Ladendorf, unsuccessfully argued that Conour should be kept in jail.

“The money’s gone,” he told the judge. “He hasn’t explained to anyone where the money went.”

Conour could be formally charged by federal prosecutors by Aug. 15. Prosecutors won an extension to win an indictment from a grand jury based on the voluminous bank and other financial records the jury has had to comb through, according to court documents.

Meanwhile, Conour early this month relinquished his law license to the Indiana bar.

Under Indiana law, he will have to wait five years if he wishes to petition for reinstatement to the bar.

Conour was admitted to the bar in 1974 and had no previous disciplinary history.

For years, he had been among the highest-profile attorneys in Indiana, representing individuals seriously injured or killed in construction accidents



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.