ILNews

Judge asks public defender about Conour money

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has ordered the Office of the Federal Defender for the Southern District of Indiana to disclose whether it is holding any property belonging to William Conour, the former attorney who was represented by a public court-appointed lawyer from the agency.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Thursday issued a writ of garnishment  giving the federal defender’s office 10 days to answer “whether or not you have in your custody, control or possession, any property in which the defendant has a substantial non-exempt interest.”

Conour pleaded guilty to wire fraud and admitted to government allegations that he stole more than $6.5 million in settlement proceeds from more than 30 wrongful death and personal-injury clients.

Last month, Conour claimed he had made full restitution and was owed $184,214.26 after paying restitution of just over $634,000. He reasoned he was required to make restitution only to the one victim identified in the wire fraud charge, who was defrauded of $450,000.

In the writ of garnishment, Young rejects that logic, holding that the balance due on the judgment as of April 25 is $5,931,152.06.

When Conour filed the pro se pleading seeking to excuse himself from the remaining restitution, he also acknowledged the federal defender’s office held $2,512, “representing the remaining balance of an investment account Defendant had with Reliance Financial Services.”

Conour sought to have those funds transferred to his commissary at the Federal Correctional Institute at Morgantown, W.Va., where he is serving a 10-year sentence. Conour “denies … (the government) is entitled to garnish these funds.”

Young ordered the defender’s office to describe “the value and property in which the defendant has an interest that is in your possession, custody or control.”

“You are required to withhold and retain pending further Order of this court any property in which the defendant has a substantial non-exempt interest for which you are now, or may in the future, become indebted to the defendant,” Young wrote.

Officials at the federal defender agency could not be reached for comment Friday.



 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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