ILNews

Judge clears IU to donate $450,000 for Conour victim restitution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge last week approved an order clearing the way for Indiana University to transfer $450,000 to a federal court restitution fund for victims of former personal-injury and wrongful-death attorney William Conour.

The order, signed Thursday by Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, enables the university to fulfill its pledge to transfer money that Conour donated to the law school in Indianapolis in 2008.

“Indiana University and Indiana University Foundation wish to return the (funds) for use in the payment of restitution in this case,” Young wrote, noting the institutions “requested that the court enter an order authorizing them to deposit $450,000 with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court to be used for funding the payment of restitution to the victims in this case.”

I.U. announced when Conour pleaded guilty to a wire fraud charge that it would rescind the gift and use the money for victim restitution. The Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law also excised the honorary naming of the William and Jennifer Conour Atrium.

Conour pleaded guilty July 15 to government charges that he defrauded at least 25 clients of more than $4.5 million he received in negotiated settlements. He entered a plea a short time after he was jailed in June for dissipating assets in violation of terms of bond.

Conour since has been held in the Marion County Jail, though he has asked Young to release him pending sentencing. Young has  taken no action on the request.

     
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT