ILNews

Judge: Conour to stay behind bars before sentencing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former attorney William Conour will remain jailed pending his sentencing in a little more than two months, a federal judge has ruled.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Monday denied Conour’s motion for release, indicating he will remain in custody of U.S. marshals pending sentencing on Oct. 17. Conour is being held in the Marion County Jail.

Conour pleaded guilty July 15 to government charges that he defrauded at least 25 personal-injury and wrongful-death 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.

Young also on Aug. 1 approved an order clearing the way for Indiana University to deposit with the court $450,000 that Conour had donated to the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, which since has excised the honorary naming of the William and Jennifer Conour Atrium.


 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Ms Ogynist
    Misogynist definition: 90% of UrbanDictionary.com male users. Back to the article above; finally the judge is denying a motion and letting Conour know he’s not special nor deserves special treatment…he’s just another convict.
  • HOUSEWIFEING-WHAT ATE THE DOCUMENTED FACTS?
    Housewife has been defined: "Housewife: An uneducated woman with no self-esteem and no life who thinks she has to devote herself to rearing children, her husband, the home and the pets." URBAN DICTIONARY If this does not fit [except for "uneducated"]90% of Carmel "stay at home moms" would be surprising. Not speaking of anyone in particular but Carmel h
    • Politically Correct
      Housewifing? But REALLY working not JUST Housewifing? All things considered, that’s probably as “politically correct” as a misogynist can get. Probably uneducated in other areas as well, you may want to look at documented facts before you make accusations and assumptions in a public forum…otherwise you look like a, what’s the politically correct term for it? Oh, yes…moron.
    • Er Allein ist Schuldig
      Conour’s latest motion is likely a harbinger of how his time will be spent in jail. And each new motion will probably put his unfortunate family back in the press, open to attacks from antagonists who have little understanding or sympathy of what he and his crimes did to his family members. From what has been reported and what is available in public records, he sent all properties into foreclosure and left nothing for his family but debt. A reporter should look into why the Disciplinary Commission allowed Conour to practice law after his illegal practices were reported. An attorney who worked with him reported him in 2008 and Conour’s frauds date back to at least 1999. I agree with Paul Ogden…that’s the red-flag that needs further investigation. And taking a quote from Ogen’s posting, “Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it matter most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.” Haile Selassie.
    • RED FLAG IF EX-WIFE IS NOT WORKING!
      It is a big waving flying red flag if the ex-wife is not working [outside the home to be politically correct--but really working not just housewifing] but continuing her role as a Carmel housewife; then there is likelihood she is living on moneys acquired from Conour which were stolen and belong to clients/others. There were mentions in this paper that Conour had considered bankruptcy; no mention of Conour AND wife/ex-wife filing. I suggest that a reporter see if she has a real job.
      • HA! HA! CONOUR!
        Imperious, arrogant self-important William Conour can leave the house and Bentley and whatever to the squirrels and raccoons! Apparently he has already squirreled away his clients' money, likely in his divorce! Is anyone looking at ex-wife's or Conour's spawn's assets and the source of those assets? If it was clients' moneys or moneys or clients it should be restored to the clients. If it means taking things from a [former] domestic engineer [stay at home mom or whatever eupehemism for Carmel housewife who does not work] and horse farm manager and her kids, so be it. Conour can now use his time acclimating to being with the guys. Enjoy your time. Squirrel

      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