ILNews

Lawyers say Conour skipped workers' comp lien payments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The amount of money lost by personal injury clients and other victims of former attorney William Conour is likely greater than the $4.5 million claimed in an information filed against him in his federal criminal wire fraud case, according to victims and attorneys familiar with the case.

More potential liability is surfacing beyond the 25 clients from whom federal authorities accuse Conour of stealing or misappropriating money. The victims now include workers’ compensation insurance carriers who say Conour or his former law firms failed to pay money due to them.
 

conour-bill-mug Conour

“The cases I have, he was holding money in trust to satisfy a workers’ compensation lien that the insurance company had for workers’ compensation benefits that were paid to plaintiffs he was representing, and I guess the money’s gone,” said Mike Adley, an attorney for Liberty Mutual Group in Indianapolis.

“I’m sure this isn’t the only insurance company affected,” he added.

Adley is handling multiple Liberty Mutual claims against Conour or his former firms in which unsatisfied workers’ compensation liens total between $250,000 and $300,000. Those claims are not part of the federal wire fraud information charging Conour.

Other attorneys for Liberty Mutual also are representing claims against Conour, but Adley said he had no estimate of the total number of claims or the total of alleged damages.

Timothy Devereux, an attorney who until December worked with Conour and has assisted authorities investigating and prosecuting his former boss, said insurers have contacted him regarding their claims. “I tell them, ‘You guys are as much a victim as everyone else in these cases.’”

Devereux described a particular case: “Bill tells the clients that the workers’ compensation lien is $200,000, and he’s going to withhold that out of the settlement fund, and he’s going to work with (the insurer) to try to get it reduced,” Devereux said. “It turned out he didn’t pay (the liens).”

Workers’ comp liens are authorized under I.C. 22-3-2-13, which states: “If the injured employee or his dependents shall agree to receive compensation from the employer or the employer’s compensation insurance carrier or to accept from the employer or the employer’s compensation insurance carrier, by loan or otherwise, any payment on account of the compensation, or institute proceedings to recover the same, the employer or the employer’s compensation insurance carrier shall have a lien upon any settlement award, judgment or fund out of which the employee might be compensated from the third party.”

Once a leading personal injury attorney in Indiana, Conour is accused of converting for personal use money in trust funds established for clients who won settlements through his firms’ representation dating back to 1999. The federal information alleges that Conour convinced clients to accept monthly payments in structured settlements, then funded the trusts by purchasing annuities on a yearly basis. But he’s accused of keeping millions for himself in a scheme discovered as the monthly checks that his clients expected to receive stopped coming.

Conour used money from new settlements to pay other clients, the information says, and he is accused in some cases of failing to notify clients that he received settlement funds, or falsely denying that he had.

In a telephone conference Oct. 17 with U.S. Chief Judge Richard L. Young in Indianapolis, Conour said he had not yet retained legal representation, according to court staff. Three weeks earlier, Young granted Conour $15,000 from a trust fund that had been established in the spring with $100,000 to compensate victims. Young approved disbursement of the money for Conour’s living expenses and to retain new legal representation during a Sept. 27 hearing in which Conour severed his relationship with his then-counselors, Richard Kammen and Dorie Maryan.

The trust fund – from which Conour had drawn prior disbursements – also was released by Kammen to the court. A court receipt dated Oct. 3 shows just $39,279.35 remained as of that day. Conour said during the Sept. 27 hearing that he needed $15,000 every two months for living expenses and to pay counsel.

Also during the phone conference, Young delayed Conour’s trial on a motion from special U.S. Attorney Richard Cox. The trial had been set for Oct. 22.

Conour is scheduled to appear in court on Dec. 4 for another status hearing in regard to his legal representation. A new trial date has not been affirmed and is likely to be scheduled for January, according to the court.

But according to Conour’s state bar resignation letter submitted in May, the former attorney appears to acknowledge his guilt while the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission was investigating complaints against him that former colleagues say dated back several years.

The Indiana Lawyer obtained a copy of Conour’s resignation letter, which the commission considers confidential under Rule 23, Section 17 of the Indiana Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys.

In his resignation letter, Conour writes: “On April 27, 2012 I was charged with one (1) count of mail fraud, a felony in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana. … A copy of the criminal complaint filed in the above is attached hereto and incorporated herein as ‘Exhibit A.’

“I acknowledge that the material facts so alleged are true,” Conour wrote. “I submit this resignation because I know that, if the proceeding were to be prosecuted, I could not successfully defend myself.”

A former Conour client who hasn’t received proceeds from a settlement said she has been told that potential losses exceed $7.5 million. FBI spokeswoman Wendy Osborne said the agency does not comment about investigations into pending matters, and Cox said he could not comment on investigative matters beyond those alleged in federal court.

Devereux said he had no direct knowledge of the extent of alleged losses. “The question is, how do you calculate the number?” he asked, noting that many structured settlements had been guaranteed to pay over time an amount much greater than the lump-sum settlement award.

“It’s going to be well beyond $4.5 million and probably beyond $7.5 million,” Devereux said. “The point is, he never actually purchased the annuities, and so we don’t know how much should have been paid out. … Some of these folks should have gotten a couple million dollars under an annuity that doesn’t exist.”

Devereux said he’s unfamiliar with settlements prior to the four years he worked for Conour, and he noted that the wire fraud count only applies to transactions that crossed state lines. He said there may be more victims if Conour failed to purchase annuities to fund future obligations.

“My fear is, come January, there are going to be people coming out of the woodwork saying, ‘My payment stopped. What happened?’” Devereux said.

Quizzed about potential assets that may be available to compensate victims, Conour said in court in September that he believes he may have attorney fees coming to him of about $2 million.

“A majority of those cases came with me, and I do not foresee in any reality where he thinks he’s entitled to $2 million in those cases,” Devereux said. “That’s total fantasy on his part.”

“It’s a bad situation,” said Adley, the Liberty Mutual Group attorney. “It’s bad for the workers’ compensation lienholders, and it’s real bad for the people that were injured.”•
ADVERTISEMENT

  • shame on you
    Shame on you William Conour. My son is one of your victims! Your greed has killed the dreams of many people. I do hope the judge shows no mercy, and I hope you are forced to pay back every cent you took! If you read this Mr. Conour, you know who I am. My son's father is the wrongful death case you took on a long time ago and you cited his case on your website too when you were a practicing attorney. Good luck, sir. I hope you find peace in your life.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT