Prosecution wants 20-year sentence for Conour, now accused of stealing nearly $7 million

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Citing his lack of remorse for the theft of nearly $7 million from clients over the years, federal prosecutors want former wrongful-death and personal-injury attorney William Conour sentenced to the maximum term of 20 years Thursday, according to a sentencing memorandum filed Tuesday.

Conour “stole nearly $7 million … from his clients to finance his lavish lifestyle,” the government says. Previously, Conour had been accused of defrauding more than 25 clients of at least $4.5 million.

The federal government says Conour should be sentenced Thursday to the maximum term of 20 years in prison and that seven of his victims should have the opportunity to offer victim-impact statements.

“He has never shown remorse for his actions nor truly accepted responsibility for his conduct,” the government says. Factors including the vulnerability of victims, number of victims and Conour’s deception of the court support imposing the maximum penalty, according to the filing.

Michael Donahoe, Conour’s court-appointed public defender, could not be immediately reached for comment.

“The scheme began by at least 2008 and continued until at least 2012. ... Thus, through the use of the trust accounts and settlement agreements, the defendant was able to execute his scheme and avoid detection for four years while he defrauded 36 victims of almost $7 million,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Bohm wrote in the memorandum.

Conour is scheduled to be sentenced at 2 p.m. Thursday by Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. While Young hasn’t acted on the request to allow victim statements, he previously indicated in court that he would be inclined to let victims have their say.

Conour pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud in July, days after Young ordered Conour’s bond revoked for dissipating assets without court approval. Conour has been in the Marion County Jail since.

Tuesday’s filing characterizes a few of his victims. “A man, paralyzed as the result of his accident, now requires state aid for medical treatment rather than money he should have received. A woman died indigent in a nursing home, while more than $200,000 sat in a 'trust' account for her benefit. A mother and her children struggle to get by after their husband and father’s death. The money that should have supported them and paid for college is gone. Some funds have been recovered for these victims. It is unlikely, however, that they will be made whole.”

To date, about $500,000 has been contributed to a court fund for restitution. That includes $450,000 from Indiana University, which returned a contribution for the naming of the former William and Jennifer Conour Atrium at the Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, as well as $30,000 from the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

One of Conour’s daughters, identified in court papers as A.K., also this week received court approval to donate $20,000 to the court fund. The fund also will be supplemented with the post-sentencing sale of Conour’s assets — mainly home furnishings, art and home furnishings.
The prosecution’s sentencing memorandum says Conour presented himself in promotional videos for his former law firm as a professional and ethical attorney dedicated to helping clients, but who in reality was stealing from those victims to feed a lifestyle of Bentley, Mercedes-Benz and Porsche automobiles, mansions and horse farms.

“Rather than serving his clients, the defendant understood the legal system and consistently exploited it to his advantage,” the sentencing memorandum says. “His clients were largely naïve to the legal system and relied on the defendant to navigate the system for them. They also relied on the settlements of their claims for compensation to replace either their inability to work or the permanent loss of a wage earner.

“In exchange for ‘his services,’ the defendant generally took 40 percent of the settlement in attorney’s fees. For the 36 identified victims in this case, the defendant was paid nearly $3.5 million dollars in attorney’s fees and nearly $100,000 in expenses. The defendant, however, stole another $6.7 million from his clients through the use of false annuities, fraudulent trusts, and general deception. He used that money to further his lavish lifestyle and to pay other clients for previous settlements, similar to a Ponzi-scheme.”

The sophistication of the scheme and Conour’s violation of a court order support an enhanced sentence, the government argues in objecting to the confidential presentence investigative report prepared by the federal probation department.

“In this case, the defendant’s complex and intricate use of trust accounts and structured settlements demonstrates that his scheme involved more planning and concealment than a typical fraud. As part of the scheme, the defendant created at least 14 separate trust accounts with an Ohio financial institution, even though his personal injury practice was located in Indiana,” according to the government.

“When he negotiated settlements on behalf of his personal injury clients, he convinced many of those clients to accept a structured settlement rather than a lump-sum settlement. The use of the trust accounts and the structured settlements allowed the defendant both to execute his scheme and to avoid detection.

“More specifically, it allowed him to execute his scheme based on the trust agreement that he had negotiated with the Ohio financial institution. The agreement allowed him to fund the trusts on a yearly basis with funds only sufficient to enable the financial institution to issue monthly checks for a year, thereby allowing the defendant to illegally retain the bulk of the settlements for his own purposes,” the sentencing memorandum says.  

The filing notes that Conour told the court that the failure to pay clients was a cash flow problem. “The truth, however, is that the defendant did not steal his clients’ money because of cash flow problems or business expenses. He stole it to fill his wine cellar with Dom Perignon and Cristal. He stole it to take trips around the world. He stole it to enrich himself.”



  • My license to satire
    John, yep, me and Lenny Bruce. No awards
  • LOLs
    Bryan, for jokes like that you would lose your license as a comedian, too!
  • Credit where credit is due
    Sara, it is good that the proper authorities were on their toes, else Conour might have gotten away with it his entire life instead of a mere dozen or so years.
  • What?
    William Conours scheme started at least as early as 1998 or 1999 when he settled the case for my son! And my son is a victim; I surely hope we have the chance to speak because he needs to hear how his selfish ways effected the victims!
  • Say I say I say boy
    “That’s a joke, I say that’s a joke son” (Almost satire that is, satire, son)
  • On the bright side
    I think I speak for all of the leading judicial bureacrats in Indy when I say THANK ZEUS attorney Conour was not so evil as to file a motion to recuse a judge or so craven as to send a private letter criticizing a judge. At least he does have that going for him as to mitigation.

    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 new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

    2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

    3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

    4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

    5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."