ILNews

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.”
    

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • My license to satire
    John, yep, me and Lenny Bruce. No awards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw0q9A9-pE0
  • 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) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE
  • 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

    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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

    2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

    3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

    4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

    5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

    ADVERTISEMENT