ILNews

Conour bond revoked, denied funds to file bankruptcy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

William Conour, a former leading personal-injury attorney, was led from federal court in handcuffs Thursday after a judge said Conour had misled the court and dissipated assets in violation of bond conditions ahead of his trial on a wire fraud charge.

Conour was escorted from the courtroom of Chief Judge Richard Young of the Southern District of Indiana after Young granted the government’s motion to revoke bond for burning through tens of thousands of dollars without court approval.

“I just don’t believe Mr. Conour is taking seriously the court order here,” Young said. “I have real concerns that if there are other assets out there that Mr. Conour may dissipate those assets as well.”

As Conour was led from the courtroom, some of his family members wept and some of his alleged victims embraced in restrained celebration. Authorities said Conour will be held in a federal detention unit of the Marion County Jail ahead of his trial scheduled for Sept. 9.

Conour is accused of defrauding 25 or more clients of at least $4.5 million. He faces a possible sentence of up to 20 years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000.

Young’s decision to revoke bond came after an unusual hearing in which now-retired federal prosecutor Richard Cox was called to testify about agreements that Conour represented had been made with Cox. Conour said an informal arrangement existed with Cox allowing him to use proceeds from art sales and other assets to pay living expenses.

But Cox testified that the government viewed any assets as those that could be used for restitution, and it was up to Conour, not the government, to ensure conditions of bond were met.

Cox said he had been put in the uncomfortable position of prosecuting Conour while also controlling purse strings from the court fund after Conour began to represent himself late last year. The court registry was established for potential victim restitution and for Conour’s legal defense and expenses.

Conour public defender Michael Donahoe grilled the former prosecutor about the proceeds of art sales the government was aware of and for which Conour received the proceeds.

“On no occasion did you ever discuss with (Conour) how that money should be divided,” Donahoe said. “That’s correct,” Cox said.

Donahoe argued in a filing Thursday responding to the government’s revocation bid that prosecutors were stretching honest disagreements over prior arrangements into allegations of perjury.

“Mr. Conour has done nothing that even approaches the commission of a new crime while on pretrial release. Considering the loose, informal spirit of cooperation and trust that characterized the prior pattern of defining and paying for living expenses, the government has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that a specific condition has been knowingly violated.”

“It would have been easy for Mr. Cox to say this money needs to go in the court registry,” Donahoe told Young, referring to art sales made while Conour represented himself late last year. But Young said there was no burden on the government to ensure Conour complied with conditions of his bond.

“The point is, he wasn’t supposed to dissipate assets,” assistant U.S. attorney Jason Bohm told Young. “There is clear and convincing evidence he violated terms of his bond.”

Young also referenced Conour’s divorce, initiated by his ex-wife, Jennifer Conour, days after Conour was charged in April 2012. The two signed an uncontested settlement in December.

Young said he said he had serious doubt about whether a judge in Kosciusko County would have signed the dissolution order if he had knowledge of Conour’s wire fraud case, and noted the federal court was never informed of the divorce.

“It’s clear to me what was going on,” Young said, calling the proceeding “a way to transfer a significant amount of assets.”

Meanwhile, Conour also was denied a motion filed this week asking the court to release the remaining $21,000 from the court registry so that he could declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The firm of Tucker Hester Baker & Krebs LLC filed the request Tuesday. Under the proposal, Conour would have used money from the fund to hire bankruptcy lawyers to pursue claims “against other parties holding money which are attorney’s fees due him on cases in which he provided legal services,” according to the filing.

Young appeared mystified by the request. “He wants me to take the little money left in the registry here … and give it to attorneys for attorney’s fees?”

Donahoe said using the money to hire bankruptcy counsel would allow Conour to collect fees he claims he’s owed by other attorneys who took his personal injury cases after he was arrested, and would be a good deal for alleged victims.

“I don’t know that the alleged victims would think that’s a good thing to do,” Young said.

Donahoe claimed Conour was owed a share of at least $2 million in settlement fees to which attorneys “admit” Conour was entitled. When Young pressed, Donahoe said, “I’ve been told that by Mr. Conour,” and that no such admission existed in writing.

“I’m not going to grant this motion to remove what’s left in the victims’ fund, no,” Young said. He said he would consider appointing a special master to handle claims if Conour is convicted.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • In summation
    Matthew 23:25
  • About time
    It's about time he's where he belongs. He's taken advantage of people and their trust along with abusing and making a mockery of the system for too long...

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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT