A New York federal judge did the unthinkable this week, finding that casinos do not, legally, owe a duty to prevent fervent gamblers from gambling.The Las Vegas Sun reports:
A federal judge has dismissed a $20 million racketeering lawsuit against seven casinos by a former New York City attorney who said they had a duty to stop her
from gambling.In a ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Renee Bumb wrote that Arelia Margarita Taveras failed to support her claim that gambling is a hazardous endeavor worthy of special protections.
"Playing blackjack, roulette or the slots bears no likeness to dumping toxic waste," the judge wrote. "She spent money on the bona fide chance that she might win more
money. In short, she gambled."
Hmmm . . . that's a shame. The plaintiff was a really sympathetic party:
Taveras told The Associated Press she dipped into escrow accounts she maintained for clients to finance her gambling habit. She was disbarred in June 2007 and faces criminal charges stemming from those actions, but said she is trying to work out restitution agreements in order to avoid prison.
Wow. She sounds like a winner all around.
I remember when this case was filed and the publicity surrounding it back in March. I don't feel bad for those addicted to gambling, just like I don't feel bad for those addicted to drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes. Anyone partaking in these vices has actual or constructive knowledge of the risks. I feel bad for their dependents and family who can get screwed because of that person's addiction though.
ReplyDeleteEvery time this attorney dipped into her client's escrow account, she knew that she was doing was unethical per se. Each time she probably told herself she would be able to pay it back. Problem is, the rules of professional conduct do not say that an attorney can borrow funds from their clients if the attorney can pay the funds back. It says the funds are not the attorneys and cannot be used. Hence her disbarment. Having to dip into client's funds should have made her realize what she was doing was a problem because it was causing her to commit acts that were unethical according to her ethical code. She did it anyway so I don't feel sorry for her at all. She's just looking to blame someone else for her lack of self-control.
I'm glad the Federal judge saw the matter for what it truly was and came to a proper decision.