Takes Nerve to Be a Gambler; Takes Bigger Nerve to Blame Your Gambling on Others
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
Matter of Arelia M. Taveras
Second Department
Admitted to N.Y.S. Bar: 2002
Discipline imposed: Disbarred (on default) in June 23, 2007
There is a wonderful word in the Yiddish language that many of you may know: chutzpah. Simply put, chutzpah translates into "colossal nerve." A classic example of chutzpah – in a legal context – is that of a man who murders his parents and then begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan. The disbarment case I wish to discuss has taken a recent turn from fabulous greed and larceny resulting in the disbarment of attorney Taveras, into Chutzpahville, truly a strange place to visit.
According to newspaper reports, Taveras had a fairly lucrative and successful law practice representing the families of airplane accident victims. Her short legal career was highlighted by appearances as a T.V. commentator and by being named one of the "21 New Yorkers to Watch in the 21st Century" by the New York Daily News in the year 2000.
Her fall from grace starts (sort of) on February 20, 2007, with Ms. Taveras’ suspension from the practice of law by the Appellate Division, Second Department. This was a rather unusual early or immediate suspension, intended to protect the public. The Court found that Taveras, "[w]as guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct." The Court also appointed a Special Referee (a retired judge) to look over Taveras’ files and take action to protect her clients.
Taveras did not fight the five charges made against her by the lawyers’ Grievance Committee, which were:
*engaging in a pattern and practice of converting escrow funds entrusted to her as a fiduciary (in other words, stealing),
*knowingly providing altered and falsified records of her attorney escrow account to the Grievance Committee,
*improperly commingling personal and fiduciary funds (mixing clients’ money with her personal money),
*improperly drawing an escrow check to cash,
*failing to maintain required records for her IOLA (escrow) account.
She was found in default and deemed to have admitted the truth of the charges against her. Then she was disbarred.
This story is not nearly over. We now turn to a press release from the Queens County District Attorney, issued on November 28, 2007, which has the following heading:
"D.A. BROWN: TWO QUEENS ATTORNEYS CHARGED WITH RAIDING THEIR
ESCROW ACCOUNTS AND STEALING NEARLY $200,000 FROM CLIENTS"
District Attorney Brown said, "According to the charges, the defendants not only violated the trust that their clients placed in them but they let down the entire legal system which counts on members of the bar to conduct themselves in an ethical matter. Each of the attorneys has been disbarred, and each now faces serious criminal charges."
District Attorney Brown identified the defendants as Arelia Taveras, 46, presently of Bloomington, Minnesota, and Mark Jacobs, 58, of Glen Head, New York. Taveras, accused of stealing a total of $99,142 from four clients, was charged with three counts of third-degree grand larceny, second-degree forgery, first-degree offering a false instrument for filing and scheme to defraud. Jacobs was charged with second-degree grand larceny for allegedly stealing $91,564 from a client. If convicted, Taveras faced up to seven years in prison.
I’m sure you may not care how Taveras ended up in Minnesota. But I’m wondering.
District Attorney Brown also said that, according to a criminal complaint, Taveras accepted $2,500 from a buyer as a contract deposit and an additional $22,500 as a down payment on a cooperative apartment in Bayside that the defendant was selling. It is alleged further that the buyer’s application was subsequently denied by the cooperative board, but when she tried to get her deposit back Taveras allegedly refused. After numerous requests, according to the criminal complaint, the buyer received a call from Taveras’ lawyer stating that she would not repay the money and that she was in a rehabilitation center in Colorado.
In addition, according to the criminal complaint, Taveras is accused of ripping off three clients including one who retained her in connection with a real estate transaction. The complaint charges that Taveras failed to release $10,000 of the client’s money that was held in escrow. Another client was allegedly bilked of $30,000 after retaining the defendant to represent her in the sale of commercial real estate. And finally, Taveras is accused of stealing $34,142 from a third client who allegedly retained her to represent him in connection with a divorce proceeding.
The criminal charges against Taveras are unresolved and still pending.
Now this story gets more interesting. Taveras had sent a videotape to the lawyers’ Grievance Committee saying that she took client money because of a gambling addiction and that she was remorseful.
Today the papers are reporting that Taveras has filed a $20,000,000 Federal lawsuit in United States District Court in New Jersey against seven casinos, claiming that they were responsible for her compulsively gambling way $1,000,000 and that they should have stopped her. (This is the chutzpah part.)
Taveras says her gambling problem was so over-the-top that she once spent five straight days at Resorts Casino’s tables in Atlantic City eating only chocolate candy bars and drinking orange juice. She claims that she would go for days and nights without food or sleep.
While she gambled in Las Vegas as well as Atlantic City, Taveras claims to have suffered the most damage at Resorts in Atlantic City, supposedly losing $850,000 there in two years.
According to her complaint, Taveras even played seven blackjack hands at one time so she could have an entire table to herself, while losing some $5,000 per hour.
Commentary: Compulsive gamblers suing casinos rarely win, because the casinos claim not to know who needs help and who doesn’t. Gamblers can voluntarily bar themselves from casinos, either for a few years or for life. While they are on the list, casinos cannot solicit them. Taveras, of course, never did this.
The short of it is, that courts are reluctant to find that a casino has a duty to protect a gambler from herself.
