Schuetz: Attorney Matthew Litt Cares, And So Do His Kids

“Gambling is a family disease. One person may be addicted, but the whole family suffers.”

— Anonymous

I was recently reading an article concerning the sentencing of Mathew Bowyer, the California bookie who was involved in operating an illegal sports betting operation, laundering money, and evading taxes. What made his case globally interesting was that one of his clients had been the interpreter for Major League Baseball superstar Shohei Ohtani. It also involved over $17 million that was “stolen” from Ohtani, and portions of the betting and money laundering involved employees of a Las Vegas casino.

It was also something less than a gold standard event for the Nevada Gaming Control Board, as they were among the last to know and are apparently cool with having people involved in this who are still engaged with licensed gaming operations in Nevada today.

The part of the article that made me laugh was that in the pre-sentence report for Bowyer, a negative statement was that he “… took advantage of compulsive gamblers …”  Now, understand, the pre-sentence report suggested that Bowyer’s actions regarding dealing with a compulsive gambler were listed as a reason not to be lenient with his sentencing. That is, he should be punished for it. It is also essential to remember that Bowyer was an illegal bookie. Yet, daily, licensed and regulated sports betting operators are often dealing to compulsive gamblers, and their penalty is higher stock prices. To borrow from Walt Whitman, “Do I contradict myself?”

Litt up

The first person I sent this news to was Matthew Litt, an attorney who represents clients whose lives and families have been damaged by gambling. I knew he would see the irony, stupidity, humor, and/or absurdity in this situation.

I am pro-gambling, and it has, in effect, been a huge part of my life. I had the benefit of being mentored by people who believed that their word was their bond and took the notions of character, honesty, and integrity seriously, as demanded by their gaming licensing. I also believe that this is the most critical building block in the whole regulated gambling ecosystem. 

As a senior executive for a number of casinos, I often needed to address the situation of a customer who wanted more money, or more particularly, more credit, for most of our higher-end guests had established credit lines with our casino.

I would then look into a number of factors, which would include his past history with us and other casinos, as well as his last bank check regarding creditworthiness. Also, I would see where the player was, mood-wise, and if he appeared impaired by alcohol or other mind-altering substances. I would then make the decision. I never made the decision based on what I could beat him out of on this one trip. I was always in on the long play.

These decisions can get tricky. First of all, the player can be volatile. Losing a bunch of money can really annoy people, and they will make the issue of additional credit very personal. When I cut them off, they would sometimes plead with me, and at other times, they would want to create a scene. Once, I had a guy try to take me to the floor by grabbing my necktie, and fortunately, our security team typically had a plainclothes officer near me when I was on the floor, or a uniformed officer at a distance. 

I would often give a temporary extension to a player who had lost his line, and this would generally be about 20-25% of his original line. If he tapped out again, I would then give him a small line for walking-around money, so he could tip, grab a meal, or whatever. This was generally one grand.

“Once, I had a guy try to take me to the floor by grabbing my necktie, and fortunately, our security team typically had a plainclothes officer near me when I was on the floor.”

Secondly, and this really became true when I worked in Las Vegas, executives and hosts would move from property to property. A customer who qualified for a $25,000 line at one property may now have three $25,000 lines across three properties. Generally, if a customer followed the host or executive to the new property, he never closed his line at the last property. It adds up.

The problem here is that if the person is playing unlucky and started chasing, they could lose at all three properties and get stuck with a $75,000 loss. We used to say that was an expensive cab ride. This was bad because it could burn a player out and present collection problems. It was always my goal to keep the player as a player.

Communication is key

During the 1980s, many executives in Las Vegas knew each other, and whenever a guy tapped out at one property, a group of us would call each other, knowing we shared him as a player. We did this to protect each other, the player, and the industry. None of us had a desire to burn out a player or bring collection issues upon us or our competitors. 

There was also a system designed to track credit availability and usage within the casino cages of different casinos, known as Central Credit. I used it, but too many people played games with it for my taste.

The point is, back in the day, it was generally not the case that we wanted to bust out the players. Our model was more focused on sustainability.

Getting back to Matt Litt. 

I follow news in the gaming scene fairly closely. In several cases where an action was brought against an operator regarding excessive losses, I would notice that the attorney representing the person who suffered the losses was Matthew Litt. This was the case with Amit Patel, Sam Antar, and Lisa D’Alessandro.

This made me curious about Matthew Litt and why he was doing what he was doing.

To indicate a bias, I am somewhat suspicious of lawyers, and I am apparently not unique in this regard. In looking at Gallup’s ranking of U.S. professions with regard to honesty and ethics, lawyers rank pretty low. What I found to be very funny was that when the American Bar Association announced these results in ABA Journal, it tried to accentuate the good with the headline — “Lawyers viewed as more ethical than car salespeople and US lawmakers.” That is a funny accolade.

I did some research on Matt, and it was fascinating. I then tracked him down, and we had a few conversations via Zoom. He gave every indication of being serious about his representation of his clients. He is very alive to the potential and actual damage of a gaming addiction and wants to see it better addressed in the U.S. today. He is also not anti-gambling but believes that there are clear and unequivocal cases of abuse that the legislators are protecting the operators from, and the regulators are sitting on their hands about.

As a non-gaming-related aside, he has written a book, entitled Christmas 1945, which tells the story of when President Harry S. Truman declared a four-day holiday before Christmas in 1945. The four days were dedicated to welcoming back and honoring those who had served in World War II. To suggest that it is an inspiring and wholesome effort is an understatement and somewhat destroys any notion that Matt was a bad example of the lawyer breed.

Matt has excellent credentials as a lawyer, is well-educated, has an outstanding record of publications and speaking engagements, and is licensed to practice law in both state and federal courts in New York and New Jersey. I could go on and on here, but it would just involve further examples that Matt is a very good and accomplished human being.

What I wanted to get at, however, was why Matt was doing this. I sensed that it was not highly profitable, and his motivations fell outside of the pecuniary goals. So, I arranged another call.

A fundamental problem

In looking at the three cases that Matt is most noted for — as mentioned, they are Amit Patel, Sam Antar, and Lisa D’Alessandro — there is a common denominator. The fact pattern is that it should have been obvious to essentially any observer that something was fundamentally wrong. See, for example, the D’Alessandro story here.

This particular case was settled, and my guess is that it was settled because DraftKings did not want to be the new poster boy for clearly and unequivocally abusing a player who was certainly not well. The player ruined his life, and DraftKings, according to the allegations, was right there for all of it. Unfortunately, he also materially damaged his family with his addiction.

When discussing the fact pattern of these cases with Matt, he suggests that they are not outliers. He discusses past and present circumstances, where a long and constant stream of text messages is sent to the player, encouraging a bet, up to 100 times in one day. And every inducement under the sun is offered. Again, these are cases where the fact patterns clearly exhibit behaviors that are beyond the pale.

It would be an interesting exercise to have a legislator or regulator read the series of text messages that a sports betting operator sends to a VIP player at one of our conferences. Let’s suggest that for G2E, understanding that the operator can send over 100 messages to one bettor in a 24-hour period.

Unlike Mathew Bowyer, the U.S. betting companies are not subject to a duty of care law, at least as reflected in Bowyer’s sentencing report that suggested leniency should be denied because he was dealing to compulsive gamblers. It appears that our legislators believe that an establishment that serves alcohol should be liable for serving a customer to the extent that it risks the health and well-being of the individual or others, but a sports betting operator has no such responsibility, even if the behavior is well over the top of anything considered sane. 

Our regulators also seem to want to stay out of the fray. It was Matt Litt who gained recognition when he mailed the “Risk Free Bets Letter” to seven Atlantic City casinos in 2022, arguing that it was not risk-free. This ushered in a heightened awareness about advertising in sports betting across the U.S.

Why aren’t the regulators regulating?

More importantly, what bothers me about much of the hands-off approach of the clearly inappropriate player abuse cases, of which D’Alessandro is a clear example, is that the regulators go mute. 

I have submitted well in excess of 120 gaming licenses during my time in the industry, and two key aspects were involved in all of those processes. One is that I needed to possess character, honesty, and integrity as a licensee, and two, my conduct had to be such that I would not bring disrespect to the industry. Regulators: Read the D’Alesandro case, or others like it, and see if these operators are standing up to the standards that you supposedly support.

What I like about Matt Litt is that he is doing what he is doing because he thinks it is important. He makes interesting comments, such as, “An attorney has the obligation to do right.” He is currently receiving calls from people who have been damaged by gaming and makes the point that “I have to do something to help them.” 

One of my favorite discussions with him is when he stated, “I have never lost my optimism that we can make a positive change.” He follows this with, “I am a cockeyed optimist.”

Matt is also a father of three children, ages 12, 14, and 16. They are very alive to what he does, and they often bring him examples of gaming ads and circumstances that are both explicit and embedded in the games they play and the social media they consume.

The point is that the beast is running wild out there, and we are well behind in understanding it and controlling it. I am grateful that we have people like Matt Litt on the case.

Matt seems to have one request of the industry, as stated by saying, “All I am asking is that the operators leave the vulnerable people alone, and they know who they are.”

That is not too much to ask.