Former Houston Lawyer Held on Gambling Debt Warrant from Nevada

A former Houston-area lawyer has finally been arrested after he was apprehended on a casino debt warrant in Texas. 

Identified as D.L.P., the man was apprehended by the Bayou Vista Police Department on January 12, 2026, with police following up on a casino debt warrant issued by Clark County, Nevada. 

Debt Warrant Finally Catches Up with the Man

P. is alleged to have racked up gambling debt with a casino in Las Vegas, although no specifics as to which property this may be have been withheld. He allegedly owes the luxury resort and casino $100,000. 

Following his arrest, P. has agreed to cooperate with Clark County – he was released from the Galveston County Jail on January 14, two days after his arrest – and will now make regular payments towards his debt. 

Clark County prosecutors have agreed to drop all charges providing that P. continues to make regular payments and meet his debt. This is not the first time P. has been in the news cycle, however, as previously the lawyer has been alleged to have stolen money from clients who hired him, before he disappeared on them.

According to KPRC 2 News, a local media outlet, at least five people have complained about the lawyer and said that he had disappeared with their money. The Supreme Court of Texas finally accepted P.’s resignation and prohibited him from practising law in the state of Texas. 

Troubled Past and Inability to Fight Back Against His Accusers

P. argued that his debarring was unjust and it was the result of machinations, not objectivity. He argued that had he had the funds, he would have challenged the bar’s decision, but had to resign himself to his fate instead. 

In May 2025, P. filed for bankruptcy, with KPRC 2 reporting on the news, and citing documents that the former lawyer owed money to individuals and banks, including his alleged victims. 

However, his bankruptcy filing was blocked after plaintiffs complained that the move was executed in bad faith and not due to economic reasons, but rather to avoid foreclosure on a property P. owned. 

The court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs.