Former Supreme Court Attorney Faces Trial over High-Stakes Poker

Tom Goldstein built a reputation as one of Washington’s leading lawyers, forging a reputation of excellence in the Supreme Court whose opinion carried significant weight both in court and in academia. However, his professional acumen did little to protect him as he now faces a federal jury over allegations tied to millions of dollars in poker winnings and unpaid taxes.

Goldstein’s Poker Winnings Fueled His High Living

According to a recent Reuters report, Goldstein was living a double life. By day, he worked on Supreme Court cases and ran the boutique firm Goldstein & Russell. By night, he took part in private, high-stakes poker games where seven-figure swings were not uncommon. However, that second life has drawn significant scrutiny, leading to the current court case.

Federal authorities allege that Goldstein failed to report substantial gambling winnings over several years, significantly understating his proceeds while maintaining a lavish lifestyle that included luxury travel, expensive homes, and private gambling sessions with the super-rich. According to the indictment, investors financed Goldstein with millions of dollars in exchange for a share of potential profits.

Goldstein does not deny that he was a regular at the poker table, nor that the sums involved were enormous. In public interviews, he has boasted about wins reaching as high as $15 million. However, the lawyer denies any criminal intent. He argues that any tax discrepancies were the result of poor bookkeeping, not a deliberate effort to hide income.

The Star Lawyer Denies Any Criminal Intent

Despite Goldstein’s assurances, prosecutors argue that financial records tell a different story. They allege that Goldstein moved money through his law firm to obscure their origin, made misleading statements on mortgage applications, and treated poker winnings as akin to loans rather than taxable income. Prosecutors must prove that such discrepancies were intentional, rather than innocent mistakes.

The trial will also explore the financial environment surrounding high-stakes poker. Backing arrangements, profit sharing, and informal credit are common at top tables. However, they can create confusion when it comes to taxation. According to legal experts, the outcome of this case hinges on whether Goldstein genuinely misunderstood how to report such agreements or whether he used that complexity as cover.

The case has drawn significant attention in legal circles, mostly due to Goldstein’s reputation. He has already rejected plea offers that would have limited his exposure in exchange for an admission of wrongdoing. Instead, Goldstein has opted to take his chances with a jury, insisting that he never consciously violated the law.