Facing claims that it breached its loyalty to a gambling device manufacturing client, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott has conceded that it did not get informed consent before it began representing a casino that pushed to have the gaming company’s devices outlawed.
The law firm filed a stipulation Thursday in the case, Pace-O-Matic v. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, conceding the informed consent issue and agreeing not to advocate on behalf of any client in a way that would run counter to the interests of Pace-O-Matic (POM), which develops electronic gambling games that operate much like slot machines.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
