In its latest argument to stave off a former client's $30 million lawsuit, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius says the ex-client, Towers Watson & Co., was aware that the firm might represent an adverse party and waived any conflict of interest in two engagement agreements.

In an answer to the suit filed Tuesday in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Morgan Lewis said it never represented a client in a matter directly adverse to Towers Watson, which has sued Morgan Lewis as Towers Watson Delaware. But even if the firm had done so, the firm's brief said, Towers expressly waived conflict of interest in a 2010 engagement letter, and again in 2012 when it reaffirmed the engagement.

According to the complaint, Morgan Lewis represented Towers from 2009 to 2016. In 2010, the suit says, Morgan Lewis began defending Meriter Health Services in a class action over a retirement plan. After the class action settled in 2014, Meriter sued a Towers entity that designed the retirement plan at issue, alleging that Towers was responsible for Meriter's liability in the class action.

“It is denied that Morgan Lewis 'withheld notice' of any present or potential conflict from the Towers entities or plaintiff, and it is further denied that defendants assisted Meriter and Nixon Peabody in developing claims against the Towers entities or plaintiff,” the answer said.

In the complaint, Towers alleges that Morgan Lewis used its representation of Towers to assist another law firm, referred to in the complaint as “Law Firm 2,” in developing Meriter's lawsuit. Morgan Lewis' answer identifies Law Firm 2 as Nixon Peabody.

Towers has alleged that by assisting Law Firm 2, Morgan Lewis caused Towers to lose more than $25 million, in addition to legal fees already paid. Meriter and Towers reached a confidential settlement agreement in June, according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Morgan Lewis admits in the answer that it communicated with Nixon Peabody about the status of litigation involving Towers. But Morgan Lewis declined to help evaluate and develop Meriter's potential claims against Towers, the answer said.

In one instance, the answer said, Morgan Lewis reviewed Towers documents in defense of the Meriter action, but only to determine whether they contained privileged information.

Morgan Lewis had previously filed preliminary objections to Towers' complaint, but Judge Patricia McInerney overruled all but one. Morgan Lewis partner Jeremy Blumenfeld successfully argued for dismissal of the breach of contract claim against him individually.

William Trask of Sprague & Sprague, who is representing Towers, said Morgan Lewis has not sufficiently shown that it made disclosures to Towers about potential conflicts. And he said the arguments in the firm's answers were already made in the preliminary objections.

“Morgan Lewis is still relying on this notion that Towers waived any conflicts,” Trask said. “The court has already rejected that argument.”

A projected trial date for the case has been set for Dec. 3, 2018.