A former client of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius is asking a Philadelphia judge to find that the law firm is liable as a matter of law in a $30 million lawsuit over an alleged conflict of interest.

In a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed late Tuesday, Towers Watson & Co. argued that Morgan Lewis' own documents support Towers' allegations, asserting Morgan Lewis has not provided any specifics to back up its denials.

“Pennsylvania law is well settled that a party may not simply avoid judgment on the pleadings with denials that do not directly respond to the well-pleaded factual averments of a complaint,” Towers said in its motion, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

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

Towers has alleged 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' filings identify Law Firm 2 as Nixon Peabody.

In its latest motion, Towers said Morgan Lewis has admitted or “must be deemed to admit” that it knew there would be a conflict between Meriter's and Towers' interests, and that the firm never informed Towers of the conflict.

“Simply, defendants do not—because they cannot—specifically deny that they made the statements or took the actions factually alleged in the complaint as demonstrated through defendants' own documents,” Towers' filing said.

In an answer to the suit filed in December, Morgan Lewis said it never represented a client in a matter directly adverse to Towers. But even if the firm had done so, Morgan Lewis said, Towers expressly waived any conflict of interest in a 2010 engagement letter, and again in 2012 when it reaffirmed the engagement.

But in its motion for judgment on the pleadings, Towers contends that Morgan Lewis said in a 2016 letter to the Dane County Circuit Court in Wisconsin that its attorney, Jeremy Blumenfeld, had a nonwaivable conflict of interest with regard to the suit Meriter ultimately filed against Towers. Additionally, Towers said, in preliminary objections, Morgan Lewis already presented the court with its argument that Towers waived the conflict, and that argument was rejected.

“A conflict waiver is effective only upon obtaining informed consent,” Towers' motion said. “Nowhere in their amended answer and new matter do defendants allege that they communicated anything to Towers regarding a conflict of interest arising from Morgan's representation of Meriter, let alone allege that defendants consulted with and communicated the requisite adequate information and explanation of the risks and alternatives to Towers and thereafter obtained Towers' consent.”

A spokeswoman for Morgan Lewis said the firm declined to comment on the motion for judgment on the pleadings.