Credit: Svetlana Larina/Shutterstock.comEckert Seamans Claims 'No Ethical Inconsistencies' in Casino, Gambling Work
The firm acknowledged that it ended its client relationship with Pace-O-Matic in January, but said it had already cleared any conflicts related to longtime client Parx Casino.
February 20, 2020 at 10:50 AM
4 minute read
In response to allegations of client conflict in the gaming industry, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott contends that former client Pace-O-Matic mischaracterized its relationship in a complaint filed Tuesday in Pennsylvania federal court, and that the ex-client consented to its representation of Parx Casino.
Pace-O-Matic alleged that even as its lawyers at Eckert Seamans defended the company's devices on the grounds that they are legal games of skill, the firm was simultaneously arguing on behalf of Parx Casino that the same games should be outlawed as illegal gambling devices.
When Pace-O-Matic confronted the law firm about that conflict, the complaint said, "Eckert further breached the duty of undivided loyalty owed to POM by dropping POM like the proverbial 'hot potato' in favor of its more lucrative client relationship with Parx Casino."
But in a statement issued Wednesday night, Eckert Seamans said it only represented Pace-O-Matic since 2017, and that Parx, owned by Greenwood Gaming, has been a client for over a decade. The firm did acknowledge that it dropped Pace-O-Matic as a client last month.
"Eckert Seamans offered POM a full and formal disclosure of the firm's long-standing engagement with Parx Casino. This disclosure established an understanding that Eckert Seamans would not represent POM in Pennsylvania, and that Eckert Seamans would continue its full representation of other clients, including in matters potentially adverse to POM in Pennsylvania," Eckert Seamans chief legal officer Timothy Coon said in the statement.
According to the firm, Pace-O-Matic continued to engage Eckert Seamans as its counsel following that disclosure.
Coon also said Pace-O-Matic is not a party to any matter on which Eckert Seamans is counsel in Pennsylvania, including the matter referenced in the federal complaint.
"With rigorous confidentiality safeguards in place internally between the Eckert Seamans lawyers who represent Parx Casino and the Eckert Seamans lawyers who represent POM, respectively, there have been no ethical inconsistencies in the legal proceedings of either client," Coon said.
The firm did engage ethics experts internally and through the state bar associations to ensure that its client relationships with Pace-O-Matic and Parx did not violate any ethics rules, after Pace-O-Matic raised concerns, Coon's statement said. While that examination did not reveal any misconduct, he said, the firm ultimately chose to end the client relationship with Pace-O-Matic last month.
In its complaint, Pace-O-Matic argued that Eckert Seamans should be enjoined from representing Parx in any matters adverse to Pace-O-Matic, and it is seeking punitive damages.
According to the complaint, Eckert Seamans represented Pace-O-Matic in various matters related to its games, including litigation and government relations strategies. Their relationship dates back to 2011, the complaint said, and included matters in Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Coon's statement also said that timeline is misleading. While Pace-O-Matic asked the firm to assist it with a legal issue in 2011, his statement said, "Eckert Seamans briefly examined the legal issue and informed POM that it could not help." So the firm only billed 0.3 hours of time and returned the rest of the gaming company's retainer.
"As counsel for POM and its affiliates, Eckert secured legal and governmental opinions attesting that POM's products are games of skill and not gambling devices," the complaint said, noting that the firm used those arguments in June 2019 in Virginia state court.
But in a Bucks County, Pennsylvania, court action in December 2019, the complaint said, Eckert Seamans argued on behalf of Parx "that POM manufactures 'illegal slot machines' and 'deceptively markets these games as "legal" when, in fact, they are not.'"
Erik Anderson, Daniel Brier and Donna Walsh of Myers Brier & Kelly are representing Pace-O-Matic, and did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday morning.
|Read More
Gaming Device Co. Sues Eckert Seamans Over Parx Casino Representation
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Ex-DLA Piper, Ballard Spahr Atty Accused of Aiding Video Game Company Founder's Misappropriation Scheme
5 minute read
From M&A to Music Fest, Ballard Spahr Attorney Hosts Week-Long Jam Session With Help of Clients
5 minute read
$43.5M Med Mal Verdict for Ex-Eagles Team Captain Withstands Appellate Challenge
Pa. Casinos Ask Court to Force State to Tax Skill Games Found in Stores Equally to Slots
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
