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.

The stipulations resolve challenges to preliminary objections and recent claims that Eckert Seamans had been causing "ongoing breaches" by pursing interests adverse to POM after the company had filed its initial complaint in early 2020. The agreement, however, does not resolve the broader issues of liability and damages, and it does not include a concession that the firm had acted improperly, or had any conflict of interest regarding its representation of POM.