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.
