Pace-O-Matic accuses Pennsylvania law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott of “double-dealing”
The suit alleges the law firm participated in a campaign to “destroy POM’s business.”
Georgia-based gaming company Pace-O-Matic (POM) has accused Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, a Pennsylvania law firm, of “double-dealing” and of activities that were a “conflict of interest.”
POM announced its suit against the law firm, stating that Eckert allegedly “took up arms” against the company on behalf of the Philadelphia-based Parx Casino and that the firm engaged in campaign activities designed to “destroy POM’s business by attempting to convince elected and appointed public officials that POM’s games are gambling devices that should be seized and outlawed.”
The lawsuit also contends that Eckert, “working at the behest of Parx Casino and its consultants,” sought to block POM from doing business in Pennsylvania and that Eckert used allegedly used its influence to “improperly target the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB).”
Eckert has more than 300 lawyers working across a network of 15 offices, including Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Boston, Washington DC, and Richmond, VA. The law firm represented both POM and Parx simultaneously but has denied the allegations that the dual representation was a conflict of interest.
Chief Public Affairs Officer Michael Barley disagreed, stating that the claims against Eckert reveal unethical behavior.
He commented: “Make no mistake about it, Eckert engaged in an egregious conflict of interest where they unethically pitted one client against another.
“This case and record are clear, and we are hopeful the courts will right the damage that Eckert and its agents have inflicted upon POM, its customers and countless Pennsylvanians.”
US Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito, Jr. ruled in November 2021 that Eckert “acted in bad faith” due to the firm seeking to withhold emails that showed Eckert was representing both companies.
The ruling stated: “[Eckert] actively and clandestinely managed and participated in the representation of Parx in the Commonwealth Court litigation against its other client, POM. Moreover, based on our in-camera review of the purportedly privileged documents, it did so with full knowledge that the conflict asserted by POM precluded its active and continuing representation of Parx in the Commonwealth Court litigation.”
Saporito continued: “In light of the clear and obviously intentional subterfuge demonstrated in the purportedly privileged documents, we have no difficulty concluding that these documents evidence an intent by Stewart and Eckert to play fast and loose with the courts.”
Eckert appealed the Saporito ruling. Since then, Federal Judge Jennifer P. Wilson recently ruled in favor of POM, stating “in making inconsistent representations to the court, Eckert has attempted to obstruct the discovery process as to the central issue in this case: whether Eckert breached its fiduciary duty to POM by representing Parx, a party with adverse interests, at the same time that it represented POM.”
Tags/Keywords
Players trust our reporting due to our commitment to unbiased and professional evaluations of the iGaming sector. We track hundreds of platforms and industry updates daily to ensure our news feed and leaderboards reflect the most recent market shifts. With nearly two decades of experience within iGaming, our team provides a wealth of expert knowledge. This long-standing expertise enables us to deliver thorough, reliable news and guidance to our readers.
Latest News
