UNO!

What is UNO!?

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”

What is UNO!?

He also pointed to the self-exclusion mechanism adopted by the government.

“The debate about prohibition will remain open in the country for the next few years,” he said. “It will be an institutional debate between the Supreme Court, Congress and the executive branch.

Durigan did not indicate that the government would prohibit the activity.

What is UNO!?

The CFTC’s move also comes as other US regulators continue to craft their own crypto policies. The agency and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jointly issued an interpretation in March on how certain crypto assets would be treated under federal securities laws. 

A lot of bigger questions remain without the CLARITY Act. The bill aimed to establish a federal framework for digital commodities and delineate the roles of the SEC and the CFTC. 

Its failure also leaves unresolved disputes over prediction markets and state and tribal gaming authorities, outside a comprehensive congressional framework. Those issues took on new significance during Senate floor debate over the bill, as concerns about federal commodities oversight extended to markets typically regulated at the state or tribal level.