Sirens Riches

What is Sirens Riches?

Tunisia has competing bills to prohibit or regulate online betting, neither of which has advanced. Egypt has relied on enforcement measures.

In all three, private online betting has no licensing route. Governments are tackling offshore demand through blocking, prohibition and criminal enforcement.

The contrast with land-based gambling is striking. Casinos in Morocco and Egypt operate within recognised frameworks and, in Morocco, attract international investment. Private online betting remains outside the legal market.

How to play Sirens Riches

I believe that the industry needs more outside voices. People who come in and look at problems from a different perspective, and who are not constantly worrying about past mistakes.

Technology, especially AI, is impacting all industries, and the more we can learn from one another, the better.

So, in many ways, this is a call-out to the outsiders and to those within the industry who want to shake things up. Ask questions, challenge assumptions and don’t be afraid of ignoring conventional wisdom. By doing all of these things, I’ve found a place that has welcomed me and that champions inclusion.

How to play Sirens Riches

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.”