Category: EOLIS Perspective

Since the late 60’s Eolis International Group has been a proponent of legalized gaming, with specialized services to commercial casinos and tribal gaming properties in the United States and overseas.  And since the 90’s, when Eolis International Group CEO Wendeen H. Eolis served as Senior Advisor to Governor George E. Pataki on gaming issues in New York State, we have supported the need for consumer protections, endorsing licensed, taxed, and regulated gambling activities.

Noting the potential services that the government could provide from the influx of significant tax revenues into the economy as well as a commitment to civil liberties, Ms. Eolis has in recent years  been a champion of  federal legislation that would allow adults to play poker in their favorite cyberspace card room.

Since 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act has undermined civil liberties by insisting that Uncle Sam should be the arbiter of responsible gaming–attempting improperly to pigeon hole poker into a game of chance to dangerous except in the confines of brick and mortar casinos where it is routinely offered side by side with other adrenaline-filled games in which chance is the more dominant factor.

Like any responsible company that serves the gaming space, EOLIS is concerned about underage gambling, and opposes gambling operations that disregard the need to offer assistance to addictive gamblers, but history shows that a commitment to responsible gaming is better than the underground gambling that is inevitable when prohibition is the law.

Over the past five years since the passage of UIGEA, EOLIS has counseled casinos on the likely prospects of almost instantly doubling their revenues by the introduction of online gaming.  Not surprisingly in recent months, we have been consulted by casinos and investment banks and other potential purchasers interested in cooperating with online gambling sites–poised to snap up huge customer bases and turn key operations as soon as Congress sees the light at the end of the tunnel–huge $$$ signs in licensed, taxed and regulated online gaming.

At the Monaco iGaming conference of 2010 in Monte Carlo, Ms. Eolis forecasted an inevitable shift in the perception of poker from a game of chance to a pursuit of skill, and the demise of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006—but not as a prospect for  2010.

While many lobbying groups predicted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would push through favorable legislation that would unhinge poker from the grip of UIGEA, Ms. Eolis insisted Mr. Reid’s support of online gambling remained superficial awaiting further unification of the powerful casino operator constituents in his home state of Nevada.

Now, there is obvious growing unity and the machinations to move online gaming front and center are brisk at the state level with Nevada legislation underway and judging by the loud noises inside the Beltway, Republicans traditionally opposed to online gaming are rethinking their positions–John Kyl and Spencer Bachus, the new Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, among them.  A Washington D.C- based gaming lawyer says, “They are both reportedly moved by the evidence of poker as a game of skill.” Could the prospect of bipartisan support for online poker, loom larger than ever on the horizon?

Wendeen Eolis says for the first time in years, the excitement in the poker community has a solid foundation, predicting now that it is only a matter of time, not a question of whether or not online poker will be treated as a legitimate activity by the United States Department of Justice.

In recent weeks, Caesars Entertainment Corp. has cut a deal with 888 Holdings PLC and Wynn Resorts Limited has cut a deal with PokerStars that looks to a level of cooperation that is likely to produce windfalls not only for the casinos that Ms. Eolis predicted last fall would benefit in the coming years, but also for online companies that have taken bets from American players including PokerStars, the most aggressive online gambling company in the world.  All we need now is amnesty for companies that have flown in the face of the U.S. justice department’s negative views, so as to allow adults in America unimpeded freedom to play poker at their computers–in pajamas if they wish.

Teatime at the Plaza Hotel in New York City is a uniquely fancy experience.  But visits by the hoi polloi, including society matrons and other high falutin’ ladies who lunch, do not guarantee that your smartly plated food will not be contaminated.

In the incident reported to us by an EOLIS executive, it was luscious strawberries and cream cheese, or maybe just plain strawberries that were the culprit; an insect contently nestled under a strawberry, much to the diner’s dismay.  The tearoom’s maitre d’ went on the defensive instantly, questioning the guest’s first-hand knowledge of the creeping insect that suddenly sped off to a low flying cloud as the diner and a server watched in disbelief.

The cleanliness of the establishment is not necessarily defined by the prices on the menu, and consumers are routinely at risk for falling ill.  Rarely considered, but ever present, are the real perils for New Yorkers who dine out, whether it be at a neighborhood bistro or an upscale and refined tearoom. While the legal issues that may come into play in your next restaurant visit may be about negligence, food poisoning is but one potential problem diners can face when they go out to eat.  Lost coats, beverage spills, and personal injuries can trigger disputes, too.

The more rampant issue that spurs lawsuits, however, is inconsiderateness, arrogance, and an utter disregard of the kitchen and the front of the house towards diners who are put at  risk. From a lay person’s perspective, the Plaza’s conduct in the instance reported to us is reflective of a company running scared when good manners are their best defense against litigation.  So for all of those restaurants that would prefer to bully the patron as to their credibility, our office will be happy to assist them in the retention of tort counsel.  One way or another, the negligent  restaurant  will likely  prove itself penny-wise and pound- foolish in just adding the insect to the offended customer’s tab.

EOLIS consultants advise clients as to when they may have an immediate need for special counsel in all major legal disciplines.  For those who are curious about negligence claims, the New York law firm of Rottenstein LLP advises “You need to have the following four elements: (1) duty (2) breach of that duty (3) causation of harm, and (4) damages.”  If you get sick from food that you ate at a restaurant, you may be able to seek compensation for medical bills, lost wages during your illness and recovery, as well as for your pain and suffering.

In the Plaza teatime incident, if the customer had fallen ill, showing causation of harm would be a simple matter of snapping a cell phone picture of the insect, the server witness, and later, the dismissive maitre d’.

NEW YORK (February 14, 2011)   “Do as the Romans do!” So say some of our colleagues about the increasingly relaxed dress rules for lawyers.  For women, especially, the unwritten rules of yore (requiring them to dress even more conservatively than men) have virtually collapsed, thanks to the potent impact of First Fashionista Michelle Obama and her cardigan sweater fans.

It is not so clear that a routine of business casual is the safest bet for an aspiring partner or a rising one for that matter, either when trotting off to a law firm beauty contest—no matter the dress of the potential client or even that of the firm’s 800 pound gorilla who will lead the charge –with a portfolio of ten million dollars of business in the left pocket of his cashmere blazer.

In informal interviews with more than 100 corporate counsels on lifestyle issues in the workplace, Eolis International Group has learned that a gray pinstripe suit, white shirt, and medium blue or burgundy tie for men, and a black or navy suit with a silk shell or blouse ensemble offends none of them but deviations from a strictly conservative uniform affects the evaluation of a pitch for business among nearly 10% of their ranks.

The reasons as well as the extent to which they express reservations—due to sartorial choices–are quite varied, but the idea that the prospective client should just deal with it can cost a representation.

Meetings deserve a conservative uniform unless there are compelling reasons (such as the host’s explicit request) otherwise.  Why not minimize the possibility of causing a potential engagement that would otherwise fly to crater?