It's hard to imagine, when your lawyer cautions that you might get into a boatload of legal trouble by doing something, that you go ahead and do it anyway.

Maybe a reckless businessperson might choose to do that, ignore the lawyer, take the risks and hit the gas.

But for a government body like the Connecticut General Assembly to ignore a clear warning and pass legislation that puts the state in some jeopardy is almost breathtaking.

That's what the Senate and House of Representatives have done in passing a bill giving exclusive, off-reservation gambling rights to the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes, to build a new casino in East Windsor to compete with one planned by MGM in nearby Springfield, Mass.

Here's how Attorney General George Jepsen concluded an official March memo on the risks posed by the proposed tribal casino legislation: "The risks attendant . . . while impossible to quantify with precision, are not insubstantial and cannot be mitigated with confidence."

The attorney general outlined, in the eight-page memo addressed to Gov. Dannel Malloy, two principal risks from the tribal casino bill.

One is a danger — which the tribes dismiss out of hand, citing written assurances from the Bureau of Indian Affairs — that when federal authorities review the new amendment to the tribe's gaming compact with the state, adding the East Windsor casino, that the underlying compact and the steady revenue from the reservations it guarantees could be reopened and the payments put at risk.

The other concern with the legislation giving the tribe's exclusive off-reservation gambling is the expected lawsuit saying it violates equal protection constitutional guarantees.

Jepsen said in the memo that he could not publicly discuss the range of possible defenses to such a lawsuit, for obvious reasons, but did say the state could argue that the special nature of the state-tribal relationship merits special legislative treatment.

But this is fresh legal ground.

"We caution that the potential of equal protection or commerce clause challenges succeeding in this context is not at all insubstantial," he wrote.

That was a big caution shout-out that many lawmakers in Hartford chose to ignore.

I am not against an East Windsor casino, and I have long believed that the state should do all it could to help the tribes compete with the new Massachusetts casinos.

But I also believe this was sloppy lawmaking, that other measures, like creating competition for a northern Connecticut casino in which bidders would have to guarantee, for instance, a match of the revenue paid from the reservation gambling, would have drawn only a bid by the tribes anyway.

Now that the state and tribes are headed down this legal rabbit hole, it looks like the risk is greater for the tribes than the state.

And honestly, it is not clear that, given their substantial combined debt burden — Pequots already are in forbearance with many creditors — how much financial risk they reasonably can sustain.

A court injunction, if granted, might stop any construction, and any further development costs, while it is sorted out for years in court, while MGM Springfield packs 'em in.

Of course, in the absence of an injunction, the tribes risk any money put into building a new casino that the courts eventually might block from opening.

The state would defend itself with existing legal resources, Jepsen told me Friday, although it probably would not be an insubstantial legal defense.

The risks involved with this legislation have not changed since he wrote the memo in March, Jepsen said.

The state also could be forced to pay MGM's legal fees, if the company sues as threatened and prevails.

The general wisdom in Hartford last week was that the governor will sign the bill.

I asked Malloy's office Friday, and they sent me the statement issued when the bill passed, a statement that leaves a bit of wiggle room on the question of whether he will sign.

The statement praised the General Assembly for keeping jobs at the center of the debate and noted the tribes' longstanding partnership with the state.

It stops short of promising he will sign and ends by saying, "I look forward to reviewing this proposal."

One wonders if his lawyer's clear message of caution will be included in that review.

The next chapter of these casino wars appears destined to unfold in court.

And it is not by accident that the MGM executive that headed lobbying efforts in the General Assembly to stop a new Connecticut casino was their legal counsel.

This is the opinion of David Collins.

d.collins@theday.com