The law firm disqualified from thousands of lawsuits alleging talcum powder causes cancer must stay on the sidelines, a New Jersey appeals court has decided.
“To have Beasley Allen litigate cases in our trial courts when they have been disqualified would not be in the interest of justice,” the state Appellate Division recently said in rejecting the firm’s request for a stay of its disqualification order.
Earlier this year, that court found Beasley Allen violated professionalism rules when it strategized with James Conlan, who had represented Johnson & Johnson in court, on a mass settlement of talc claims. The ruling disqualifies Beasley Allen from 3,600 cases in New Jersey state court that claim talc in cosmetic products like Baby Powder contains asbestos and causes ovarian and other cancers.
There is also a push to oust the firm from tens of thousands of federal court lawsuits. A disgruntled former client of the firm, Aletha Wilson, says Beasley Allen tried to trick her into signing a retroactive power of attorney giving the firm the power to vote against a $9 billion bankruptcy plan Johnson & Johnson once floated to settle talc litigation against it.
Beasley Allen voted against the bankruptcy plan on behalf of some 11,500 clients, claiming they were better off negotiating a settlement or suing in court. Allen says she stood to gain money under the bankruptcy plan but nothing if she sued in court, since plaintiff experts back claims Baby Powder can cause ovarian cancer, but not uterine cancer.
Conlan was a former partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath who defended J&J in talc litigation. He left the firm to start Legacy Liability Solutions, where he attempted to buy the company’s talc liabilities and opposed the company’s ultimately unsuccessful plan to settle all cases in bankruptcy court.
He worked with Beasley Allen’s Andy Birchfield to craft a settlement outside of the bankruptcy process, which was J&J’s preferred avenue. Conlan and the firm wanted the talc liabilities bundled to an offshoot company that would be sold to him.
Conlan even wrote an op-ed in Bloomberg touting that strategy.
“Realistically, Beasley Allen’s goals in reaching a settlement of the talc claims are clearly adverse to J&J, as Beasley Allen wanted to settle at the greatest amount possible for its clients, as does Conlan on behalf of Legacy for its own financial gain, while J&J wants the opposite,” Judge Mark Chase wrote.
“Therefore, Conlan worked together with Beasley Allen, whose interests in the talc litigation are materially adverse to those of Conlan’s former client, J&J.”
J&J has vowed to fight talc cases in court after its plan to fund a $9 billion settlement was defeated – by Beasley Allen. A Houston bankruptcy judge last year found a poll of those with injury claims tied to Baby Powder use unreliable.
J&J has won plenty of defense verdicts in trials that hinge on expert testimony regarding whether there is asbestos in the talcum powder, but when it loses, jurors aren’t shy about delivering massive verdicts. In December, one woman won $1.5 billion in Baltimore, and two women in Los Angeles won $40 million.
Beasley Allen unsuccessfully asked the federal court to stay the issue of disqualification there while it appeals the New Jersey ruling to the state Supreme Court.
