News

J&J Talc MDL Court Backs Disqualification of Lead Plaintiffs Firm

A federal court backed Beasley Allen's ouster from J&J's 67,000-plaintiff talc MDL after a former J&J defense lawyer crossed sides to advise the firm on settlement strategy.

Nina Kowalski3 min read
Published
Listen to this article0:00 min
Share this article:
J&J Talc MDL Court Backs Disqualification of Lead Plaintiffs Firm
AI-generated illustration
This article contains affiliate links, marked with a blue dot. We may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.

The largest active mass tort docket in the United States lost its lead plaintiffs' firm last week when the federal court overseeing the Johnson & Johnson talcum-powder multidistrict litigation backed a New Jersey appellate ruling disqualifying Beasley Allen from the case entirely. The April 1 alignment by the MDL court followed a March 26 order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh, who stripped the Montgomery, Alabama-based firm from the proceeding and removed it from the plaintiffs' steering committee.

The root of the disqualification was James Conlan, a former J&J defense lawyer who had been a partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. After leaving the firm, Conlan launched a consulting entity and was brought in by Beasley Allen principal Andy Birchfield to help shape mass-settlement strategy. Conlan's pitch involved his firm absorbing liabilities and deploying several billion dollars to press claims against J&J. When J&J learned of the arrangement, it moved to disqualify Beasley Allen in both state and federal proceedings. Courts characterized the relationship as "walking on both sides of the street," an impermissible conflict that Singh found had led Birchfield to violate several of New Jersey's Rules of Professional Conduct.

Singh rejected Beasley Allen's bid to pause the disqualification pending appeal, a request filed on March 31 in which the firm called the ruling "unprecedented and incorrect." The judge had already signaled her reasoning on delay: waiting indefinitely risked "thwarting the setting of a bellwether trial" and, as she wrote plainly, "All Plaintiffs involved in this matter deserve to be represented by counsel who take seriously their ethical obligations and who are above reproach." Singh noted that Beasley Allen's clients carry joint representation, meaning co-counsel can advance the cases, but the leadership disruption arrives at a moment the docket could ill afford.

The disqualification compounds pressure on a litigation that has already absorbed three failed J&J bankruptcy maneuvers, including a proposed $9 billion settlement that courts ruled did not meet the legal standard for shielding the company from ongoing liability. With J&J having confirmed it will not appeal that bankruptcy decision, the MDL is now the primary arena. Motley Rice's April 2 status update tallied more than 67,000 pending plaintiffs, and the firm's analysis framed Beasley Allen's removal as one of several stacked complications bearing on near-term bellwether scheduling. J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, Erik Haas, publicly praised the disqualification ruling and criticized the firm's conduct across years of coordinated litigation.

For expecting families and anyone assembling a baby-shower registry, the litigation's ongoing volatility carries a concrete takeaway that has nothing to do with courtrooms. Johnson & Johnson's talc-based Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products were pulled from North American shelves in 2020 and discontinued globally in 2023, but legacy stocks still circulate in family medicine cabinets and resurface as well-meaning gifts. Check ingredient labels before any purchase: avoid powders listing talc or talcum as a component. Cornstarch-based powders and fragrance-free zinc-oxide barrier creams carry none of the asbestos-contamination concerns at the center of the allegations driving 67,000-plus claims. Gifting from an old family cabinet stash is specifically the scenario to avoid; the product may predate the reformulations and label changes that followed years of litigation pressure.

The Beasley Allen ruling signals that courts managing mass tort dockets at scale will move aggressively to protect proceeding integrity, even at the cost of disrupting established leadership. That posture, combined with J&J's exhausted bankruptcy strategy, means bellwether verdicts will now carry the full weight of setting settlement expectations for tens of thousands of plaintiffs without the moderating influence of a negotiated global resolution.

Know something we missed? Have a correction or additional information?

Submit a Tip

Discussion

More Baby Shower Articles