The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled on February 6, 2026, that the plaintiffs’ law firm Beasley Allen must be disqualified from representing claimants in the state’s consolidated talc litigation against Johnson & Johnson (J&J). This decision reverses a July 2024 ruling by Atlantic County Superior Court Judge John Porto, who had denied J&J’s motion to disqualify the firm.
Key Details from the Ruling
- A three-judge panel found that Beasley Allen improperly coordinated with James Conlan, a former partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. Conlan had previously represented J&J and its subsidiary LTL Management in the same talc litigation before leaving the firm.
- The court determined this contact created an ethical breach, warranting the firm’s removal from the New Jersey state court cases.
- The opinion, authored by Judge Mark Chase, emphasized that the collaboration (including during a mediation to keep cases out of bankruptcy) violated professional conduct rules.
Broader Context
- This ruling applies specifically to New Jersey state court talc cases alleging that J&J’s talc-based products (e.g., Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower) cause ovarian cancer due to asbestos contamination.
- A similar disqualification motion by J&J remains pending in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- Beasley Allen has been a prominent firm in the talc litigation, representing thousands of plaintiffs and co-leading efforts in the federal MDL.
The decision marks a significant win for J&J in limiting plaintiffs’ counsel in one key jurisdiction amid ongoing nationwide talc lawsuits. For the full opinion or updates, refer to official court records on the New Jersey Courts website or reliable legal news sources like Reuters and Law.com.