New Jersey appeals court bars Beasley Allen from J&J talc cases over ethics breach

By Diana Novak Jones

Feb 6 (Reuters) - A New Jersey appeals court has barred plaintiffs’ firm Beasley Allen from representing plaintiffs in a consolidated group of lawsuits in the state brought against Johnson & Johnson alleging its baby powder causes cancer.

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division on Friday reversed a lower court’s ruling rejecting Johnson & Johnson’s bid to disqualify Beasley Allen from the litigation, saying the firm had improperly coordinated with an attorney who had previously represented J&J in the same litigation.

Judge Mark Chase wrote in the panel’s opinion that Beasley Allen’s contact with James Conlan, a former Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath partner who represented both J&J and a subsidiary, LTL Management, in the talc litigation, after Conlan left the firm to operate a new business, warranted the firm's removal from the cases.

“Conlan’s prolonged access to J&J’s privileged information, followed by collaborative efforts with its most prominent adversary, leaves us with clear concern for the preservation of trust intrinsic to the attorney-client relationship,” Chase wrote.

In a statement, Beasley Allen, which has represented talc claimants for more than a decade, said it will immediately appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The appeals court disregarded facts and misapplied the law, it said.

"Johnson & Johnson’s effort to remove its staunchest adversary must fail and it will," the firm said.

In a statement, Erik Haas, J&J’s worldwide vice president of litigation, applauded the ruling, saying the order recognized the seriousness of the situation.

“The extraordinary and malicious nature of the ethical violation warrants the most fulsome remediation, including disqualification from all related litigation,” Haas said. “Anything less would reward unethical behavior and undermine the fairness every litigant is entitled to expect in our judicial system.”

J&J has been fighting claims over its talc products in both federal and state court for years, and has said its products are safe and do not cause cancer. There are more than 67,500 lawsuits pending over the claims in federal court and about 3,600 in New Jersey state court.

In its disqualification motions, J&J has said Conlan, who worked on the talc litigation for J&J for nearly two years before leaving legal practice in 2022, had formed an "alliance" with Andy Birchfield, who manages Beasley Allen’s mass torts section and is a lead attorney in the talc cases, aimed at defeating J&J's bankruptcy strategy, relying on confidential information Conlan learned during his work for the company.

Conlan could not immediately be reached for comment. Beasley Allen has said in filings that J&J blamed them for defeating its attempts at resolving the talc litigation in bankruptcy, which were dismissed by courts, and wanted them removed as obstacles.

J&J has pushed to disqualify Beasley Allen in both the New Jersey cases and in the consolidated litigation in federal court on the same grounds. Friday's ruling only applies to cases over talc baby powder filed in New Jersey state court. The company's motion to disqualify the firm in the federal court cases is still pending, according to court records.

The New Jersey appeals court's ruling on Friday overturned a 2024 ruling from Judge John Porto of the New Jersey Superior Court, who found that J&J had not presented "any credible basis" for its claims.

The company stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020 and switched to a cornstarch product.

Chief Judge Thomas Sumners and Superior Court Judge Lorraine Augostini joined Chase on the panel.

The case is IN RE: TALC BASED POWDER PRODUCTS LITIGATION, Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, case number A-0215-24.

For Beasley Allen: Jeffrey Pollock of Pollock Law

For J&J: Peter Verniero of Sills Cummis & Gross