Beasley Allen Disqualified From NJ Talc Litigation Over Ethics Violation

The New Jersey Appellate Division has disqualified Beasley Allen, one of the largest plaintiff’s firms in talc litigation, from representing clients in the state’s multicounty litigation against Johnson and Johnson.

The ruling, issued February 7, 2026, affects 3,600 cases in New Jersey state court. It could also open the door for J&J to seek the firm’s removal from thousands of additional cases in federal court.

What Happened

At the center of the case is James Conlan, a former partner at Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath who defended J&J in talc litigation from July 2020 to March 2022. During that time, Conlan billed 1,600 hours and $2.24 million in fees, gaining access to J&J’s confidential defense strategies, settlement valuations, and claim assessment processes.

After leaving Faegre Drinker in March 2022, Conlan founded Legacy Liability Solutions. Starting in April 2023, he began collaborating with Beasley Allen partner Parker Birchfield on a strategy to oppose J&J’s preferred bankruptcy resolution and pitch an alternative settlement structure.

The plan, called “structural optimization,” involved Legacy purchasing J&J units responsible for talc liabilities and distributing funds to claimants outside of bankruptcy. Conlan proposed a $19 billion settlement to J&J’s board, which the company rejected.

The Ethics Violations

J&J discovered the collaboration and moved to disqualify Beasley Allen. The trial court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed that decision.

The appeals court found violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct:

• RPC 1.9(a): Representing a client in a matter substantially related to a former client’s case, with materially adverse interests
• RPC 1.9(c): Using confidential information from former client representation without consent
• RPC 5.3: Failing to supervise a nonlawyer whose conduct would violate ethics rules if committed by a lawyer
• RPC 8.4(a): Assisting another in violating professional conduct rules
• RPC 1.10: Imputing conflicts across the firm

The court rejected Beasley Allen’s argument that Conlan was acting as a nonlawyer businessman, not a lawyer, when he collaborated with Birchfield. The panel called that defense “disingenuous.”

Why This Matters for Talc Litigation

Beasley Allen is a leading firm in talc litigation nationwide, representing tens of thousands of plaintiffs who allege that J&J’s talc products contained asbestos and caused cancer.

The disqualification raises questions about the status of the 3,600 New Jersey cases and how they will proceed. It also raises the possibility that J&J could use this ruling to challenge Beasley Allen’s participation in the federal multidistrict litigation, where a joint evidentiary hearing on the ethics issues had already taken place.

The ruling comes at a pivotal moment. J&J’s attempts to resolve talc claims through bankruptcy have failed twice. Juries across the country have delivered massive verdicts, including $1.5 billion to Cherie Craft in Baltimore and $966 million to Mae Moore’s family in California.

More than 67,000 talc lawsuits remain pending nationwide.

What This Means for Plaintiffs

The ruling does not dismiss any cases or affect the underlying claims against J&J. Many of the 3,600 affected plaintiffs may have co-counsel or other firms already handling their cases. The disqualification applies to Beasley Allen’s role in the New Jersey MCL, not to the claims themselves.